Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Exploring community in an online doctoral program: a digital case study
(USC Thesis Other)
Exploring community in an online doctoral program: a digital case study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXPLORING COMMUNITY IN AN ONLINE DOCTORAL PROGRAM:
A DIGITAL CASE STUDY
By
Sharla Berry
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Urban Education Policy)
May 2017
ii
Table of Contents
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ...................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 5
Definition of Key Terminology ...................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworks ............................................... 8
Defining Community ...................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 34
Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................... 49
Setting for the Study ..................................................................................................... 52
Data Sources, Sample Selection and Data Collection Procedures ................................ 53
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 60
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 65
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 67
Describing and Defining Community ........................................................................... 67
Support 1: A Residential Orientation ............................................................................ 87
Support 2: A Robust Technical Platform ...................................................................... 92
Support 3: Instructors who Facilitated Social, Teaching and Cognitive Presence ..... 101
iii
Support 4: Students’ Positive Attitudes toward the Program ..................................... 111
Experiences that Undermined Community ................................................................. 115
Chapter 5: Implications ................................................................................................... 121
Implications for Practitioners ...................................................................................... 121
Implications for Researchers ....................................................................................... 133
Methodological Considerations for Researchers Exploring Online Learning
Communities ............................................................................................................... 141
References ....................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix A: Observation Protocol ................................................................................. 151
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 155
iv
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this work to my ancestors. Throughout this PhD process, I drew
upon memories of the strength, courage and candor of the strong Black women who came
before me.
I dedicate this work to:
My great grandmother, Charlotte Pierson, who instilled in me a love of reading and a
fierce imagination.
My grandmother, Eulala Carothers Berry, whose love for learning and spirit of striving
lives in me.
My mother, Vicki Phillips, who taught me always to serve my community and to fight
fiercely for myself and for others.
My grandmother, Elois Phillips, who has been a living example of grace.
I also dedicate this work to my nieces, Baylee, Reign and KaliDream Miles, whose love,
laughter and black girl joy remind me of things worth fighting for.
v
Acknowledgements
I am humbled and encouraged by the blessings that my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has
extended to me during the process of completing the PhD. God’s grace has been
sufficient for every challenge, and I am grateful.
I would like to thank my committee – Drs. Sarah Banet-Weiser, Tatiana Melguizo and
Melora Sundt for their support and encouragement throughout this process.
I would like to acknowledge my mother, Vicki Phillips, for her support throughout the
PhD process. Thank you for encouraging me to keep going.
I would also like to acknowledge my grandmother, Elois Phillips, for her constant
encouragement. You have taught me about what it means to keep the faith.
Thank you to Dr. Jesse Watson, for your support.
To the members of First AME Church, the faculty and staff at St. Timothy School, and to
my friends in the Student Success Center at Mount Saint Mary’s University, thank you
for the encouragement and investment in my dreams.
vi
Abstract
Over the past decade, enrollment in online education programs has increased
rapidly, with the fastest area of growth occurring at the graduate level (Lederman, 2014).
Currently, 25% of graduate students are in fully online programs (Allen & Seaman,
2015), a figure that is expected to grow by nearly 20% over the next decade (Lederman,
2014). There are no national statistics on attrition from online programs, but researchers
estimate that attrition may be significantly higher than in on-ground programs (DiRamio
& Wolverton, 2006).
The causes of attrition in graduate programs are many, but surveys of online
students have revealed that feelings of isolation and lack of academic support are
associated with attrition from academic programs (Ke & Hoadley, 2009). At the same
time, research suggests that a sense of community can be a protective factor against
attrition from higher education (Tinto, 1997). However, community, defined as feelings
of connection, belongingness and mutual support with peers and instructors, has been
underexplored in the literature on online education (Rovai, 2003). In this qualitative case
study I utilized data from three sources -- video footage from six classes, message boards
from six classes, and interviews with 20 students to learn about how online doctoral
students define and create community. Findings indicated that students in the doctoral
program under study felt strong feelings of community, which they defined as connection
and mutual support from peers. Data from student interviews and observations of the
synchronous and asynchronous components of the online classroom indicated that four
factors --- 1) a residential orientation, 2) a robust technical platform, 3) instructors who
facilitated teaching, cognitive, and social presence, and 4) the students’ positive attitudes
vii
toward the online experience contributed to students’ sense of community in the online
doctoral program. The findings of this study have implications for research and practice
in online environments, and researchers and practitioners can use this data to design
programs that engage and retain more online students.
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Online Students’ Sense of Community ………… 36
Figure 2: A View of the Adobe Connect Virtual Classroom …………………………... 54
Figure 3: A Diagram of the Virtual Classroom …………………………………………55
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Over the past three decades, online education has expanded rapidly (Allen &
Seaman, 2015). According to the US Department of Education (2016a), 32% of
American college students have taken an online course, and 25% are enrolled in a fully
online program. Online programs hold great potential for students, universities, and
society at large (Moore, 2013). For students, online programs can provide opportunities
to access education from remote locations. Online programs can also provide students
with the opportunity to access education asynchronously, allowing students to tailor
coursework to work schedules or other responsibilities (Moore, 2013). For universities,
online programs can provide opportunities to serve more students and to increase revenue
(Selingo, 2016). For society, online programs can expand access to higher education,
improve human capital and increase global competiveness (Allen & Seaman, 2015).
Despite the potential of online programs to expand access to higher education,
online education faces a major challenge -- student attrition (Angelino, Williams &
Natvig, 2007). Attrition from postsecondary online programs ranges from 30-70%
(Burnsed, 2011). By contrast, attrition from postsecondary face-to-face programs ranges
from 20-50% (US Department of Education, 2016b). There are many reasons for
attrition in online programs (Rovai, 2003). Students, especially those with limited
experience learning online, may face many challenges, including adjusting to the online
environment, navigating college at a distance, developing and maintaining academic and
social support networks, balancing work and academic demands, and managing the
increasing cost of higher education (Angelino et al., 2007; Ivankova & Stick, 2007;
Rovai, 2003; Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011).
2
Research by Rovai (2003) and others suggests that a sense of community can be a
protective factor against attrition in online education settings (Conrad, 2005; Ouzts, 2006;
Tinto, 1997). McMillan and Chavis (1986) define community as “a feeling that members
have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a
shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together”
(p. 9). In a learning community, participants have a shared goal, provide academic and
social support to members, and work together to create learning artifacts or products and
feel a sense of belonging (Lai, 2015). In this qualitative case study I explore student
experiences in building community in one online doctoral program.
The concept of community is not binary (Carlen & Jobring, 2005; Ke & Hoadley,
2009). While some researchers have defined community membership as either being
totally inside or totally outside of a group, others have noted that there are different types
of community membership (Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Analysts of social networks note
that not all members of a community play the same role, and most communities include
central, marginal and peripheral players (Dawson, 2008). Peripheral participation may
happen voluntarily, such as when a student chooses to take a less active role in
community due to external constraints including work and family demands (Bean &
Metzner, 1985; Rovai, 2003). Solorzano, Ceja and Yosso (2000) have found that
marginalization in academic communities is often gendered and racialized. Students from
diverse backgrounds, including women and underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities
may experience microaggressions, discrimination and overt harassment in academic
environments, which can undermine these students’ sense of community (Gay, 2004;
Harper and Hurtado, 2007; Pierce, 1995; Solorzano et al., 2000).
3
Developing a sense of community can have academic and social benefits for
students, both in online and on-campus programs (Lai, 2015; Lovitts, 2001; Rovai, 2003).
Academically, feelings of membership in a supportive community are associated with
increased classroom participation, academic engagement and deep learning (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer, 2010; Tinto, 1997). Socially, a sense of community is associated
with decreased isolation, an increased ability to manage stress and greater overall
emotional well-being (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009; Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011).
Students who experience marginalization within the primary academic community may
receive social, emotional and academic support from a subcommunity of peers. Gay
(2004), Patton and Harper (2003), and others have found that supportive subcommunities
are beneficial for underrepresented minorities and first generation students. The benefits
of membership in a learning community have been associated with academic success,
psychological well-being and increased persistence in higher education (Rovai, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
Despite its’ benefits, researchers are unclear about how online students construct
community (Dawson, 2008; Rovai, 2003). There is a dearth of research on how student
characteristics, instructor practices, program structures, institutional offerings and
technical factors may help online students develop a sense of community (Ke & Hoadley,
2009). The largest gap in the research is at the doctoral level (Conrad, 2005). There are
virtually no studies that explore how students construct community in the unique contexts
of online doctoral programs (Bollinger & Halupa, 2012). This study will conduct such an
exploration.
4
Extant data suggests that online doctoral students may face challenges
constructing community. Attrition in on-campus doctoral programs is estimated to be
about 50% (King, 2008), compared to 20% in on-campus undergraduate programs at
four-year public institutions. While there are no numbers specifically on online doctoral
students’ attrition, researchers have theorized that these rates are also high, due to the
challenges associated with the doctoral experience generally and the online experience in
particular (Bollinger & Halupa, 2012; Kumar & Dawson, 2012; Rovai, 2003). Attrition
causes stress for students and results in lost revenue for institutions (Allen & Seaman,
2015; Lovitts, 2001). Given data on the high attrition rate in traditional doctoral programs
and data on the high attrition rate of online students (Burnsed, 2011), researchers should
begin to explore the experiences of students in online doctoral programs. This
dissertation is a qualitative case study that explores online doctoral students’ experiences
with community. By understanding how students in this subpopulation construct
community, researchers and practitioners can begin to design online doctoral programs
that enhance students’ experiences and improve persistence.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the student-level, classroom-level,
program-level and technical factors that contribute to online doctoral students’ sense of
community. This study is driven by three research questions:
1) How do online doctoral students define and experience community?
2) How do elements of a Community of Inquiry, including teaching presence, social
presence and cognitive presence manifest in online doctoral classes? How do these
elements impact online doctoral students’ sense of community?
5
3) What student, program, institutional and technical factors contribute to students’ sense
of community in an online doctoral program?
Description of the study
In this qualitative case study I used the theory of persistence in distance education
programs (Rovai, 2003) and the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework (Garrison
et al., 2010) to answer the aforementioned questions. In using case study methods I was
able to draw upon data from multiple qualitative sources to capture participants’
perspectives on their experiences in an online program (Merriam, 2014). The case study
was centered on students’ experiences in an online Doctorate in Education Program at the
University of the West (pseudonym). Data for the study was drawn from three sources --
the video footage of six online courses, the message boards from these courses and
interviews with 20 students in the program. Gathering data from the online classrooms
yielded information about the instructor practices and peer interactions that impacted
students’ experiences in the online classes. Interviewing students provided insight into
how extracurricular activities and interpersonal interactions outside of the classroom
promoted feelings of membership, belonging and closeness. Multiple data points were
used to create a complex and multifaceted picture of the student, classroom, institutional
and technical factors that impacted students’ sense of community in one online doctoral
program.
Significance of the Study
This dissertation fills several theoretical and methodological gaps in the literature.
By creating a rich understanding of the supports and barriers to forming community in an
online doctoral program, this case study advances theory on community building in
6
online programs. By utilizing digital sources not typically used in online research,
including video footage from online classrooms, this study provides a methodological
contribution to the study of online programs (Black, Dawson & Priem, 2008). Finally, by
outlining the supports and barriers to online community, this case study can provide
support to practitioners seeking to improve student satisfaction and retention in online
programs.
In the chapters that follow I review the relevant literature, explain my theoretical
framework, and outline my methods and data analysis procedures. I then outline my
findings on how students constructed community in one online doctoral program. I
conclude with an analysis of the implications of these findings.
Definition of Key Terminology
Community - A learning community refers to a group of students in a formal setting who
feel a sense of connectedness and belonging (Ouzts, 2006). In a learning community,
participants have a shared goal, provide academic and social support to members, and
work together to create learning artifacts or products and feel a sense of belonging (Lai,
2015; Rovai, 2002; Schlossberg, 1989; Yuan & Kim, 2014).
Learning management system (LMS)- An integrated web platform which houses the
collaboration tools used for course content (e.g. message boards and video conferencing
systems) as well as student management tools (e.g. grades, rosters and course calendars)
(Chapman, 2009). Instructors can use learning management systems to teach classes,
administer tests, store data and communicate with students (Chapman, 2009).
Student support services – Programs and departments at an institution that deliver
services and provide resources to support students’ academic, social and emotional
7
success. These services can include enrollment management services (e.g. admissions
and financial aid), academic support services (e.g. tutoring, career counseling and
disability support), social and emotional support services (e.g. psychological counseling)
and services that help students integrate into the institution at large (e.g. student
government, student activities and social programming) (Kretovics, 2002).
Synchronous- occurring in real time.
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworks
The concept of community has been studied in many fields and disciplines
(DuFour, 2004; Putnam, 1995; Rovai, 2003; Zinn, 2014). Researchers have explored the
psychological, sociological and organizational dimensions of communities (Kramer &
Tyler, 1995; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Putnam, 1995), factors that contribute to
withdrawal from communities (Durkheim, 1951; Tinto, 1997), and the formation of sub-
communities based on affinities, professional interests and cultural identity (Boyd, 2010;
Gardner, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 2004). I begin this chapter by briefly exploring how the
concept of community has been studied across the literature. I then explore the benefits of
participating in a learning community and the supports for and barriers to developing a
learning community in online and face-to-face environments. I follow by identifying the
gaps in the literature related to my topic of community building in online doctoral
programs. After surveying the literature and the gaps in the literature, I review the
theoretical framework for my study. I conclude by explaining how I draw upon two
theoretical frameworks, Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2001) Community of Inquiry
(COI) Framework and Rovai’s (2003) theory of persistence in distance education
programs, to generate an ecological conceptual framework for the study.
Defining Community
Community has been defined in many ways in the social science literature (Rovai,
2002; Schlossberg, 1989; Yuan & Kim, 2014). Early definitions come from historians
and sociologists, who typically defined community as a group of people living in the
same area (e.g., city, state, nation) (Putnam, 1995; Zinn, 2014). Researchers in the
disciplines of history and sociology focused on exploring community in terms of physical
boundaries and feelings of connection and closeness within these boundaries (Putnam,
9
1995; Zinn, 2014). Sociologists, ethnic studies theorists and organizational researchers
have expanded definitions of membership in community to focus on feelings of closeness
developed by common interests (e.g., artists’ communities, gaming communities), shared
characteristics (e.g., race, gender) and shared goals (e.g., learning a skill, completing a
degree program) (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 2004; Patton & Harper, 2003).
Across the disciplines, communities are characterized by shared characteristics, strong,
positive relations, group cohesion and shared participation (Parker, 2009; Schlossberg,
1989; White & Nonnamaker, 2008).
While the literature tends to focus on the supportive aspects of community,
communities may not provide support for all members. Most communities are based on
shared interests and characteristics, as well as adherence to certain norms. If one falls
outside of those norms, whether for identity-based characteristics (e.g. race, gender,
sexual orientation) or for behaviors that somehow differ from the majority of individuals
in the group, they may face marginalization or total exclusion from a community.
Education researchers have tended to focus on the affective characteristics of
inclusive learning community (Rayle & Chung, 2007). In Marginality and Mattering,
Schlossberg (1989) defines community as a place where participants develop feelings of
membership and mutual support. Drawing on Schlossberg’s (1989) definition, Yuan and
Kim (2014) identify four social-emotional elements necessary for individuals in a group
to develop a sense of community – membership, influence, and fulfillment of needs and
shared emotional connection. Membership refers to the feeling that one belongs to a
group (Yuan & Kim, 2014). Influence is the feeling that one’s membership matters to the
group members, and that one can effect change in the group (Yuan & Kim, 2014).
10
Fulfillment of needs refers to the feeling that the group provides support for its members’
individual and shared goals (Yuan & Kim, 2014). A shared emotional connection is a
feeling that one has relationships with group members where positive feelings are
reciprocated (Yuan & Kim, 2014). Drawing on these and other definitions, I define a
learning community as an activity center where students have feelings of membership
and receive social, emotional, academic or professional support (Ke & Hoadley, 2009;
Lai, 2015; Yuan & Kim, 2014).
Online Community
Historically, researchers studying community have focused on how communities
are formed amongst people in close proximity to each other (Chapman, 2009; Crosslin,
2009). However, the growth in information and communications technologies such as the
Internet, email and broadband have made it easier to connect individuals who are
geographically separated (Rheingold, 1993). Technology has enabled the rise of virtual
communities, which are networks of people who provide support over the Internet
(Rheingold, 1993; Warschauer, 2004). Virtual communities share many of the social
characteristics of face-to-face communities. Like their on-the-ground counterparts, online
communities are defined by trust, reciprocity and active participation (Lee & Choi, 2011;
Rheingold, 1993). Participants in online communities receive academic, social and
emotional benefits from their membership (Chapman, 2009). The primary characteristic
that sets online communities apart from face-to-face communities is that the bulk of
interactions are mediated by technology. In online communities, members can meet via
the Internet or other web applications and virtual platforms. The boundaries in online
communities vary widely. While some carry out all of their functions online, others
11
operate in a more blended matter, with members meeting on and offline. Carlen &
Jobring (2005) identify three types of online communities – interest, professional and
educational. In the paragraphs that follow, I define each type of community.
Online Interest Communities
An online interest community (OIC) is a virtual space where members connect
based on affinity (Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Any interest can spawn the development of
an online interest community (Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Common topics for online
interest communities include video games, sports, hobbies, music and health (Armstrong
& Hagel, 2000). Online interest communities have many purposes. Communities may
exist to share information about a particular topic, create a space for collaboration,
display creative work or give and receive support (Armstrong & Hagel, 2000). The
support offered in online interest communities may be task specific (e.g. learn a video
game), categorical (e.g. weight loss strategies) or psychological (e.g. grief counseling)
(Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Boundaries in online interest communities may be tight, and
restricted to paid members or individuals in a particular group, or loose, and open to a
wide range of Internet users (Armstrong & Hagel, 2000).
Online Professional Communities
An online professional community is a virtual space where the purpose is to share
knowledge based on work and work-related tasks (Carlen & Jobring, 2005; Kim, 2000).
Online professional communities serve as a space for individuals to connect with others
in the field, share expertise and access information specific to the field (Carlen & Jobring,
2005). Content shared in online professional communities may include job listings,
professional development opportunities (e.g. books, conferences, educational
12
opportunities) and current events related to the field (Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Online
professional communities may be formal, such as communities for members of
associations, or informal, and open to anyone interested in the field (Kim, 2000).
Communities of Practice
Anthropologists Lave and Wenger (1998) developed the term community of
practice to refer to groups of professional experts who are seeking to develop in their
field. Unlike other professional communities, which may be comprised of novices and
experts, and of causal and active members, members of a communities of practice are
typically highly skilled individuals who are seeking to collaborate with other experts to
improve their professional skills (Lave & Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice are
characterized by mutual engagement (i.e. the process of collaboration and relationship
building), joint enterprise (i.e. development of shared meaning) and the development of a
shared repertoire of communal resources (Lave & Wenger, 1998). Members of
communities of practice seek to develop new skills and information that advances their
skills and improves practice in the field (Lave & Wenger, 1998).
Online Education Communities
In online interest communities and in online professional communities, learning
takes place through the exchange of information (Rovai, 2003). Carlen and Jobring
(2005) use the term online education community (sometimes called online learning
community) to refer to the virtual communities that develop in formal primary, secondary
and postsecondary academic programs. Online educational communities are
characterized by their formal structure and by their function, which is typically to grant
degrees or certificates (Carlen & Jobring, 2005). Participants in an online learning
13
community have shared goals and work together to generate ideas and create learning
artifacts (Lai, 2015). Groups of learners in online academic programs do not necessarily
constitute online educational communities (Carlen & Jobring, 2005; Rovai, 2003). For an
online educational space to be a community, members must provide academic and social
support to each other (Carlen & Jobring, 2005; Lai, 2015).
The Benefits of Community
A sense of community has academic and social benefits for students, both in
online and on-the-ground programs (Lai, 2015; Lovitts, 2001; Rovai, 2003).
Academically, community is associated with increased classroom participation, academic
engagement and deep learning (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2010; Tinto, 1997).
Socially, community is associated with decreased isolation, an increased ability to
manage stress and greater overall emotional wellbeing (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009;
Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011). A sense of community may also positively impact
students’ persistence decisions in higher education (Tinto, 1997).
Academic Benefits of Community
Researchers have long argued that a sense of community has positive impacts on
undergraduate students’ academic performance (Tinto, 1997). In Classrooms as
Communities, Tinto (1997) writes that the more connected students feel to instructors and
peers, “the greater their acquisition of knowledge and development of skills (p.600).”
Tinto (1997) asserts that strong interpersonal connections are driven by positive
interactions with instructors, collaborative engagement with peers and feelings of
belongingness and support within the academic environment. When students feel they are
a part of a community, they will build and maintain academic systems that support
14
learning outside of the classroom, such as study groups (Tinto, 1997). In these spaces,
students can give and receive support for dealing with school, work and life-related
challenges (Parker, 2009; Stubb et al., 2011). In his work on online graduate students,
Rovai (2003) found that students who feel they are a part of a community are more likely
to participate in class and in school-related social activities, and are more likely to persist
in higher education than their more socially isolated peers.
Social Benefits of Community
In a survey of 28,000 graduate and undergraduate students, Wyatt and Oswalt
(2013) found that 55% of graduate students felt levels of stress that were “tremendous”
and “greater than average,” and 27% felt depressed. A survey of PhD candidates
conducted at the University of California, Berkeley (2015) found that 45% of these
students experienced frequent feelings of depression and anxiety. Doctoral students
attributed feelings of depression and anxiety to school-related pressures including a lack
of academic support, a declining job market, and poor social support from advisors and
peers (Berkeley, 2015).
In a survey of nearly 700 PhD students, Stubb et al. (2011) found that a sense of
community can act as a buffer against feelings of stress, anxiety, isolation and burnout.
Drawing on that same data, Pyhältö et al. (2009) found that feelings of membership in a
community can be a source of empowerment for emotionally overwhelmed students, and
can help them manage stress and exhaustion. Stubb et al. (2011) and Pyhältö et al. (2009)
found that students who felt they were in a community received psychological benefits
from their membership, including encouragement, inspiration, academic assistance and
emotional support.
15
Marginalization in Learning Communities
Learning communities are not value neutral (Hurtado, 1992). Instead, learning
communities often reflect the norms, beliefs and biases of the larger society (Harper &
Hurtado, 2007). As a result, students of underrepresented racial, ethnic, religious and
philosophical backgrounds may be marginalized, isolated or excluded from learning
communities (Solorzano, Ceja & Yosso, 2000). Underrepresented students from diverse
backgrounds may encounter a range of barriers that may undermine their sense of
connection to a learning community, ranging from covert microaggressions to overt
harassment, discrimination and exclusion (Gay, 2004; Rovai, 2003). Harper and Hurtado,
(2007); Pierce, (1995) and Solorzano et al., (2000) have found that women, lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students and racial minorities are more likely to have
experienced isolation and marginalization in learning communities than their white, male
counterparts.
Gendered and racialized discrimination in learning communities have led some
scholars to describe the experiences of underrepresented students in the academy as “the
outsider within” (Collins, 1986; Patton & Harper, 2003). This term refers to the
peripheral role that minoritized and marginalized members may be forced to play in
learning communities (Collins, 1986). Underrepresented and minoritized students may
have varied responses to marginalization within the academy (Hinton, 2009; hooks,
1990). For some students, feelings of marginalization may lead to depression, anxiety and
withdrawal from the institution (Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009; Stubb, Pyhältö, &
Lonka, 2011). For others, these feelings may prompt them to develop supportive sub-
communities for individuals with shared backgrounds, experiences and perspectives.
16
There have been several studies about the supportive peer networks that some
African American women have formed in academia to navigate marginalization in the
ivory tower (Okawa, 2002; Patton & Harper, 2003; Thomas & Hollenshead 2001). These
peer networks affirm participants’ identities by drawing on positive narratives from
students’ cultural backgrounds (Collins, 2000; Domingue, 2015). Identity-based peer
networks also provide underrepresented students with spaces to share experiences and
coping strategies and to give and receive encouragement and support (Patton & Harper,
2003). Students who participate in identity-based peer networks may see them as a
strategy to promote persistence and to encourage peers to pursue positions in academia
(Okawa, 2002). Okawa (2002) writes that for academics of color, participation in these
types of identity-based peer networks may be an activist strategy to strengthen the
pipeline of academics of color, and thus confront some of the racism in academia and
society at large. Marginalized students and allies may receive many forms of academic,
social and emotional support from participation in these sub-communities (Patton &
Harper, 2003; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001).
Marginalization in Online Communities
Researchers have asserted that technology provides many affordances to users,
including the opportunity to create and maintain a wide range of connections in disparate
locations (Garrison et al., 2010; Rovai, 2003). However, while online platforms can
provide opportunities for users to create and maintain community, feelings of connection
can be stymied by the ways in which individuals participate in online spaces (Dubes,
2006; Harrell, 2010). For better or for worse, individuals tend to not act like themselves
online. Studies by Joinson (1998) and others have noted that many individuals are more
17
gracious online than they would be in face-to-face settings. For example, individuals may
be more likely to use greetings, salutations, formal pleasantries and emoticons more
intentionally in an effort to create connection (Garrison et al., 2010). Postmes, Spears and
Sakhel (2001) have noted that some online users are ruder and more aggressive than they
would be in face-to-face environments. Suler (2004) has written extensively about the
online disinhibition effect, which is the tendency of some individuals to use rude,
aggressive language, threats and harassment in ways they would not in person. Online
disinhibition results from the distance and relative anonymity afforded by a virtual space,
as well as the difficulty of individuals to provide consequences for inappropriate behavior
online (Suler & Phillips, 1998).
The phenomenon of online disinhibition and the behaviors that result from it like
cyberbullying have been studied prominently at K-12 level (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Li,
2006; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). However, a small body of research suggests that
cyberbullying also occurs at the post-secondary level (Faucher, Jackson & Cassidy,
2014). When cyberbullying does happen in higher education, it typically occurs outside
of the learning platform, and includes behaviors like harassment on social network sites
or via text message (Faucher, Jackson & Cassidy, 2014). Cyberbullying is not the only
type of victimization that online students may experience. Technology can play a role in
facilitating stalking, as stalkers can use a variety of digital tools to surveil and harass
victims (Dowdell & Bradley, 2010). Finn’s (2004) study of students at a small liberal arts
campus found 10-15% of students experienced virtual harassment including persistent,
unwanted phone calls or emails, and intimidating messages with sexual or violent
content.
18
In learning environments and in virtual spaces more broadly, online harassment
often has a gendered component (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006; Wang, Iannotti, &
Nansel, 2009). Women are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than men (Li,
2006). Online harassment and cyberbullying from colleagues can cause depression and
anxiety and can have a negative impact on the students’ relationships with peers (Hinduja
& Patchin, 2008; Li, 2006; Wang et al., 2009). If cyberbullying is not curtailed, it can
contribute to withdrawal or disengagement from a virtual community (Shuler, 2004).
Instructors are also often targets of cyberbullying and online harassment in postsecondary
environments (Shuler, 2004). Discontented students may utilize social network sites or
websites that solicit student reviews of professors to bash instructors (Tokunaga, 2010).
This subversive behavior may generate feelings of connection and closeness among the
participants, but can cause angst and depression for the targets (Tokunaga, 2010).
Experiences in learning communities, both face-to-face and online, are personal,
diverse and highly subjective (Dubes, 2006; Kietzmann, 2013). Students’ experiences in
learning communities are impacted by their personal characteristics, previous
experiences, and the structure and nature of the online space itself (Rovai, 2003). At
times, there can be inappropriate behavior in learning communities that adversely impacts
participation of students (Faucher, Jackson & Cassidy, 2014; Rovai, 2003). Despite these
challenges, participation in a learning community tends to have benefits for students
(Pyhältö, Stubb, & Lonka, 2009; Rovai, 2003; Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka, 2011). It is to
this topic that I turn my attention.
19
Supports For Developing Community Online
While membership in a learning community has academic, social and emotional
benefits, learning communities do not develop organically (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Lai,
2015). In the paragraphs that follow I identify the various factors that help online students
develop a sense of community.
Norms in Online Communities
Part of the reason for variance in online communities is the establishment of
different norms (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Postmes et al., 2001). Norms are the patterns and
expectations which structure group behavior, and they vary widely based on the online
environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Postmes et al., 2001). Norms are not simply lists of
rules. In a community, norms are the beliefs, expectations and common behaviors
(Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Norms are developed through a “dynamic constructive process”
where participants negotiate between historical factors, structural factors and individual
and collective needs to decide upon ways of being that are appropriate, desirable and
expected from a group. Norms develop and change over time (Postmes et al., 2001).
In a computer-mediated environment, norms develop differently than they would
in a face-to-face environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). In a computer-mediated
environment the nonverbal cues that inform behavior may be diminished, and thus alter
the ways people make meaning (Postmes et al., 2001). However, other cues that inform
and structure behavior emerge in a technology based environment, such as chronemic and
typographic cues (Yee & Bailenson, 2007). Chronemic cues refer to time-based cues, and
include the signals that members of a virtual community can send to each other by
responding quickly, simultaneously or with a delay (Yee & Bailenson, 2007).
20
Typographic cues refer to textual cues used to present information, such as the decision
to use bold or italic text, or to use exclamation points or other textual signifiers to express
tone and mood (Yee & Bailenson, 2007). In a virtual environment, chronemic and
typographic cues both inform and create communication norms (Yee & Bailenson, 2007).
In a virtual environment, moderators play a significant role in creating and
maintaining group norms (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2004). Moderators can facilitate
discussions about group expectations for behavior, which become the foundation of
norms in virtual environments (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2004). For example,
moderators can work with participants to establish netiquette, guidelines for etiquette in a
virtual environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2004). Netiquette guidelines can
include things like avoiding jokes, sarcasm or abusive comments, providing positive,
direct feedback and avoiding the use of all caps (e.g. shouting) (Palloff & Pratt, 1999;
Preece, 2004). Moderators may sanction individuals who do not follow netiquette (Rovai,
2003). Sanctions include restricting communication privileges and taking disciplinary or
legal action against those who violate established netiquette or norms (Palloff & Pratt,
1999; Preece, 2004). In an online learning environment, instructors would typically
moderate discussions in classes and online forums (Rovai, 2003). In virtual
environments, norms are also established and enforced informally (Postmes et al., 2001).
Often, members of virtual communities will take it upon themselves to establish
expectations, create and maintain patterns of communication, and criticize, critique or
otherwise sanction those who do not follow shared norms (Postmes et al., 2001).
In some online programs, moderators may not be as deliberate about establishing
norms that promote respect, tolerance and the full participation of all members (Palloff &
21
Pratt, 1999; Postmes et al., 2001; Preece, 2004). Rovai (2003) writes that some
instructors in online classes may not intervene early when individuals dominate groups or
make offensive, marginalizing or abrasive comments. Failure to moderate discussions in
ways that promote tolerance and equity can contribute to groupthink (Rovai, 2003).
Groupthink is a practice of collective thinking that encourages participants to look
negatively upon critical discussions or individualized viewpoints (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
Groupthink can develop when intolerance for diverse viewpoints goes unchecked (Palloff
& Pratt, 1999). When groupthink becomes the norm of a group, individuals who disagree
with the majority may be marginalized or excluded (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
Instructor Practices That Support Community
Instructors play a central role in how students construct community online
(Garrison et al., 2010; Rovai, 2003). An instructor’s pedagogical practices, including
their facilitation style and the type of work they assign impact how students connect and
collaborate, which in turn impacts students’ sense of community (Garrison et al., 2010;
Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008). Group discussions, which are typically facilitated by
instructors, are key components of synchronous online classes (Garrison, 2011). For
online students, the quality of discussions impacts their interactions with peers
(Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008). Rovai (2003) writes that for a high quality discussion,
instructors must facilitate dialogue in ways that allow all students to participate. Online
instructors should help students feel comfortable sharing in ways that are authentic and
self-disclosing (Rovai, 2003). Students should feel comfortable expressing diverse
viewpoints, and students should be encouraged by the instructor to provide constructive
criticism and supportive feedback to their peers (Garrison, 2011; Rovai, 2003). When
22
instructors can help online students feel comfortable expressing themselves openly and
can encourage students to support the academic and social development of their peers,
students can develop a sense of community (Rovai, 2003). A skilled online facilitator is
essential to the formation of an online community (Garrison, 2011; Rovai, 2003).
Instructors can also use coursework to help facilitate the development of
community (Garrison, 2011). Waycott, Sheard, Thompson and Clerehan (2013) found
that assignments that require peer knowledge sharing can help students foster a sense of
community in online environments. Peer knowledge sharing occurs when students have
to publically post their work and must give and receive feedback from peers (Barak &
Rafaeli, 2004; Waycott et al., 2013). This practice, which usually occurs via blogs, wikis
or discussion/message boards, requires students to work collaboratively (Boyd & Ellison,
2008). These assignments also foster critical thinking and create opportunities for
students to support their peers’ learning (Waycott et al., 2013). By encouraging
collaboration, requiring trust and fulfilling students’ academic needs, these instructor
directed, peer-centered pedagogical practices can help online students develop a sense of
community (Alvarez, Espasa & Guasch, 2012; Barak & Rafaeli, 2004; Wosley, 2008).
Technology that Supports Community
An instructor’s teaching practices are informed by their pedagogical orientation,
but are also impacted by the technology available in the online learning environment
(Garrison et al., 2010). Over the past two decades, online degree programs have evolved
tremendously, and this evolution has brought about new ways to interact with students
online (Tynes & Berry, 2015). Early distance education courses utilized asynchronous
communication methods to deliver instruction (Tynes & Berry, 2015). Asynchronous
23
courses are not in real time, and students interact primarily through reading or viewing
pre-recorded content and responding via email and message board posts (Schullo,
Hilbelink, Venable, & Barron, 2007). As a result, much of students’ communication in
asynchronous courses is with instructors, and students in these courses may have
difficulty connecting with peers and building community (Rovai, Whiting & Lucking,
2003). Advances in information and communications technology have led universities to
increase offerings of synchronous courses, which are classes carried out in real time
(Tynes & Berry, 2015). Researchers have found that synchronous courses are more likely
to stimulate motivation, promote participation and allow students to receive immediate
feedback (Rovai et al., 2003). As a result, students are more likely to feel a sense of
community in synchronous courses than in asynchronous courses (Rovai et al., 2003).
While a synchronous course delivered over the Internet is one way to provide
online instruction, universities have also sought new ways to organize and deliver digital
content (Schullo et al., 2007). Over the past decade there has been a growth in the use of
software and web-based applications to administer online courses (Tynes & Berry, 2015).
A learning management system (LMS) is an integrated web platform which houses the
collaboration tools used for course content (e.g. message boards and video conferencing
systems) as well as student management tools (e.g. grades, rosters and course calendars)
(Chapman, 2009). Instructors can use learning management systems to teach classes,
administer tests, store data and communicate with students (Chapman, 2009). Popular
learning management systems include Blackboard Learn, Moodle and Canvas.
Many learning management systems are designed with social networking tools
embedded into them (Chapman, 2009). Social networking tools are designed to increase
24
communication, interactivity and personalization and can create feelings of connection
and community among users (Ellison, 2007; Kietzmann, Silvestre, McCarthy & Pitt
2015). Examples of social networking tools include blogs, wikis, discussion boards,
groups, profiles and chat rooms (Crosslin, 2009). Profiles allow learners to create
personalized “about me” pages where they can post pictures, list interests and link to
content posted throughout LMS (Ellison, 2007). Blogs, discussion boards and Wikis
allow users to publically display and comment on student-generated content (Ellison,
2007). Groups allow students to sort themselves based on shared interests. Chat rooms
allow learners to communicate instantly via text (Crosslin, 2009). The availability of
social network features varies by LMS, and the use of these tools in online classes
depends on how an instructor integrates them into the curriculum. Researchers draw a
link between the use of a learning management system with social network features
embedded and students’ sense of community (Deng & Tavares, 2013; Dougiamas &
Taylor, 2003; Thoms & Eryilmaz, 2014).
Institutional Offerings that Support Community
Though a majority of online students’ interactions with peers and instructors
happen inside of the classroom, interactions can happen outside of class as well
(Crawley, 2012). Program administrators and student affairs staff can design a range of
co-curricular programs to help students gain academic and social support (Dare, Zapata
& Thomas, 2005; Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). An orientation is one example of a type
of program that can fulfill students’ needs and foster feelings of community (Dare et al.,
2005). Orientations, which typically happen at the start of an academic program, are used
as a way to educate students about program expectations and expose them to resources
25
needed for success in an online program (Kretovics, 2003). Orientations in online
programs are also used to troubleshoot technical difficulties and educate students about
how to use the learning management system (LMS) (Harrington, Oliver & Reeves, 2003).
Orientations may also feature team building and collaborative learning activities. By
exposing students to the resources necessary for academic success, orientations can help
students develop a sense of membership in a supportive learning community (Kretovics,
2003). Scagnoli (2001) suggests that optimal bonding for online students occurs when
orientations are mandatory and in person. A small number of online programs have
created required residential orientations for online students over the past decade (Cho,
2012).
While orientations provide student support at the beginning of an online program,
it is widely agreed upon that online students need support throughout their academic
tenure to be successful (Crawley, 2012; Floyd & Casey Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2002).
Student support services can include enrollment management services (e.g. admissions
and financial aid), academic support services (e.g. tutoring, career counseling and
disability support), social and emotional support services (e.g. psychological counseling)
and services that help students integrate into the institution at large (e.g. student
government, student activities and social programming) (Kretovics, 2002). Some online
programs provide these services virtually, such as tutoring and career counseling
(Crawley, 2012). Some online programs may also offer the opportunity for students to
come to their main campus or in other off-site physical locations to access the support
services. Researchers and practitioners argue that online students should have year-round
access to the full range of student support services offered to students in traditional
26
programs (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). In supporting students’ academic and social
well-being and providing students with opportunities to develop meaningful relationships
with peers, support services can help online students develop a sense of community
(Crawley, 2012; Floyd & Casey Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2002).
Individual Characteristics that Impact Students’ Sense of Community
Instructor practices, the quality of the learning management system and
institutional offerings can all influence how community is formed (DeLone & McLean,
2003; Garrison, 2011; Rovai, 2003). Ultimately, however, a sense of community is
subjective, and is influenced greatly by an individual student’s personality traits, pre-
college skills and life events (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Lai, 2015; Rovai, 2003). For
example, highly motivated, self-directed and academically prepared students are more
likely to connect with peers and instructors in an online environment (Ivankova & Stick,
2007; Osborn, 2001; Tello, 2007). Students with positive prior experiences in online
environments are more likely to experience a community online, as are students who are
familiar with working collaboratively in virtual settings (Lee & Choi, 2011). While
exploring the classroom, program and institutional factors that may support students’
sense of community, researchers must also be attentive to the ways in which individual
characteristics and experiences also influence students’ online experiences (Lee & Choi,
2011).
Factors that Support Doctoral Students’ Sense of Community
In studying the online experience, researchers have neglected to look specifically
at the experiences of online doctoral students (Rovai, 2003). As a result, there is a
significant gap in the literature on how this sub-population builds community. Research
27
on doctoral students in traditional programs suggests that academic integration is
important for doctoral students’ sense of community (King, 2008; Lovitts, 2001).
Academic integration at the doctoral level refers to opportunities for research, teaching
and publishing (Lovitts, 2001). Students learn about these career-building activities
through positive relationships with faculty, staff and peers (Gardner, 2009; Lovitts,
2001). Students can also gain access to these opportunities via participation in activities
offered by their academic program, including research groups, colloquia and mixers
(Lovitts, 2001). In Lovitts’ (2001) mixed-methods study of nearly 1,000 students, she
found that doctoral students who have access to these opportunities had greater feelings
of academic integration, stronger connections with faculty and peers, and a greater sense
of community.
Barriers to Developing Community Online
Many factors can inhibit the development of an online learning community
(Rovai, 2003). Personal characteristics can undermine student’s sense of community.
Students who struggle academically, have difficulty being self-motivated and have low
technology self-efficacy will face difficulties in building community in online programs
(Castles, 2004; Dupin-Bryant, 2004). Students who have high levels of stress related to
work, finance or family may have difficulty connecting with peers in an online program,
and therefore may find it difficult to develop a sense of community (Fydeberg, 2007;
Perry et al., 2008).
In the virtual classroom, imbalanced power dynamics can undermine students’
sense of community (Tu & McIssac, 2002). If discussions are monopolized by the
instructor or by a few students, other students may feel alienated (Garrison et al., 2010;
28
Rovai, 2003). Similarly, if discussions privilege one viewpoint, others with alternative
perspectives may feel marginalized (Garrison et al., 2010; Rovai, 2003). Rovai (2003)
writes that instructors must attend to issues of equity in the online classroom, and work to
ensure that students of diverse backgrounds and perspectives are actively supported in
participating online. Instructors who cannot guide discussions to ensure the equitable
participation of all learners may create classroom conditions that adversely impact how
students develop community (Tu & McIssac, 2002).
Outside of the class, a lack of support services can undermine students’ sense of
community (Floyd & Casey Powell, 2004). Online students who lack support in
navigating services like financial aid, academic assistance and technical support may feel
that they are not getting needs fulfilled (Floyd & Casey Powell, 2004). Online students
who do not feel like a program supports their goals of connecting with peers or receiving
social and emotional support may feel more withdrawn and isolated (Parker, 2009).
Researchers have drawn a link between the lack of skillfully integrated student support
services and online students’ dissatisfaction, isolation and attrition (Clay et al., 2009;
Ivankova & Stick, 2007).
Technology that Undermines Community
As Dubes (2006) and Kietzmann (2013) argue, experiences online are shaped
greatly by the affordances of particular technologies and the ways in which the
technologies are used in virtual spaces. Researchers have focused on how aspects of
technology can facilitate connections (Boyd & Ellison, 2008), but the back-end design of
technology can also have adverse impacts on how people connect online (Harrell, 2010;
Gee, 2010). Critical technical theorists like Harrell (2010) have argued that the
29
construction of virtual spaces can marginalize participants, particularly women and racial
minorities. Harrell (2010) argues that individuals’ diverse, intersectional identities are
mediated by computational infrastructures. Typical algorithms and other computational
infrastructures for social networks and other websites often require users to describe and
categorize themselves using predetermined categories, such as race, age and gender
(Harrell, 2010). The information system then displays this information in hierarchically
structured and static formats that reflect the biases of the systems’ creators (Harrell,
2010). For example, websites may ask participants to identify their race, age and gender,
and then display this information prominently on the users profile (boyd & Ellison,
2008). Harrell (2010) argues that, unlike in a face-to-face setting, where an individual can
decide when and how to share aspects of their identity, users in virtual spaces are forced
to construct identities in ways that remove the privilege of self-identification. For women
and ethnic minorities, such a practice forces them to construct themselves in ways that
reflect and reinforce biases in online society, and removes protective barriers against
online harassment and discrimination (Harrell, 2010).
In addition to noting how algorithms can force participants of online communities
to create and display normative depictions of themselves, Harrell (2010) argues that the
design of websites, including online communities, also serves to reinforce an inaccurate
binary of community membership that obscures the experiences of underrepresented
people. Membership in online communities is often created and displayed as a binary,
where participants can either elect to be fully in or fully out of a virtual world (Harrell,
2010). When computational infrastructures force users into this binary, individuals lose
control over how they define and display their membership (Harrell, 2010). While
30
individuals in face-to-face communities may have ways of signaling that they are
peripheral or marginalized members in a community, this type of signaling can become
harder in a virtual environment, and is based on the affordances given by web
programmers (Harrell, 2010). As programmers tend to overwhelmingly be white or Asian
males, this may increase the likelihood that the algorithms created may force users to
display identities in ways that do not best serve women and underrepresented minorities
(Harrell, 2010). Harrell (2010) argues that researchers studying digital spaces must be
aware of how back end design and computational structure can create and limit
opportunities for equitable participation in online spaces.
Barriers to Doctoral Students’ Sense of Community
There is a dearth of research specifically on online doctoral students’ sense of
community (Rovai, 2003). Data drawn from experiences of traditional doctoral students
suggests that students at this level of study may struggle with building community
(Lovitts, 2001). In traditional doctoral programs, the attrition rate is 50% (King, 2008).
Researchers associate the high attrition rate with difficulties in building community
(King, 2008). High levels of stress and anxiety (Stubb et al., 2011; Pyhältö et al. 2009)
and prolonged periods of isolation due to independent work (Lovitts, 2001) may make it
difficult for online doctoral students to experience feelings of connection to peers.
Additionally, doctoral students’ challenges in constructing community may be
exacerbated by limited access to student support services (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004;
Kretovics, 2003). Some program administrators may believe that online graduate students
are savvy, self-sustaining and too busy to engage in institutional life, and therefore do not
offer opportunities for these students to engage with peers and navigate academic
31
resources, which inhibits a seamless and supported transition to graduate school (Floyd &
Casey Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2002). Lovitts (2001) argues that this viewpoint is
particularly prominent at the doctoral level, where many faculty and staff think that
students’ advisors should bear the bulk of responsibility for helping students adjust to
doctoral life. Limited opportunities to engage with others and to receive academic and
social support from faculty, staff and peers may make it difficult for online doctoral
students to feel a sense of community (Gardner, 2009; King, 2008; Lovitts, 2001).
Gaps in the Literature
While researchers theorize that online doctoral students may face challenges in
constructing community, there is a limited body of empirical research that explores this
supposition (Cho, 2012; Rovai, 2002). Most research on online community is based on
undergraduate students (Lee & Choi, 2011; Rovai, 2002). There are significant
differences between undergraduate and graduate students (Bean & Metzner, 1985;
Lovitts, 2001). Graduate students are typically older and are more likely to have been in
the workforce (Billings, Skiba & Connors, 2005). As a result, they are more likely to be
balancing familial, financial and work-related responsibilities, and need different support
services (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Lovitts, 2001). Also, graduate programs have different
structures, functions and support services than undergraduate programs. Whereas
undergraduate programs typically have four years of coursework, graduate programs may
intersperse course work with fieldwork or independent study. Conrad (2005) writes that
online graduate students needs may change during these times, and so they may alter
their participation in the online community.
32
Given the differences between undergraduate and graduate students, the high
attrition rates in doctoral programs and researchers concerns that the online space can be
isolating for students at all levels, more research needs to be done on how online doctoral
students construct community (Rovai, 2003; Yuan & Kim, 2014). This research should
explore the unique supports and barriers to community for this population, and provide
thick description of the various contextual factors that impact the online doctoral
experience. Related to this topic, I have identified three questions that remain unanswered
in literature and that are pertinent to my research.
The first question is, what resources, programs, interactions and experiences
support online doctoral students’ sense of community? Research on online students has
traditionally focused on the classroom as the site of experiences that generate students’
sense of community (Lee & Choi, 2011; Rovai, 2003). However, students’ interactions
with support services outside of the class can significantly impact their participation in
the online learning community (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). Academic support
services (e.g. tutoring, career counseling and disability support), emotional support
services (e.g. psychological counseling), and social support services (e.g. student
government and social clubs) may be offered to online students by the academic
department or program (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2003). Researchers
studying online doctoral communities should expand their realm of inquiry to include the
extracurricular spaces where students receive academic, social and emotional support.
The second question is what role do online doctoral students have in creating and
maintaining community? It is widely held that successful online learners are self-
motivated, autodidactic and technologically skilled students (Ivankova & Stick, 2007;
33
Parker, 2003). However, there are few analyses of how online doctoral students use their
skills and agency to create and maintain community in online programs (Black et al.,
2008). Extant research focuses primarily on the instructor’s role in creating and
maintaining community online, and less attention has been given to the students’
contribution (Garrison et al., 2010). Such a perspective overlooks the active role that
students can take in creating experiences that cultivate trust, membership, a sense of
belonging and fulfillment of shared needs. By focusing on what instructors do,
researchers miss opportunities to explore how students develop formal and informal
support networks that are independent of the classroom space. More research needs to be
done on the active role that online doctoral students take in building and sustaining
community (Conrad, 2005).
The third question that researchers studying the topic of online community
building should ask is how do online doctoral communities change over time?
Communities are dynamic, not static (Lai, 2015). Over time they grow larger and closer
or smaller and more porous (Conrad, 2005). More research needs to be done about the
longitudinal evolution of online learning communities (Lee & Choi, 2011; Rovai, 2002).
Much work on online students looks at their experience in one class over one semester
(Lee & Choi, 2011). Such work fails to capture the complexities of students’ experiences
in navigating a degree program over time (Black et al., 2008). The small body of
longitudinal research in this area suggests that there is an ebb and flow to students’
feelings about community (Black et al., 2008; Conrad, 2005). Conrad’s (2005) work
follows students over three years of a graduate program. In this longitudinal study, she
found that students’ participation in a community changed as they went through the
34
program (Conrad, 2005). Most students experienced their strongest sense of community
during their first year, when they were collectively navigating the same set of challenges
and adjusting to the online environment (Conrad, 2005). Over time, the community
became more porous and grew to include new and older students in the program (Conrad,
2005). As students entered their third year, many members decreased their participation
in the community and turned their attention to other communities outside of the academic
environment in an attempt to prepare for life after graduation (Conrad, 2005).
Researchers needs to know how doctoral students’ involvement in community shifts over
time, and what types of experiences create closeness and distance within communities
over the length of an academic program (Conrad, 2005; Haythornwaite, 2000; Yuan &
Kim, 2014).
By exploring the ways in which online doctoral students construct community, as
well as the instructional practices and institutional programs that support students’ sense
of community, this dissertation seeks to fill the aforementioned gaps in the literature. In
the sections that follow I outline the theoretical framework I will use to explore students
online doctoral experiences.
Conceptual Framework
My conceptual framework is ecological and explores how a variety of factors in
the learning environment impact students’ sense of community. Ecological models allow
researchers to identify and explore contextual nuances that impact students’ experiences
in an environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). They are appropriate for exploratory work,
and for work that seeks to understand the broad, multilayered factors that impact an
environment. Ecological frameworks allow researchers to consider a variety of factors
that might impact an environment, while leaving room for researchers to uncover new,
35
alternative factors that are important and applicable in a particular context (Warschauer,
2005). In a field like online learning, where contexts vary widely, ecological models can
prevent generalization that might occur when researchers fail to identify the unique
contextual factors that impact students’ experiences in (DeWever et al., 2006).
To understand which factors may impact students’ experiences of community in a
virtual environment, I utilize two theories, Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2001)
Community of Inquiry (COI) Framework and Rovai’s (2003) theory of persistence in
distance education programs. The Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al.,
2001) is useful for exploring how students create community in online classrooms. The
theory of persistence in distance education programs (Rovai, 2003) is useful for exploring
how students create community in online programs. Taken together, these two theories
are appropriate for exploring how a variety of interpersonal, instructional, and
institutional factors may impact students’ sense of community in an online program.
Below is a graphic representation of the theory. In the sections that follow I describe the
theories separately, and explain how I will use them together.
36
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Online Students’ Sense of Community.
The Community of Inquiry Framework
The bulk of online students interactions are in the classroom (Garrison et al.,
2001; Rovai, 2003). By providing a theoretical explanation of how instructors’ teaching
practices and students’ behaviors impact students’ sense of community, the Community
of Inquiry theoretical framework captures the nuances of the online class space (Garrison
et al., 2001). Garrison et al.’s (2001) a theory is drawn from John Dewey’s (1938)
collaborative constructivist perspective. According to Dewey (1938), learning is a social
process, and is based on interactions, collaborative work, and active participation in a
community of learners. Dewey (1938) asserted that the purpose of school is to provide
Sense of Community
Pre-College
Experiences
Characteristics (e.g.
motivation, life events)
Skills (e.g. academic
preparedness)
During College
Experiences
Technology that enhances
students communication
(DeLone & McLean (2003)
Development of a Community
of Inquiry in the Online Class
Positive interactions with
faculty & peers in classes,
research groups and
department events
Academic Integration (e.g.
opportunities for research,
teaching & publishing)
Positive
Interactions with
staff and peers via
student support
services
Successful participation in academic
support services (e.g. orientations, tutoring,
career counseling and disability support),
emotional support services (e.g.
psychological counseling) and social
support services (clubs, student
government)
Life events
37
opportunities for collaborative learning, and that the role of the instructor is to create
opportunities for the development of shared understanding.
Dewey’s (1938) philosophies were developed with regard to primary school
students in traditional schools. Garrison et al. (2001) used Dewey’s (1938) philosophies
about the importance of collaboration within a community of learners to develop the
Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. The COI theoretical framework was
designed to understand the experiences of undergraduate students in online classrooms
(Garrison et al., 2001), but the framework has also been used to look at graduate student
experiences (Akyol, Vaughan & Garrison, 2011; Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, & Kinsel,
2007; Conrad, 2005; Zydney, Noyelles & Seo, 2012). As with Dewey’s (1938)
collaborative constructivism, collaboration is the basis of classroom community in the
COI framework. Garrison et al. (2001) argue that students’ collaboration on academic
tasks creates feelings of belonging and acceptance. Over time, collaboration helps
students learn about each other, trust each other, and provides support for shared
academic goals. As a result, collaboration produces community (Garrison et al., 2001).
In the Community of Inquiry framework, collaboration and community are
fostered by three interdependent elements --- social presence, teaching presence and
cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2001). Social presence is defined as the ability of
participants to establish themselves as real in a virtual environment (Garrison et al.,
2001). To establish social presence, students must feel supported in sharing elements of
their “real lives” in the online classroom, including elements of their academic,
professional and personal identity (Garrison, 2011). When students feel like they are
working collaboratively with peers in ways that promote sharing, self-disclosure and
38
authenticity, they are more likely to develop feelings of connection online (Garrison et
al., 2001).
Teaching presence is the ability of instructors to facilitate connections online
(Garrison et al., 2001). Instructors can cultivate teaching presence in two ways. First,
instructors must develop a strong social presence, which they can do by being open,
authentic, engaging, and supportive of students (Garrison et al., 2001). When instructors
have a strong social presence, students are more likely to engage in instructor-led
activities (Garrison et al., 2001). Second, instructors can develop teaching presence by
using curriculum and instruction to facilitate connections (Garrison et al., 2001).
Instructors can facilitate activities that require group work and reflective dialogue to
enhance students’ feelings of connection and closeness. By providing students with
opportunities to work together and to learn from each other’s personal experiences,
instructor-directed collaborative learning activities help students develop the feelings that
are associated with a sense of community, including openness, trust and support
(Garrison et al., 2001).
By creating opportunities for students to learn with and from each other,
instructors cultivate strong teaching presence, help students develop social presence and
promote students’ cognitive presence (Garrison, 2011). Cognitive presence refers to the
instructors’ ability to facilitate moments of learning that are reflexive and provoke
dialogue, and the ability of students to experience a learning environment where they can
question, critique and reflect with peers (Garrison et al., 2001). When cognitive presence
is strong, students will feel like they worked collaboratively to meet shared academic
39
goals. This fulfillment of needs, which comes from collaborative learning experiences, is
another key component of community (Garrison et al., 2001).
The Community of Inquiry theoretical framework suggests that certain types of
collaboration will produce high levels of teaching presence, social presence and cognitive
presence (Garrison et al., 2001). These three presences will promote students’ feelings of
trust, belongingness and self-disclosure (Garrison et al., 2001). As a result, the
simultaneous development of these three presences will lead to the creation of an online
learning community (Garrison et al., 2001).
Strengths of the Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
An important strength of the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework is that
it provides a clear proposition of how community is formed inside of online classrooms
(De Wever, Schellens, Valcke & Van Keer, 2006; Garrison et al., 2001). The three
elements that comprise community, social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive
presence, are clearly defined. Akyol and Garrison (2008) have created and validated a
survey to measure the constructs and Garrison (2011) has created a coding scheme that
operationalizes them. De Wever et al., (2006) write that constructs which are clearly
defined and operationalized can be used to generate theory. This is particularly an asset in
the field of computer-supported collaborative learning, where much work is atheoretical
or based on poorly defined conceptual frameworks (DeWever et al., 2006; Rourke,
Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001). The clarity of the Community of Inquiry
theoretical framework has facilitated its adoption by many researchers (Goos, 2004; Shea
& Bidjerano, 2009; Stodel, Thompson, & MacDonald, 2006; Rourke & Kanuka 2009). A
40
meta-analysis by Rourke & Kanuka (2009) found that there have been over 250 empirical
papers written utilizing the COI framework over past decade.
Weaknesses of the Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
One weakness of the Community of Inquiry framework is that it fails to describe
which technical features support the formation of an online learning community. All
online classrooms are not created equally (Garrison et al., 2001). Online programs may
utilize different types of learning technologies, and this can have disparate impacts on
how students and instructors connect in the online setting (Chapman, 2009; Crosslin,
2009). In using this theoretical framework, I will be mindful of how different types of
technologies can impact students’ sense of community. For example, researchers have
asserted that students’ sense of community may be stronger in synchronous
environments, which meet in real time, than in asynchronous learning environments
(Chapman, 2009). Researchers have also found that the social network features of a
learning management system can increase feelings of community (Garrison et al., 2001).
For example, tools that support collaborative learning, like wikis and blogs, can enhance
students’ feelings of connectedness online (Crosslin, 2009). Social network features like
profiles, groups, and chat functions can promote more personalized interaction in the
online space (Crosslin, 2009). Finally, researchers assert that the quality of the online
platform can impact how learners make connections in a virtual environment. DeLone
and McLean’s (2003) theory of information systems success suggest that virtual
platforms can enhance connections if they are user-friendly, stable and well-organized,
use multiple methods to deliver content (e.g. video, audio and discussion boards) and
come with easy access to technical support. In my conceptual framework I make explicit
41
the types of technical features that would, in theory, support community in an online
classroom. By making the role of technology more explicit within the Community of
Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2001) I ensure that the model can capture the nuance
of today’s technically enhanced online classrooms.
Another weakness of the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework is that it
suggests that the classroom environment is a closed system and that students’ feelings of
community are impacted only by what they experience within the class (Garrison et al.,
2001). By focusing solely on students’ class-based interactions with instructors and peers,
Garrison et al., (2001) do not address the ways in students’ interactions in the broader
academic program impact their sense of community. For doctoral students, interactions
with faculty and peers outside of class can impact their sense of community (Lovitts,
2001). Interactions in the larger academic department, including in research groups, at
seminars and during the dissertation process impact doctoral students experiences
(Lovitts, 2001). A student’s sense of community is also impacted by their experiences
with student support services, which are offered by the academic department or by the
institution (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2003). Students’ experiences with
academic advising, financial aid, technical assistance and counseling services all impact
how they connect with others in online programs (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). By
focusing too closely on the in classroom experience, Garrison et al., (2001) overlook
other dimensions of online students experiences that impact students’ sense of
community.
42
The Theory of Persistence in Distance Education Programs
To explore how factors outside of the classroom impact online students’ sense of
community, I will use the theory of persistence in distance education programs (Rovai,
2003). This theory holds that student’s pre-college skills and characteristics, interactions
with students, faculty and staff, academic integration, social integration and access to
support services (e.g. financial aid, library) all impact their sense of community (Rovai,
2003). In the paragraphs that follow I explain the theory and its’ strengths and
weaknesses.
With the theory of persistence in distance education programs, Rovai (2003)
asserts that the same factors which impact persistence impact community. Rovai’s (2003)
synthesizes Tinto’s (1987) student integration model, Bean & Metzner’s (1985) student
attrition model and his own work on online graduate students to argue that a variety of
pre-admissions characteristics and post-admissions experiences impact online students
sense of community. Tinto (1987) writes that pre-admissions characteristics and skills
impact students’ sense of community. Pre-admissions skills include students’ preparation
for the academic program, and their proficiency in areas related to study (Tinto, 1987).
Rovai (2003) and Tinto (1987) suggest that students who are more academically prepared
and have greater proficiency in their field of study are more likely to experience
community than students who are underprepared. Rovai (2003) adds that skills with
technology are important to have prior to beginning to an online program. Students who
have strong technology skills and have had previous experiences with computer-based
interaction are more likely to experience community in an online program than students
who lack these skills (Rovai, 2003).
43
Tinto (1987) writes that post-admission, academic and social integration impact
persistence. Rovai (2003) and Tinto (1987) define academic integration as a high GPA,
and social integration as an involvement in extracurricular activities. Rovai (2003) also
asserts that academic and social integration occur through positive interactions with
student support services, which he defines as librarians, financial aid staff and academic
advisors. Positive experiences with student support services can help students become
more active participants in online classes and feel more connected to the institution,
which enhances their sense of community (Rovai, 2003).
Bean and Metzner (1985) write that the persistence of non-traditional students
(e.g. adults over age 24) may be impacted by external life events. Work demands,
familial responsibilities, debt and unexpected life crises may adversely impact attendance
and persistence (Bean & Metzner, 1985). Rovai (2003) adds that for online students who
experience these challenges, such external pressures may make it difficult to engage in
community.
Strengths of the Theory of Persistence in Distance Education Programs
In the theory of persistence in distance education programs, Rovai (2003) presents
a holistic model for understanding how students in online programs construct community.
He asserts that a student’s sense of community is informed by what a student brings to an
online program and the positive interactions the student has at the classroom, program
and institutional level (Rovai, 2003). Resources, including faculty who provide academic
advising, and staff, who provide student support services, can also help online students
develop a sense of community (Rovai, 2003).
44
One strength of the theory of persistence in distance education programs (Rovai,
2003) is that it pushes researchers beyond a typical understanding of community online.
Many theories of students’ experiences in academic programs are psychological, and
focus on individual students’ personal characteristics and fit with the program (Melguizo,
2011). Rovai’s (2003) theory is ecological, and looks at how a broad range of factors at
the individual, classroom, program, institutional and technical factors inform students
participation in the online environment.
Another strength of Rovai’s (2003) theory is that it explores community at the
institutional level. Many theories of online learning, including the Community of Inquiry
theoretical framework (Garrison et al., 2001), focus solely on how in-class experiences
impact online learners’ sense of community (Lee & Choi, 2011). Rovai (2003) asserts
that students’ sense of community is influenced by program and institutional resources
that support students’ academic and social integration, persistence and well-being. This is
a significant contribution because it attempts to build theory about the centrality of
student support services to online student experiences (Rovai, 2003). Practitioners have
argued that student support services are important for online students, but there is limited
empirical work that tests this theory (Floyd & Casey Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2003). By
integrating student support services in theory of online community, Rovai (2003) allows
researchers to more systematically explore an important facet of the online experience.
To refine my exploration of how institutional supports impact students’ sense of
community, I will add an expanded definition of student support services to Rovai’s
(2003) theory of persistence in distance education programs. Rovai’s (2003) definition of
student support services is limited to enrollment management services, including
45
financial aid, library and advising. These services are useful in fulfilling some of students
basic school-related needs, but do not include the range of holistic services that may
impact students’ experiences (Kretovics, 2003). Floyd and Casey Powell (2004) identify
a number of services that impact online students’ sense of community, including
academic support services (e.g. tutoring, career counseling, academic advising and
disability support), social and emotional services (e.g. psychological services) and other
co-curricular programs (e.g. orientation). By amending Rovai’s (2003) model to include
these support services I can more accurately capture the range of contextual factors that
might impact students’ sense of community in an online program.
Weaknesses of the Theory of Persistence in Distance Education Programs
One weakness of Rovai’s (2003) theoretical framework is that it relies heavily on
theories in higher education that have been heavily critiqued. Bean and Eaton (2001),
Braxton (2001) and Melguizo (2011) have questioned the empirical grounding of Tinto’s
(1987) theory of student departure, which Rovai (2003) relies heavily on. These
researchers assert that Tinto’s (1987) argument about the factors that impact students’
experiences lacks empirical validation (Bean & Eaton, 2001; Braxton, 2001; Melguizo,
2011). Subsequent work by other researchers has shown that academic and social
variables do impact online students’ participation in community and persistence
decisions. A meta-analysis by Lee and Choi (2011) reviewed 69 empirical studies written
between 1999-2009 and found that academic background, relevant experiences, skills,
psychological attributes, institutional supports and interactions impacted students
perceptions of academic and social integration into the online community. While the
weakness of using Tinto’s (1987) work is somewhat mitigated by this recent empirical
46
work that supports Tinto (1987) and Rovai’s (2003) suppositions, it is worth noting that
Rovai (2003) uses an oft questioned theoretical base.
Theory and Doctoral Students’ Experiences
One addition I would make to the theory of persistence in distance education
programs (Rovai, 2003) is a more robust definition of academic integration that is in line
with literature on doctoral students experiences. Rovai (2003) asserts that one factor that
impact’s students’ sense of community is academic integration, which he defines as
having a high grade point average. Lovitts (2001) notes that for doctoral students,
academic integration is more than academic performance. For this population, academic
integration includes access to opportunities for research, teaching, service and publishing
(Lovitts, 2001). These opportunities are indicators of students’ connections with faculty
and peers, and facilitators of strong academic performance, feelings of satisfaction,
fulfillment of academic goals and feelings of support and connection (Lovitts, 2001). By
using a stronger definition of academic integration that includes experiences relevant to
doctoral students I can ensure that my theoretical framework applies more directly to the
population under study.
Using the Theories Together
The Community of Inquiry theoretical framework (Garrison et al., 2001) and
Rovai’s (2003) theory of persistence in distance education programs are useful in
understanding how students in online doctoral programs experience community. I have
made slight modifications to both models to reflect advances in understanding of online
learning. To the Community of Inquiry theoretical Framework (Garrison et al., 2001) I
have added an exploration of technical dimensions that impact community building in
47
online classes (DeLone & McLean, 2003). To Rovai’s (2003) theory of persistence in
distance education programs I have added a more robust definition of student support
services to reflect the broad array of resources that help students make connections in an
online program (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). By amending these models to include a
broader, more contemporary literature base, I ensure that I am using the frameworks in
ways that are relevant to the current landscape of online education. Taken together, these
two frameworks will provide me with a robust analytical lens that is well-suited to
capture the variety of student, classroom, program and institutional factors that impact
students’ sense of community within an online doctoral program.
Limitations of the Conceptual Framework
As the literature suggests, there are a multitude of factors that may impact
individuals’ experiences in an organization more generally, and experiences in a
community specifically (Carlen & Jobring, 2005; Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Rovai, 2003).
Clark and Estes (2004) assert that organizational behavior is impacted by individuals’
knowledge of tasks, motivation toward those tasks or organizational supports and barriers
for performing a task. Drawing from Krathwohl (2002) and other theorists, Clark and
Estes (2004) suggest that performance in an organization, including a learning
organization, is informed by knowledge related factors, including factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge, and motivational factors, such as task value,
expectancy organization and self-efficacy. Rather than focusing on these cognitive and
psychosocial constructs that might yield information about what students need to know to
participate in community (knowledge) or why students participate in a community
(motivation), the conceptual framework that I have proposed seeks to understand how
48
students derived a sense of community from their online experiences, and what
interpersonal and organizational elements supported their feelings of community
(Garrison et al., 2010; Rovai, 2003). A limitation of this conceptual framework is that it
does not delve as deeply into the knowledge and motivation issues related to participation
in community, but rather takes a broad, exploratory approach to understanding this
phenomenon.
Conclusion
In this chapter I reviewed the relevant literature on online learning community. I
explored the benefits of community, the supports and barriers to constructing community
in online and face-to-face environments, and the gaps in the literature on community
building in online doctoral programs. I also outlined my conceptual framework, which
integrates the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 2001) and the theory of
persistence in distance education programs (Rovai, 2003) to provide a lens to explore
community building in one online doctoral program. In chapter three I outline how I will
use the aforementioned theories and literature to design a qualitative case study that
provides a holistic exploration of students’ experiences with community in an online
doctoral program.
49
Chapter 3: Methods
This chapter describes the design of a study on community building in online
doctoral programs. I first briefly describe a pilot study I conducted in Spring 2015 about
community building in online doctoral programs. I then list my research questions and
explain why qualitative methods generally and case study in particular are appropriate for
this study. I follow by reviewing the design of the study, including my procedures for
data collection and analysis. I conclude by addressing the limitations of the study, as well
as concerns of transferability, credibility, consistency, and ethics.
Pilot Study
In Spring 2015 I conducted a pilot study to explore community building in the
first year of an online doctoral program. Over the course of one semester, I analyzed
video footage and message board data from two online doctoral courses and interviewed
five first year students. I then wrote a qualitative case study based on that data. The
findings of the study led me to explore online doctoral students’ experiences of
community more broadly. For the present study I collected data from six courses
andinterviewed first and second year students. My research questions for the study are as
follows:
Research Questions
This study was driven by the following research questions.
1) How do online doctoral students define and experience community?
2) How do elements of a Community of Inquiry, including teaching presence, social
presence and cognitive presence manifest in online doctoral classes? How do
these elements impact online doctoral students’ sense of community?
50
3) What student, program, institutional and technical factors contribute to students’
sense of community in an online doctoral program?
Qualitative Methods
I used qualitative methods to explore online community. As noted in Chapter 2,
the majority of studies about online community are quantitative and rely on the
implementation of surveys (Black et al., 2008). With survey research, it is difficult to
explore the processes that support students’ sense of community or to understand how
students make meaning of their experiences (Black et al., 2008). In contrast, qualitative
methods are uniquely suited to answer questions about processes, meanings and
understandings (Merriam, 2014; Yin, 2003). There is a significant gap in the literature
about the ways in which online students understand community and the processes that
facilitate the formation of community online (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Rovai, 2003). By
using qualitative methods I was able to probe deeper into students’ experiences in virtual
spaces (Black et al., 2008).
Conducting a study on students’ experiences requires prominently featuring
students’ perspectives in the work (Merriam, 2014). Qualitative methods allow for
researchers to prioritize participants’ perspectives in data collection and analysis
(Merriam, 2014; Yin, 2003). Using participants’ perspectives is critical with a topic like
online community, where experiences are highly subjective and contextual (Black et al.,
2008). Students’ experiences may vary widely, and using qualitative methods can help
researchers capture a broad range of experiences and relate those experiences in ways
that capture details, nuances and variability (Merriam, 2014). Incorporating participants’
perspectives into research is also important because it lends credibility to the researcher’s
51
interpretations of subjective experiences (Merriam, 2014). While researchers can theorize
about how data from secondary sources reflect the formation of an online community,
only participants in the online program can explain how community was formed (Black
et al., 2008). Researchers enhance the validity of their assertions when they use firsthand
accounts to inform their perspectives (Merriam, 2014), which is why I included
participants’ perspectives in this study.
Case Study
I elected to use case study as the qualitative method to explore the topic of online
community. A case study is a thematic description of a bounded system, in this case, one
online doctoral program (Stake, 2005, Yin, 2003). One advantage of conducting a case
study is that it allows researchers to use multiple sources of data to explore a
phenomenon (Merriam, 2014). Most studies of online community rely on the use of one
data source, such as a survey or interviews (Black et al., 2008). By themselves, both data
sources have limitations (Black et al., 2008). Online students are often over-surveyed,
and close-ended surveys do not capture the richness of experience online (Black et al.,
2008). Similarly, interviews without triangulation from other data points offer a highly
subjective picture of an online experience (Merriam, 2014). By conducting a case study I
was able to triangulate my findings across multiple data sources, thereby clarifying my
assertions (Yin, 2003). Using case study allowed me to create a complex and
multifaceted picture of the student, classroom, institutional and technical factors that
impact students’ sense of community in an online doctoral program.
This dissertation is an instrumental case study, meaning that the case was selected
based on what the findings can elucidate about a broader topic (Yin, 2003). The findings
52
of this case study describe community in the context of one particular online doctoral
community, but the findings have broader implications for online communities. By
conducting an instrumental case study, I was able to create a thematic description that
will allow readers to learn about a context and its broader implications (Merriam, 2014).
The resultant case study is a detailed, descriptive account of an online community that
will be useful in informing policy and practice in online doctoral education.
Setting for the Study
The setting for the study is an online Doctorate in Education program at a major
university that will be referred to by the pseudonym “University of the West.” This
doctoral program is an interdisciplinary and is designed to prepare students to be
organizational change leaders in education, business and nonprofit organizations.
Students in the program are typically full-time, mid-career professionals. The program
requires three years of course work, and courses are delivered synchronously via a
learning management system. The program was entirely online, except for an annual
three-day residential orientation that occurred at the main campus at the start of each
semester.
At the time of the study the program was entering its third year. The program
utilized a cohort model, and there were about 60 students per cohort. The cohort was
ethnically diverse. The program was 34% Hispanic, 31% White, 17% Black, 7% Asian,
5% other, 4% international and 2% two or more races. Women made up 65% of the
program. Students in the program lived throughout the United States. Many students
lived near the West Coast Campus. A few students in the program lived in Europe and
Asia. The Doctorate in Education program was entirely online, except for an annual
53
three-day residential orientation that occurred at the main campus at the start of each
semester. The program was a three-year program, and students took synchronous classes
throughout the three years.
I selected this site based on convenience, as I had access. The site was also
selected because it is an exemplar in the field of online learning. The institution is a top
tier, Research 1 institution (US News, 2010), and the online program has received
national acclaim. According to the program’s website and conversations with faculty and
staff, many of the features of the program, including a highly developed and interactive
learning management system, a cohort model, virtual academic advising, and access to
many of the support services at the main campus, were explicitly designed to support
online students’ sense of community. This program has devoted many resources to
helping students have an enriched experience, and the conducting a study in an
exemplary context produced rich data on online community.
Data Sources, Sample Selection and Data Collection Procedures
Data for this study was collected between Spring 2015 and Summer 2016. Data
was drawn from three sources -- digital video archives of the weekly sessions of six
courses, threads from the message boards of the six online courses, and interviews with
20 students. In the paragraphs that follow I describe each of these sources, outline my
sample selection criteria and explain my data collection procedures.
Digital video archives of the courses
In exploring community, it was important that I understand students’ classroom
experiences. Toward that end, I collected data from six online classrooms. To collect
classroom data I used the video archives of weekly class sessions. The use of such
54
comprehensive video footage is unparalleled in online research (Black et al., 2008).
Many studies of online classrooms rely on content from message boards, which provide a
limited perspective of how students interacted in class. Through the video archives I was
able to see most of what students in the course saw, including live video feed from all
students and instructors, the synchronous chat room, and any files that the instructor
posted in the live sessions.
Figure 2. A view of the Adobe Connect Virtual Classroom.
55
Figure 3. A diagram of the virtual classroom.
Sampling for the online courses. I analyzed video footage from the biweekly meetings
of six courses in the online program. Sampling of the courses was purposive, with a goal
of capturing a range of experiences in the classes in the online program. To capture a
broad range, I collected data from three of the required first year courses and three of the
required second year courses. I selected three classes taught by new instructors and three
classes taught by more senior faculty. By analyzing footage from different courses and
featuring different instructors, I increased the likelihood of obtaining maximum variation
in my sample (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I observed sixty hours of footage, stopping
when I reached theoretical saturation.
56
Procedures for collecting data from the online courses
To collect data from the video archives of the course meetings, I developed a
semi-structured observation protocol (see Appendix A). I used this protocol in the pilot
study I conducted about community building in online doctoral programs. The first half
of the protocol has three columns, for writing down the time, observations and reactions.
This half of the protocol is open-ended, with space for the user to write observations in
one column and to write any hunches, questions or connections in another column.
Saldana (2012) writes that a protocol with multiple columns allows the researcher to
differentiate between observations and interpretations. The second half of the protocol is
aligned to the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework (Garrison et al., 2001). The
definitions of the three elements of a Community of Inquiry (social presence, cognitive
presence and teaching presence) are listed in the protocol, as well as examples of these
elements. These definitions and examples are taken directly from Garrison et al.’s (2010)
Community of Inquiry coding scheme. The purpose of the second half of the protocol is
to allow the user to identify examples from the observations that reflect and do not reflect
aspects of a Community of Inquiry. This two-part protocol allows users to write down
observations and to identify examples from these observations that fit and do not fit with
existing theory. Such a protocol supported data analysis by narrowing the focus to
theoretically relevant concerns (Saldana, 2012).
Digital archives of the message boards of online courses
In online programs, message boards are often extensions of online courses.
Students and instructors may use message boards to post questions and answers after
class, display reminders, provide feedback and post assignments. In order to understand
57
students’ experiences in and around the online classrooms, I analyzed footage from the
message boards of the six online classes where I analyzed video footage. By analyzing
the message board transcripts attached to the six classes, I was able to get different
perspectives on the students and their peer interactions, as well as their interactions with
faculty and other program staff.
Sampling from course message boards
It is worth noting that there are other virtual spaces where students connect in the
online program at University of the West. There are message boards connected to every
course, there is a message board for the program overall, and there are virtual groups in
the LMS where students can connect by cohort or affinity. I decided to bind my analysis
to the archives of six courses rather than the broader archives, so that I was not
overloaded with data. Miles and Huberman (1994) write that researchers should be
mindful of not collecting too much data, or else they could impede future analyses. In the
pilot study, interviews with students did not identify the program message board or the
online groups as spaces that were essential to students’ experience of community, so they
were not included in this study.
Procedures for Collecting Message Board Data
After reviewing the weekly footage, I went to each of the message boards to take
note of new postings. I made memos of postings, and made note of how the postings
related to classroom interactions or connected to occurrences outside of the program.
Because postings were limited, I waited until the end of the month to print out transcripts
and to upload them to Nvivo software for analysis. Fifty pages of message board
transcripts were analyzed for this study.
58
Interviews
To gain a more holistic perspective about student’s experiences, particularly
experiences outside of the classroom, I conducted interviews with students in the
University of the West online Doctorate in Education program. Interviews were semi-
structured and lasted approximately 45 minutes each. A copy of the protocol is in
Appendix C. In interviews I was able to triangulate my analyses of students’ classroom
experiences, and explore alternative hypotheses for my preliminary findings on online
community. Students helped clarify my assertions, and provided additional perspective
on online community. Additionally, interviews provided information about interactions
that could not be visible to me as a researcher, including interactions outside of the
learning management system.
I conducted interviews with ten students in the first cohort and ten students in the
second cohort. Conrad (2005) suggests that membership in a cohort can help students
create and maintain a supportive peer network, which in turn may have a positive effect
on students’ sense of community. By interviewing multiple students in the same year and
cohort I was able to test this assertion.
Sampling for interviews. Initially, I had two criteria in interviewing students. I
wanted to interview students in both cohorts, and I wanted to capture a range of
experiences. To identify students who had different experiences of community, I used
theoretical sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994). According to Rovai (2003), students
who have a strong sense of community will be engaged in robust discussion and have
frequent positive interactions with instructors and peers. Students who do not have a
strong sense of community will likely be less vocal participants in online courses (Rovai,
59
2003). I used data from the video and message board archives as well as informants to
identify students who fit into these categories. I attempted to get equal representation
from students who seemed highly engaged in community and students who seemed
disconnected from the community, so as to obtain maximum variation. To recruit
participants, I sent emails to students who fit the aforementioned criteria.
I interviewed students until I reached the point of theoretical saturation (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Lincoln and Guba (1985) assert that theoretical saturation is reached
when there is redundancy, which occurs when interviews with different sources begin to
yield the same type of information. After interviewing ten students from each cohort,
interviews became redundant. By drawing from a sample of twenty students with
different experiences, I found varied perspectives on how students experienced
community in the online doctoral program.
Interview Procedures
I began the interviews by asking students to describe their experiences in the
program broadly, including what led them to the Doctorate of Education at the University
of the West and how their experience had been to date. I then asked students to define
community and describe their experiences in a learning community in the Doctorate of
Education program. I followed this by asking questions aligned to the two theoretical
frameworks used for the study. Drawing on the Community of Inquiry theoretical
framework (Garrison et al., 2010), I asked students about the classroom experiences that
contributed to their sense of community. Drawing on Rovai’s (2003) theory of
persistence in distance education programs, I asked students about how personal and
institutional factors impacted their sense of community. Though the protocol guided my
60
inquiry, I interspersed the pre-established questions with questions about any topics that
emerged in the interview. For example, I asked students questions like “what did
instructors do to make you feel like you were in a learning community?” and “can you
provide an example of being supported by peers?” I asked students to help clarify my
assertions and preliminary findings, and asked them to help me consider alternate
hypotheses about the supports and barriers to their sense of community. By asking semi-
structured, theoretically aligned questions as well as more open-ended questions, I was
able to develop a broad perspective on online doctoral students’ sense of community that
was based on students’ experiences.
Data Analysis
Merriam (2009) recommends that data collection and analysis in a qualitative
study be ongoing. As I was observing classes and collecting message board data, I also
conducted interviews. This iterative process helped to ensure that my data collection was
yielding important insights. By engaging in a simultaneous process of data collection and
analysis, I was able to make strategic decisions about who to interview, what sources to
consult about students’ experiences, and when theoretical saturation had been reached.
To help organize my data collection and analyses processes, I engaged in a
practice of memo writing. Merriam (2009) suggests that researchers use memos to write
down reflections, hunches, ideas and challenges in each step of the data collection and
analysis processes. The researcher should use these memos to inform subsequent
observations and interviews and to try out themes on participants (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Researchers can ask participants if early analyses fit with the participant’s
understanding of the phenomena under study. The participant can then provide input,
validate the researcher’s assertions, provide alternative hypotheses or direct the
61
researcher toward new sources of data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I memoed about my
data collection processes and my preliminary analyses. Memoing about preliminary
analyses can help the researcher identify emerging codes and themes (Merriam, 2009).
Data collection for this study produced message board transcripts, observation
protocols from the footage of taped classrooms, and interview transcripts. To analyze
these documents, I used traditional content analysis methods (DeWever, Schellens,
Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006). Content analysis relies on a system of categorizing,
classifying and coding text to uncover themes and patterns (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). I
used a coding scheme aligned to my theoretical framework to conduct the content
analysis (Appendix C). By using a theoretically aligned coding scheme I increase the
likelihood that my findings are grounded in existing literature and theory rather than my
own opinions (Hsieh et al., 2005).
In the first cycle of coding I used Nvivo software to highlight everything that fits
with pre-determined codes (Saldana, 2012). I then analyze un-coded data to see if new
codes emerged from data, and amended the coding scheme to reflect these emerging
patterns. I also removed codes that did not apply to the data. In the second cycle of
coding I re-analyzed the data using the established and emergent codes (Saldana, 2012).
During this phase of the coding process I created an audit trail, a series of memos where I
reflected on my coding choices and hunches regarding data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
I used the memos and the Nvivo analyses to identify the key themes, patterns and
processes that explain how students build community. I used these themes and patterns to
create a detailed, descriptive account of the ways in which students constructed
community in the online doctoral program.
62
Trustworthiness
For research to be used in the broader academic community, the researcher must
establish trustworthiness (Merriam, 2014). Trustworthiness, or the extent to which the
findings are to be believed, is indicated by the rigor carried out in conducting the study
(Merriam, 2014). Indicators of trustworthiness include credibility, consistency and
transferability (Merriam, 2014). In the paragraphs that follow I explain how I attended to
issues of trustworthiness in my study.
Credibility
There are several strategies qualitative researchers can use to ensure that their
findings are credible (Merriam, 2014). One strategy to ensure credibility is triangulation
(Yin, 2003). Triangulation is a strategy for capturing multiple dimensions of the same
phenomena (Merriam, 2014). Using multiple methods is one way to triangulate
information (Merriam, 2014). By conducting interviews, observations and document
analysis of online message boards I was able to check one data source against another.
Using multiple methods and assessing them against each other increased the likelihood
that my findings represent a more holistic and accurate view of community (Yin, 2003).
Another way to triangulate information is by using multiple sources of data (Merriam,
2014). In my study, I interviewed students in the first and second cohort. By
incorporating the perspectives of different groups of students, I increased the likelihood
that my findings do not represent outlier experiences from one group.
Another way to develop credibility is to engage in member checks (Merriam,
2014). In the interviews, I shared my preliminary findings with participants. I used their
insights to validate my assertions and clarify misunderstandings. By engaging in member
63
checks I ensure that my understanding of community extends beyond my interpretations
and reflects students’ experiences, and therefore increases the likelihood that my findings
are credible (Merriam, 2014; Yin, 2003).
Transferability
Transferability is about “the extent to which the findings can apply to other
settings” (Merriam, 2014, p. 265). Researchers should be “explicit about the domain to
which a study’s findings can be generalized” (Yin, 2003, p.17). Researchers can do this
by providing thick description of the contexts, as I have attempted to do in the case study
(Merriam, 2014). By providing rich description of the particulars of the context, readers
can see similarities and differences between the case and other environments and make
informed judgments about the transferability of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam, 2014).
Consistency
Qualitative research is about social phenomena, and no two contexts can be fully
replicated (Yin, 2003). Therefore, qualitative researchers strive to ensure their research is
reliable by making sure to use consistent practices throughout the study (Merriam, 2014).
One way I have attempted to do this is by using a pre-established coding scheme (De
Wever et al., 2006). With a pre-established coding scheme, I can ensure that my analyses
are rooted in theory, and not in subjective interpretations (DeWever et al., 2006). By
basing my findings off of clearly operationalized constructs, I reduce bias in my research
(Merriam, 2014). I also attempted to attend to issues of consistency by creating an audit
trail (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I shared elements of my audit trail with my dissertation
chair. By using the audit trail to support the peer review process, I was able to get
64
feedback from others, and to increase the likelihood that my findings adequately reflected
the data.
Ethical Considerations
Permission from the University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained
before beginning this study. In this section I explain how I attended to ethical issues
related to the data collection.
Archival footage
In this study I used two sources of archival footage -- video recordings of online
classrooms and posts from online message boards. Esyenbach and Till (2001) hold that
when conducting archival research, the researcher should get permission from the archive
holder. The researcher does not, however, have to gain consent from the participants,
particularly if the data used will be anonymized (Eysenbach & Till, 2001). For my study I
gained permission from the archive holder, which in this case is the academic department
at the University of the West. With regard to archives, ethical issues may arise in the
presentation of data (Eysenbach & Till, 2001). I have taken every effort to ensure that, in
the final analysis and write up of the case, descriptions that may personally identify
students, programs or the university are removed.
Interviews
To protect the students’ privacy and other rights, I acquired informed consent
from interview participants prior to the study (Merriam, 2014). Because I conducted the
interviews virtually, getting written consent was difficult (Mann & Stewart, 2000).
Before conducting interviews I read students the informed consent, and gave them an
opportunity to ask questions about the study. I also obtained permission from the students
65
verbally to gather data from them, and gave them the opportunity to opt out of the
interview at any time. I protected the anonymity of the students by assigning them a
pseudonym and removing any data that identifies them, others or the program from the
final analysis (Merriam, 2014). Interviews in the study were audio recorded for
transcription. To protect the privacy of students post-interview I stored the audio files on
a password protected computer.
Limitations of the Study
This case study explores community in one online doctoral program from
multiple perspectives. In looking at doctoral students experiences inside and outside of
online classes, the study significantly broadens extant research on online community.
However, even though this study provides great depth and complexity to the research,
there are still limitations to the study. First, in focusing on students’ experiences of
community, the work overlooks the perspectives of other stakeholders in the online
program. Faculty and staff use unique strategies to support and engage online students,
and their efforts can support or undermine students’ sense of community. Not including
these perspectives is a clear limitation of this work.
Second, in exploring students’ experiences, the study centers primarily on
students who did feel a sense of community in the online program. Of the twenty students
interviewed, only two were dissatisfied with the online community. I made several
efforts to interview students who were less engaged, including sending multiple emails
and getting references from student informants, but several students declined to
participate in the study. As a result, the barriers to constructing community online are not
reflected primarily in this data.
66
A third limitation of this study is related to generalizability. While the setting for
the study is a fully online program, the program did include a face-to-face component
through the three-day required residential orientation that occurred at the start of each
academic year. Meeting in person significantly impacted the ways in which students
collaborated online. In programs that lack a residential orientation, community may
develop in different ways.
Conclusion
In this case study I relied on multiple sources of data to create a thematic
description of the student characteristics, classroom interactions, institutional supports,
and technical factors that support online doctoral students’ sense of community. Drawing
on data from online classes and interviews with online doctoral students, I was able to
explore the topic of community in online doctoral programs from multiple perspectives.
In this chapter I have outlined my data collection and analysis methods. In the chapters
that follow I review the findings from the case study and discuss their implications.
67
Chapter 4: Findings
In this case study I explore the factors that contributed to students sense of
community in one online doctoral program. Three research questions guided the study.
1) How do online doctoral students define and experience community?
2) How do elements of a Community of Inquiry, including teaching presence, social
presence and cognitive presence manifest in online doctoral classes? How do
these elements impact online doctoral students’ sense of community?
3) What student, program, institutional and technical factors contribute to students’
sense of community in an online doctoral program?
Students in the online EdD program at the University of the West defined community
as a cohesive network that provided information and support. The community in the
online doctoral program had three elements – a shared experience, frequent, positive
interactions inside and outside of class and mutual peer support. Four factors contributed
to the formation of this supportive, interactive community – a residential orientation, a
robust technical platform, instructors who facilitated teaching, cognitive and social
presence and the students’ positive attitudes toward the online experience. In the sections
that follow I describe the community in the online EdD program and explain how each of
the aforementioned factors contributed to the formation of community.
Describing and Defining Community
Definitions of community abound in the social science literature. Community can
refer to a network for sharing discipline-specific information, a supportive social group or
a combination of both (Lave & Wenger, 1998; Yuan & Kim, 2014). Among the students
in the EdD program, community was defined as both an information-centered group and
68
a supportive social network. Ashley, a second-year student in the program, emphasized
the information-sharing aspects of the community.
I would define our learning community as a group of people who are interested in
the same type of thing…organizational change, leadership, whatever. In a
community, people come together to advance knowledge on a topic, encourage
one another to discover something new, to network in the hopes that maybe they
can advance professionally by being involved and meeting new people. In a
community people discover new interests. Maybe there are opportunities to grow
in other capacities.
The majority of students interviewed said that they were a part of a strong
learning community. For students in the online program, this community was
characterized by frequent interaction, support, commitment to helping with academic
goals and fulfilling personal needs. Lena, a second-year student, emphasized the
supportive aspects of the online doctoral community.
I think learning communities are environments where individuals work together to
achieve whatever the goal is. In our case the goal is successful graduation from
the program. We work very hard to ensure that others can rely on us and in the
event that they need us for whatever reason… it could be personal, it could be
professional, it could be help with your dissertation topic. We want to create an
environment where individuals feel like when they are going through a hard time
they have someone to turn to.
As Lena’s quote illustrates, social, emotional and academic support were the
foundations of the online community at the University of the West, and these types of
69
supports were the foundation for the community in the online EdD program. In the
paragraphs that follow I explain how feelings of a shared experience, frequent academic
and social interactions and mutual support impacted the online community.
Shared Experience and Online Community
Learning communities do not form organically (Ke & Hoadley, 2009). At the
University of the West, the highly structured nature of the online doctoral program led to
feelings that students were having a shared experience, which in turn impacted their sense
of community. The EdD program was designed so that students would have a relatively
uniform experience. Students began in a cohort model, and took classes with the same
group of students. The program had three years of core courses and required students to
take the courses together. Even the dissertation component of this program was highly
structured. Unlike more traditional doctoral programs, where the dissertation is written
independently outside of class, dissertation components were embedded into course
content. As a result, students were able to get support for dissertation writing from peers
and instructors. Faculty and staff regularly reminded students that if they followed the
structure of the program, they would earn the EdD in the allotted time. The embedded
structure of the program ensured that students would have a shared experience. Students
were doing the same things in the same way to reach the same goal, and this led to
students feeling that they were having a shared experience. Kayla described the
connections this way.
I’ve connected with my cohort on a deeper level than I did when I was on ground
in my MBA program. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are all
70
pretty much on the same track. We know that we are going to walk across the
stage together and we know that we are one group.
By having a shared experience, students developed feelings of connection and
trust. Students were all aware that being in a doctoral program could be stressful and
challenging. Many students felt that the experience of being in a doctoral program could
only be understood by others in the same situation. Ashley described her experience this
way.
Being a doctoral student makes you feel super vulnerable. You can be the most
competent person in the world, you can be excellent at your job, but once you
enter the world of a doctoral student everything changes. You no longer know
everything and your fate is in someone else’s hand. You are being judged by your
writing, your thinking and how you present yourself. Despite who you are, you all
become the same person. You could be an entry-level person, you could be a vice
president, but socially, once you enter a doctoral program, you are all the same
person. Nobody knows how it feels unless you are going through it. I think that is
why we care about each other so much. We are all in it together and we have
never been more vulnerable in our lives.
Feelings of vulnerability drew students together and created a sense of
interdependence among the group. In interviews, students said that they needed peers to
help them navigate the difficult experience of balancing school with work and personal
commitments. Peers became study partners and sounding boards, colleagues and
confidants on the journey. These connections were nurtured by the structure of the
program, which enabled students to see each other weekly and to feel as if they were on
71
the same academic path. Students built upon the shared experience to develop a sense of
community in the online program.
Frequent, Positive Interaction
Communities form through frequent, positive interaction (Rovai, 2003). Students
in this program spent a lot of time working together, which assisted with the formation of
bonds among peers. Unlike other online programs, which students described in
interviews as “post and respond” programs, observations indicated that students in the
EdD program attended classes together and learned through discussion, collaborative
writing and group projects. Students were required to work together closely inside and
outside of class, which helped with creating the bonds that informed the learning
community. Interactions in this group were not limited to the classroom space. Almost
every student interviewed said that they spoke with classmates via text or email once a
week, and many spoke daily. Students’ communication was often academic, as they
reached out to ask questions about assignments and occasionally sent drafts to peers for
review. Communication was also social, as students often spoke to each other about TV
shows, football games or other personally relevant conversations. In the sections that
follow I describe students’ frequent, positive interactions inside and outside of class.
Classroom Interactions
Every Saturday at 6:55am Doug logged into the Leadership and Organizational
learning class. He turned on his web camera and began to set up his desk. He and the
instructor were the only ones in the LMS, but he knew others would trickle in soon.
“Good morning Saturday warriors!” he typed in the chat pod before setting up his work
72
space. The sun streamed into his office, a luxury of living in California in the winter. He
adjusted his web camera so the brightness did not distract others.
Miles and Ashley entered the virtual classroom. “Good morning Doug!” Good
morning Saturday posse!” they type in the chat pod. “How’s the weather in Sunny
California?” “I’m enjoying it!” Doug responded back. “Good for you!” Ryan types. “It’s
freezing here in DC! A full 2 inches of snow and the city shuts down!” “That’s nothing
compared to Vermont, Ryan!” Ann Marie types. “I grew up in Vermont, never looking
back Ann Marie!” Ryan responds. Ashley types a smiley face.
In these small exchanges, students learned details about each other’s daily lives.
Students would talk to a spouse or child off camera, rush in from cold weather to a warm
home office, or work from various hotels due to traveling work schedules. In the live
class sessions, students could see through peers web cameras, which would display home
or work offices filled with personal mementos that gave insight into each person’s
personality, character and experience. These small details became points of connection
and conversation that informed the community. The instructor turned on his web cam. He
was wearing a University of the West t-shirt and his home office was decorated with UW
pennants. These small accents brought a sense of school pride and connection to the
group.
As students trickled in, light discussion ensued. Typically discussion was about
the weather or a popular TV show; occasionally it was about a challenging reading.
Students sent chats of encouragement via the chat pod. The tone in the class was
generally warm and friendly.
73
The interaction between students did not end once class sessions officially began.
In the class schedules, which the instructors posted in Power Points that were visible to
all students, there was ample time for discussion. Students would often discuss readings
in whole groups or in smaller breakout rooms. In some classes, students facilitated
weekly discussions. Students drew a contrast between this and the other types of online
programs. June, who had done an online Masters program, described it this way.
I think in my previous experiences with the online training programs it was like,
just watch a video and answer questions. That’s not what this online program is
like. It’s much more interactive and in many ways compared to my previous
Masters program it feels like people participate more in the discussions.
In the classes, discussions centered on students’ personal and professional
experiences. Students were encouraged to give examples that linked theory and practice.
Students were also encouraged to reply thoughtfully to peers, not critiquing them but
speaking only from individual experiences. These discussions were characterized by a
professional and respectful tone, in which members of the class alternated between
speaking and active listening. One student, Isaiah, described the discussion and tone of
the seminar style classes in this way.
It’s very collegial, you know. We respect and value each other’s opinions, which
is a part of the protocol for the online program. We have had very collegial
debates and discussions. We have people from a variety of backgrounds so there’s
an ability to see one idea from multiple perspectives.
Healthy dialogue and tolerance for diverse opinions made the online class a space
where students could share honestly and openly. Sharing continued on the message
74
boards as well. Instructors occasionally required students to post assignments on the
message board. Students were required to read peers’ posts, but they were not always
required to comment on them. Still, students almost always commented, and the notes
they left reflected the warmth and closeness among group members. For example, in the
post below, Lorraine comments on Nelson’s post, a plan for how he intended to be a
change agent in his organization.
Nelson - your quiet confident leadership style really shines through in this vision.
Organizations with your support and guidance are lucky to have you! I am happy
to be on this journey with you as I will continue to learn from you.
Message board posts also reflected the self-disclosure that characterized the community.
Aaron, struggling with the content of one assignment, posted in the group
I struggled with this assignment. So sorry for taking so long to post.
The sincerity of my classmates is a significant source of inspiration!
Aaron’s honesty about the difficulties in completing the work was met with supportive
feedback from peers. As in this post by another student, Mark.
Aaron- I continue to be inspired by you. Speaking from the heart with a lifetime
of experiences that have shaped the leader you are. You are a perfect example of
“Dream it, Believe it, Achieve It.” It will be a great journey with you. No doubt,
your dreams will come true!
Online classes were characterized by frequent warm and friendly interactions
between students. Even though they were separated by technology and thousands of
miles, students in the community were supportive and responsive to peers.
Interactions Outside of Class
75
Online students typically seek distance programs due to convenience and
flexibility (Rovai, 2003). As a result, many researchers and practitioners assume that
online students do not have interest or time to connect with peers (Floyd & Casey-
Powell, 2004; Kretovics, 2003). Thus, their out-of class interactions are often overlooked
in the literature. Interviews with students in the EdD program revealed a vibrant social
world outside of class. In this section I describe the interactions that impacted students’
sense of community outside of class.
Texts, emails, phone calls.
Almost all of the students I interviewed described frequent, friendly contact with
peers. Contact ranged from weekly emails to daily text messages. For students, sending
regular emails and texts was a way to maintain contact with the community.
Communicating in this way allowed students to stay engaged with peers and to give and
receive encouragement throughout the semester. Emails and text were also a way to
receive easy academic assistance. For example, students often reached out to peers to ask
for clarification and assistance on assignments. As Ashley noted, “we can go to the
professor, but we don’t unless you actually have to, we can rely on each other for that.”
Many students suggested that calling or emailing peers to ask questions about course
content was the best way to get answers. Ann Marie described it this way.
It really is a community in the sense that everybody has each other’s back and
everyone helps each other. And everyone responds to each other’s need for help
and you don’t feel like you are bothering someone. Whereas at work, if I ask
someone to help with something I would sort of feel like I was bothering them
because I know they have other work to do. So I think in this community the
76
collegiality is very great. I don’t think there is anyone who if I emailed and
reached out for help they wouldn’t respond in 24 hours.
Frequent communication also had a social component. Kayla said, “we text just
to keep the morale up.” In the text messages, students sent jokes and memes about
graduate school, as well as words of encouragement. For students in the online program,
texting and emailing were ways to manage the stress of balancing full time work and
school. Students often described peers as the only people in their social circle who
understood the stress of this unique balancing act. Ashley described her experience this
way.
I don’t think its possible to get through a doctoral program without your friends
(in the program). Because no matter how close you are in “real life” with family
and friends, no one knows what you are going through except for these people.
There’s nobody else who can be at the level of empathy for what you are
experiencing as a full-time employee, community member, student and someone
with other life roles. These are the people that really, really get it, so it’s good to
have those people.
Students sent text messages and emails to each other weekly, and often daily.
Text messages and emails provided students with ways to vent and make meaning of
their shared struggle, and to receive support from others who could relate to the unique
experience of being in school online. Students were aware that being in an online
program could be isolating, and found it important to reach out to others and stay
connected. Even when students did not need information, they continued to reach out,
77
just to maintain connection and camaraderie. Marcus explained students’ participation in
the community this way.
With every form of communication that’s what we are doing (reaching out). I’m
not a Facebook or Twitter user but we do text, we text almost every day. We
email each other like, “hey, there’s an assignment due did you do it?” We reach
out to let each other know they are not alone. If we have a post due and we see
someone didn’t post it we text like “hey I didn’t see your post”, just to let them
know. It connects us. You develop that connection with each class that you’re in.
You have a group, and I believe that helps you move through the program
because you can feel like you are all alone in an online program if you allow it to
be, but the key is you have to interact.
For many students, work demands did not allow for more than the occasional
check-in. Still, knowing they were connected to a network where they could gather
information and receive support or encouragement was often enough to help students feel
a sense of community at a distance.
Academic Interactions Outside of Class
Many students in the EdD program enrolled in the program because it fit in with
their busy work and personal schedules. Most students felt that weekly, in person
interactions via class or other meetings would require time that they did not have. Still, a
few students in the online program found that they wanted more of a traditional
experience. In the first cohort, a group of seven students formed a weekly meet-up on the
University of the West campus, and formed a close-knit sub community in the online
78
program. The group started as a diverse, open, study group. Arianna, a member of the
group, described its formation this way.
As soon as we started the program, a few of us noticed that it’s just no way…you
can’t do this alone…So what happens is someone would say “oh, I’m having a
hard time,” and we would say “ok, come and meet with us.” Another person
would say, “I’m struggling,” so we would say “go ahead and meet with us too.”
When a person said they had a need we invited them.
The diverse group evolved into a more homogenous organization over time. Arianna
described the group’s bonds this way.
Those of us that kind of bonded, we are all African American, we are about the
same age and we don’t have young children, so it’s easy for us to meet from 9pm
to 12am in the library. Most of us have a high-demand job. We have a person who
is a city commissioner, we have principals, professors, a person who runs a
bookstore at a community college. Everyone has a high demand job and so it’s
easy for us to be focused because we don’t have a lot of time. We have the same
focus, the same interest and other commonalities like the same age range. It just
worked for us.
While most of students’ face-to-face meetings were impromptu and were in
response to a specific need such as working on a group project or final paper, this group
was regularly scheduled and highly coordinated. Over time, membership in the group
went from open to invitation only. The entire group selected which members would be
invited. Once in the group, members had to agree to rules surrounding participation. Here
is how Arianna described the organizational structure of the study group.
79
We have made little guidelines for our learning community. When we share
articles we have deadlines, you have to have your article read by this certain time.
We have a note taking matrix and we all have to fill it out and put it on the
Google docs and have it for everybody so that everyone can have access to the
notes. We will say that every article has to be summarized and inputted into the
note-taking matrix because this person has class at this time. We have a little
structure.
Members who could not follow the structure, or who undermined the group by
being more interested in socializing than studying, were asked to leave. Arianna
described the experience of asking a friend to leave the study group as “nothing personal”
and explained that group members had limited time and only wanted to work with peers
who were equal participants. Members who accepted and followed the norms of the
exclusive group found the group to be supportive and responsive to student needs.
Arianna described the functions of the group this way.
We have meeting times and dates. We have writing cafes where we get together
and read each other’s things, edit, give each other critical feedback and
suggestions. We share articles because we know each other’s field of study and
dissertation topics so we share articles amongst each other.
The group even held a weekly conference call to study with two members who
were committed to the group’s note sharing process but could not meet on campus.
Though this particular network seems like a highly structured academic exercise, it also
provided its members with social support. The group would meet up several times a year
for retreats. Members would leave the city and journey together to relaxing destinations.
80
The retreats were ways to review progress made over the course of the semester and to
decompress. Arianna described the ways in which she would socialize with peers outside
of class.
We hang out. We actually go to resorts. We have been to beach resorts. We do a
shut-in weekend there, where we go to the sauna and do yoga. In April we are
going to another resort for the weekend. We are going to have a writing session
and get massages. We also go to different homes. We had a weekender at my
house. One man who is involved in politics has invited us to certain political
dinners and events. So yea, we just started hanging out with one another.
Arianna and the other members of the group did not initially join the online
program looking for this type of experience. However, the group members received a
great deal of social support from the high levels of interactivity in the online program.
Meeting up, especially in-person, was a way for students to meet their academic, social
and professional needs.
Social Interactions Outside of Class
While Arianna’s group represented a more exclusive case of building community
in the EdD program at University of the West, there were also more inclusive group
interactions in the program. In the fall semester of their first year, students in the first
cohort came to the University of the West to attend a football game. The football team at
the University of the West is top ranked, and thousands of students and alumni come
from around the country to attend the games. Ashley, a student affairs director living in
Texas, organized a cohort wide trip to the football game as a way to build the social
aspect of the community.
81
When we left orientation we all said “Wow, I wish we had another immersion so
we could see each other again!” Everybody really likes being on campus, it’s a
time where we can really just check everything at the door that we have going on
and just be students. I thought it would be super fun to go to a football game. I
wanted to see a game, I wanted to go to the stadium. I grew up in Texas, where
football is huge. There, you just go to the games, it helps you become a member
of the school. At the game you are surrounded by thousands of Warriors, so I
thought, what better way than to see each other and feel like true Warriors? I just
chose a game. I sent a mass email and said, “Hey, if you are interested in going let
me know.” I called the athletic department and got a group ticket rate. I set up a
PayPal, paid for all the tickets and everyone paid me back.
About a quarter of the first year cohort came to the game, some bringing children
and spouses and traveling over three thousand miles to meet up for the weekend. Once in
the city, members met up for dinner and for other social activities before the big game.
The game allowed students to reconnect and to continue to build camaraderie. June
described it as “really cool and fun. I think that kept the connections alive.” Another
student, Lena, who traveled across the country to attend, said it was a valuable
experience.
It was really fun. It was a chance for us to see each other and hang out outside of
class instead of having to be together at orientation. There was a chance to really
feel like we were a part of the campus and a part of the University of the West
family… To be able to buy paraphernalia and to walk across campus, to wear our
sweatshirts. It made us feel like a part of the campus community and like we are
82
all Warriors, a part of the University of the West family instead of just University
of the West students.
For students in the online program, attending a football game together allowed
them to interact with each other in a relaxed and fun environment. The experience
strengthened their connections to the program, to school and to each other. The event also
allowed them to cultivate school pride and to get connected to the local and national
network associated with the University of the West. Attending the game also allowed
students to learn about each other in different ways, as students shared more intimate
parts of life, like bringing family to games. June described the impact of meeting online
peers at the football game.
We are of a generation where we appreciate getting together face to face. Most of
us are in our 40s and 50s so this was a great opportunity for us to connect live
instead of on the computer. We were able to ask about family…we met a couple
of our classmates’ family members at the football game. It was kind of fun that
way.
Of course, not all students were interested in traveling across country to attend the
football game, and many were not able to travel due to the cost or to work and family
demands. Still, for students who could not attend, knowing that other online students
were so interested in developing the social aspect of community that they would make a
great sacrifice of time and money was encouraging, and solidified the belief that the
online community was as real as an on-ground community would be.
83
Peer Support
Outside of the classroom, students provided peers with academic, social and
emotional support. Students were responsive to peers’ personal challenges, and took
particular care to ensure that their colleagues felt supported in balancing work, life and
the academic program. Most people in the program were mid-level professionals with
high-demand schedules. Projects and traveling would occasionally arise in ways that
would conflict with work schedules. Students often worked together to make sure that
peers would not be adversely impacted by a busy schedule. Students often took notes for
peers or called one another to help study when a classmate’s schedule was hectic. Isaiah
described the support he received from class after having to miss class for work.
Well, I missed a meeting in class and one of my classmates in Florida volunteered
to call me to fill me in about what I missed. If I was on campus I would probably go
to someone’s room or meet them at Starbucks and talk about it, but its’ really the
same thing, we just have to use electronics more (to communicate). The most
important thing is that we get the work done and we get it done with fidelity.
Students were committed to the success of their peers, which required giving
assistance when individuals faced significant challenges or struggles. Lena described how
students gave more support to each other over time.
Knowing each other and just trying to form those relationships lends to providing
more moral support. It’s like saying “hey I know you really were struggling on this,
I found some articles for you to read” , or “don’t worry, I know you didn’t do too
well on this quiz but the next one is not too bad, go for it.” We know each other a
little better now so we sort of know when somebody might be really struggling.
84
Providing emotional support grew to be important to students in the online
program. Over time, students experienced significant life challenges and struggles. Peers
grew involved in each other’s lives at a distance, and were committed to providing
support through rough times. Lena explained how students expressed care and concern
for each other.
We have been in the program for two years. People have had babies, people have
gotten divorced, and have gotten married. So we constantly reach out to one
another during those times whether it’s good or bad. If someone’s like five
minutes late to class we text them, like, “Hey, what’s going on? Are you sick? Do
I need to let the professor know?” So I mean we really take care of each other.
Most students were surprised at the level of care and concern exhibited by their
peers. Ann Marie, who lived in a small town on the East Coast, said “I know more about
my peers than I do about some of my neighbors, and I’ve lived here a long time.” For
Kayla, the depth and connection with peers grew over the course of the program.
It’s very interesting, I know about people’s life experiences. If someone is
experiencing a divorce, if someone is having a bad day, I can check-in with them
and say, “Do you need my notes, I realize you may have had a hard day.” Some of
my classmates have illnesses like lupus that cause them to miss class, so life
happens. I think because we are long distance learners we are understanding of
that. Like, if a certain classmate is missing I’m like “Oh, is her baby sick?” Even
though there are recordings we make sure that there is still a human element I’ve
found in this program.
85
There was a particular sensitivity among some students, particularly female
students, to help others navigate the program and to make sure that the issues that may
impact older and distance learners such as healthcare and child care issues did not hinder
peers’ success in the program. Lena, a single mother, spoke of her desire to support other
new mothers in the program.
So actually there were four babies born in the program last semester. Two of them
were to colleagues that I have developed close relationships with over the semester.
One of them was in labor in class on Thursday night and she had her baby on
Friday afternoon. The second one a week later had her baby Wednesday before our
Thursday class and was back in class next week. So this is an instance where we
had two moms, these are brand new moms, in the middle of an EdD program who
didn’t have time to read articles, take quizzes so we all got together and made sure
we supported them. Whether it was helping them out with the quizzes or reminding
them when an assignment is due we made sure that they got through the semester
without having to take time off of the program because of family. So yeah, that’s
the kind of community. In this cohort we really are motivating one another and
inspiring one another to get through the program.
This level of support was returned to Lena, who, herself, missed class frequently
due to chronic illness. Students stepped up to assist Lena so that she would not miss
course content that could impede her academic progress or cause her to withdraw from
school. Students provided support to Lena by letting the instructor know if she was in the
hospital, sharing notes from class lectures, and even taking on extra work so that she
could focus on her health and recovery.
86
I get sick pretty frequently in the program. So my friends in the program they
always call me they always make sure my assignments are turned in. My professors
are amazing with helping me out and understanding, so the level of support I’ve
received has been amazing. I can’t even point to a word that describes how they
support me in this program… I would not be able to do it without my classmates.
The students who supported Lena felt a duty to be there for their colleague and friend in
the program. Ann Marie described the experience of stepping up to help Lena complete
an assignment after she was suddenly hospitalized in the middle of the semester.
Last week or the week before last one of my classmates who is in two of my
classes was in the hospital and she had two group projects due -- one of which
was with me and another guy --- and I said forget it, just get well and we were
totally fine with that. She wasn’t… she wanted to get in there (and work) but I
said you are in the hospital, just stop it. But as soon as they let her out she was
back at it again. But I think that we’ve more than got each other’s back.
In this particular community, students expressed a real and personal desire to ensure that
no cohort member was left behind. Isaiah explained the group’s commitment to each
other.
I think everybody has the common goal of 2018 (graduation) and we kind of
motivate and push each other through the long nights and the hard assignments,
that’s essentially what we do.
Though separated by thousands of miles, students found ways to offer support to
each other. Whether it was through sending an encouraging email, providing notes for an
absent student or taking on a greater share of homework for a peer with an illness,
87
students made sure to be there for their classmates in the online doctoral program. Ashley
suggested that this level of support was one of the defining features of being in a close-
knit virtual group. “That’s the thing with being in a cohort, you don’t want to leave your
friends behind.”
So far, I have described the nature of the community in the online doctoral
program. The program was warm and collegial, friendly and engaged. Students were self-
disclosing and supportive, helping each other with academic and personal challenges.
Many factors contributed to the formation of this type of learning community. In the
pages that follow I identify how four factors -- the residential orientation, a robust
learning management system, highly-skilled and engaged instructors and students’ beliefs
and attitudes about the benefits of the online program contributed to online students’
sense of community.
Support 1: A Residential Orientation
The community that developed in the EdD program was warm and collegial. This
sense of closeness was fostered early, as the program required a three-day residential
orientation at the start of each year. The “immersion” was designed to educate students
about the many facets of the academic program including norms, expectations and
resources. The orientation consisted of lectures led by instructors on academic content,
presentations facilitated by staff on the academic, social and psychological support
services available to online students and workshops led by technical support teams on
how to use the learning management system. The orientation also featured informal
opportunities for students to break into small groups and share a meal. June described this
introductory experience as a way to learn about peers and build connections early on.
88
In my (online) Masters program I don’t think I saw any of my classmates face-to-
face because there was a ton of people. That is one of the things I really like about
this program… even though you see some people virtually, we get to see them face-
to-face. At the orientation we saw the education building, we had classes in there.
We spent most of our time at the hotel there on campus and it was again an
opportunity to live the campus life but then the most important part of it was we got
to gel a little bit more as a cohort. Being able to put the faces to the names and
getting to experience the classes as well was great.
The orientation provided peers with a new way to learn about each other, and
served as an opportunity to “break the ice.” Students got to learn about peers to build
connections. Students also used it as a way to make contacts. During the immersion
students exchanged email addresses and phone numbers, and used this contact
information to follow up with each other throughout the year. June said that she would
make connections with peers by sending emails in the weeks after the immersion. The
emails would be references to jokes and lighter moments, and would serve as a starting
point for conversation. For Meg, the immersion helped the formation of a learning
community by providing a new context to learn about peers.
I think there is a level of informal interaction that happens when you are
physically there with other people that doesn’t happen necessarily in an online
setting. I think that the orientation did give us a little more personalized context
with each other that we would not have gotten if we started online and had only
gone online. So, for example, being able to catch a beer with someone gives you
more… a different level of comfort with them. It also helped us get to know a
89
little bit about people, including who’s got kids, who has teenage kids who has
little kids, who’s doing other things. That doesn’t always come through in class
time.
The orientation helped Vicki develop a sense of trust with her peers, and that would ease
the transition into collaborative learning in the online program.
I think the orientation was essential to us being in the (online) classroom. It
helped me feel like a University of the West student … and to actually form
bonds. A lot of my classmates came from different states so it gave me the
opportunity to make friends. These are people that are like my school buddies and
so we talk. The immersion also helped me become more comfortable with peer-
to-peer learning. I don’t think I would be as comfortable with it if it hadn’t been
for orientation, to be honest. In the past (my previous online program) I worked
by myself… I would not have formed connections without the orientation,
everything would have been virtual. The trust level would not have been there if
we didn’t meet in person. We could not have see who we vibe with or connected
with. So I think immersion was essential in that way.
For a few students of color in the program, the orientation allowed them to
activate a pre-existing social network. Nine students were members of a historically
Black sorority, which they learned at the orientation. This organization is international,
and has 300,000 members worldwide. At the immersion, one student spotted her peer’s
lanyard with the sorority logo. This sparked a conversation, and other women in the area
overheard it. The women soon realized that they were all in this organization, and began
90
to ask other Black women at the immersion if they were also in the sorority. By the end
of the immersion, these students realized that they were a part of a shared social network.
For these Black women, attending a face-to-face meeting in the online program
allowed them to activate a pre-existing network. This network was the source of
additional support in the online experience. Kayla describes it this way.
I’m one of the youngest people in my cohort, period. So me being younger, that’s
kind of intimidating. So having them (the women in my sorority)…. they are
women I can go to and having already had that relationship they are not going to
judge me because of my age. So it is something I was more comfortable with and
also like you said that network kind of already exists…. so even if we are not in a
class together if I have questions or even if we haven’t communicated in months
if I reach out to them I’m going to be met with warmth… so that’s very helpful
and if we’re in a class together I know that we will be able to assist each other. So
if anything, its kind of that additional layer of comfort knowing that I have people
that will support me and have my back.
This small subgroup of women of color was able to connect because they had a
chance to meet in person. Had the program not featured a face-to-face opportunity, they
may have never known that this powerful network was embedded within their program.
After meeting in person, the women in the group continued to rely on each other for
support. When Lena traveled across the country to attend a football game, she stayed with
a sorority sister in the program. When Arianna wanted to invite members to a study
group, she included members of the sorority who lived nearby. Though Kayla did not
keep in contact with her sorority sisters in the program as often, she looked at them as a
91
valuable and supportive group that was always available to her. Immersion allowed
students to activate a network that they could utilize for academic and social needs.
Most students interviewed did not report such serendipitous connections at the
immersion. Still, the opportunity to meet in person benefited students because it allowed
them to make connections that they could develop throughout the semester. Ashley
explained the impact of immersion on her future relationships.
When the professor says “do you have a writing partner?”, those (friends from
immersion) are going to be the people you ask. You continue building that
relationship…. (after the immersion) those are going to be the people you text
every single day.
The orientation increased students’ comfort and familiarity with peers. Students
enjoyed meeting each other so much that they planned on meeting up again. Aaron
described his post-immersion plans for connecting with peers.
We all met each other for the first time at the immersion and we loved it. And so
there’s always some people who try to set something up because the next time we
are officially together is just about spring of 2017. Most of us don’t want to wait
that long. So we have this agreement that if we can get a convenient date for us,
even those who have to travel, we will be there.
The three-day, on-campus meeting spawned a variety of connections. The positive
experience at the immersion made many students feel comfortable about traveling across
country to attend a football game. Students would also meet with other students who
lived in their city, working together on assignments. The face-to-face interaction broke
the ice and created a pathway for future online and offline interactions.
92
Support 2: A Robust Technical Platform
After the immersion, students began taking classes in the online doctoral program.
Classes were synchronous and held twice a week. Students met in Adobe Connect virtual
classrooms. The Adobe Connect system utilizes web-conferencing software to allow
users to communicate through voice calls, live video, and text. The virtual classroom
includes a virtual whiteboard where hosts can display content and a chat room where
students could ask questions and make comments throughout the class. Students
suggested that the enhanced technical platform made learning in the virtual classroom a
“highly interactive” experience, and this experience contributed to students’ sense of
community. Two particular aspects of the virtual classroom – the live video function and
the chat room – were particularly instrumental in helping students construct community
in the online classrooms.
Video in the virtual classroom and students’ sense of community
Students and instructors could share live video of themselves in the Adobe
Connect virtual classroom. In the online EdD program at University of the West, sharing
live video each week for the duration of each class session was a program requirement.
Students described the visual interface as “the Brady Bunch”, with live video of each
classmate and the instructor visible in small squares at the top of students’ computer
screens. The video function enabled students to see each other in real time each week,
which enhanced students’ experiences in the online program. Video improved students’
engagement, contributed to active participation and provided a way for students to learn
more about their peers.
When students entered the virtual classroom each week, they could see all of their
peers. Many students had participated in online Masters programs, and many of these
93
programs did not include or require live video. Students described these programs as less
engaging than the program at University of the West. In interviews students suggested
that live video provided a constant, full view of peers which made the class more
engaging than environments without video and even more engaging than face to face
classes. Here is how Ann Marie describes her experience.
The way the program is set up you are sort of forced to see each other
simultaneously all the time, whereas in regular class you either see the backs of
people’s heads or people are behind you so there is a whole lot more interaction
among the students. I think a lot of it is that we see each other all the time, we see
each other once a week for two hours straight and you can see everyone’s facial
reactions… that makes it more person to person than a lot of online programs
where you don’t necessarily see each other.
With the video component, all students were equally visible in the virtual
classroom. The increased visibility of peers increased students’ awareness of their
classmates and promoted peer-to-peer interaction. Ashley describes how video helped her
connect with peers.
With the physical classroom I think that you can get lost… and with the LMS it’s
really hard because the classroom is smaller. Your face is there. Everyone can see
exactly what you are doing. We screenshot each other when someone looks silly
and send it to them. You are constantly aware of what everyone is doing and
saying and there’s a level of engagement that is just at a higher level than in the
classroom.
94
As Ashley explains, video allowed all students to be seen in the virtual
environment, which made for a more dynamic and interactive experience. As a result of
the increased visibility, students were more engaged in their peers and more responsive to
their classmates’ participation than they had been in previous virtual or physical
classrooms. Kayla described how the ability to see all peers via live video prompted
active participation in the virtual classroom.
I think we’re more focused. I’d say there are less distractions…When you are on a
web cam you are in class… you can’t necessarily be web surfing because you are
trying to be focused on the expressions of your classmates… and your professors
may ask you to comment or may have a poll that you are working on … so it’s a
higher level of engagement from my perspective. There is no room for distraction
for someone to be texting on the side or having a sidebar conversation.
Video also allowed students to learn about peers in new ways. Students in the
online program often participated in the live sessions from various environments,
including offices at work or at home and in the occasional coffee shop. Video allowed
students to see their classmates’ various environments and gain new insight into their
peers’ lives outside of class. Lena describes her experience this way.
When we are all on web cam we see each other. We are all getting to know each
other’s families and all of those things happen even though we are not physically in
the classroom. Probably even better because people are themselves when they are
themselves in their home and they are comfortable. They are able to scream at their
kids to go to bed or for me my cats always rolling across the screen. You don’t have
the stuffiness of sort of having to wear your work clothes having to communicate
95
with one another and then never talking to each other until next week when you see
each other in the class. Because we are online it forces us to learn about each other
and learn in a different way.
For Lena and for others, video provided students an opportunity to see their
classmates in different and more personal contexts, which increased their feelings of
closeness and bonding. While the camera enhanced the discussion in online class in the
most obvious way, other features of the learning management system also helped
facilitate feelings of community. For example, the online classrooms featured a
synchronous chat pod. Students could use the chat to pose questions to the class, ask for
clarification, affirm a classmate’s comment or post a link for a resource. The chat was a
strong compliment to the class discussions.
The role of chat in the virtual classroom
While the camera enhanced the discussion in online class in the most obvious
way, other features of the learning management system, the chat room embedded in the
virtual classroom also helped students develop a sense of community. The chat was
situated between the students’ video screens, and students could see it just as they saw
peers faces. Students could use the chat to pose questions to the class, ask for
clarification, affirm a classmate’s comment or post a link for a resource. The chat was a
strong compliment to the class discussions. Whereas only one or two students could talk
at once, everyone could participate in the chat simultaneously. Students used the chat to
ask questions or make comments about the group discussion, or to post resources that
were relevant to the discussion.
96
Students felt that the chat helped democratize discussions in the online class.
Having a chat room embedded in the synchronous classrooms allowed all students to have
equal access to classroom discussions. Students could broaden the discussions by having
sidebar conversations about points they found relevant. Students could also shift the group
discussions by using the chat room to pose a question, affirm a comment or contest what
was being discussed. The embedded chat also helped the instructor and students quickly
identify students’ questions, and address key concerns in class. Ashley said that the chat
afforded students with different ways to participate in the online space.
In the online classroom there are many ways to participate. I think it allows for
different learners and different communicators to use the tools that they prefer.
The chat proved particularly helpful for less vocal students. Meg, a self-described
introvert, said that she sometimes would have trouble in traditional classes. It was often
difficult for her to get noticed over more vocal students, so she often kept her comments
to herself. Having a chat pod in the classroom allowed her to enter the conversation in a
way that was more comfortable for her.
I’m never one to be the first to raise my hand in class, I was kind of the quiet kid in
the back of the class, in a brick and mortar classroom and in an online environment
I can even if I’m not participating verbally I can participate by including a question
or comment in that chat and a lot of times for me that’s kind of an easier entry point
for me into the classroom discussion.
The chat allowed all students to participate, particularly those uncomfortable with
speaking in the whole group. The chat also allowed students to engage in multiple
97
discussions simultaneously. Aaron described the chat as a nice compliment to the verbal
discussion.
In the online class, there are a couple of discussions going on at the same time.
There are the online discussions among the students in the classroom, and there is
also the chat room discussion. These are not side conversations, they add to the
discussion going on the screen.
The chat also helped maintain student engagement in the long class sessions.
Students followed up on strands of relevant conversation in the chat, asked questions about
the course material, and even exchanged jokes and friendly comments. June described how
the chat room helped build connections in the online classroom.
Use of the chat box is a really strong community builder because we are in class for
two hours… I realize you have to manage the discussion… but we can share
substantive courses related to the class material. At the beginning of the class we
usually share social stuff and jokes but the professors that acknowledge that and let
it go.
The chat room was an educational and social space which allowed all students to
participate in a variety of ways. The chat room was a space of constant engagement and
offered a unique opportunity for peer-to-peer interaction.
Asynchronous Features of The Learning Management System
Most of students’ interactions with each other came from their participation in the
virtual classrooms. The learning management also featured an asynchronous component,
where students could access stored course content and utilize course message boards.
Students used these message boards to ask and answer questions posed by instructors and
98
peers. Students also used the message boards to provide technical support, share
academic resources and ask for assistance with school-related tasks. The ways in which
students used the message board contributed to their sense of community.
During the orientation, students learned about the online program’s technical
aspects, including the technology required and how to troubleshoot issues. Still, not all
challenges could be anticipated. Though the program offered an IT department that
students could call or email, students often posted questions and comments on the
message board. Here is a post Sarah left on the online message board.
Well, now assignment 2.6 is not working for me. I watched the video but when I
click the arrow to advance to the next card, I just see a "submit" button without
any question or place to type in an answer (screen print attached). I tried
refreshing, closing the YouTube pop-up tab with the video, clicking back and
forward ... nothing. I'll call Student Support Friday morning but is anyone else
having the same issue on 2.6?
Students would often respond to their classmates with suggestions about how to
troubleshoot issues. Sometimes, students would send messages to technical support staff
on behalf of their colleagues. Below is Jamie’s response to Sarah’s post.
I had the same issue yesterday and sent a screen shot and email to IT support.
They emailed back and said that they are working on it.
Students expressed gratitude for their classmates by liking their posts and posting
messages of thanks, as Sarah’s response indicates.
99
Thanks Jamie! Hopefully this late in the week, we can get a hall pass and be able
to complete that part of the assignments after class on Saturday. I’m completely
out of the office all day/evening Friday!
Troubleshooting technology related issues was helpful and was a community-
building activity. In many online programs, difficulty with technology can adversely
impact students’ experiences and contribute to overall dissatisfaction in the academic
program (Rovai, 2003). In supporting each other in managing even simple technical
problems, students in the online program made sure that they were providing support to
peers.
The message boards also served as a repository for supplemental academic
resources. Sometimes the resources were required readings for the course that students
could not find in the library, other times resources were supplemental readings that
students found helpful in understanding course content. In the post below, Jamie uses the
message board to tell the class that he cannot find the required course reading, but that he
will share them once he gets them from the library.
For some reason two of the readings required for unit three are not in the system. I
have requested the chapters through (library) and will post them to wall as soon as
I get them.
Sarah posted this message in response.
Jamie, I have both books on my bookshelf so I’ll scan and post (don’t tell the
copyright folks!)
Another student, Luke, expressed appreciation for Sarah’s resourcefulness and
offered to place the documents in a shared repository for all students.
100
Thank you so much for making these copies Sarah! I’m adding them to our
dropbox!
In this example, Sarah, Jamie and Luke were committed to making sure that
classmates had course readings, and took extra steps to make sure that material was
accessible, including scanning readings, posting them in the message board and
uploading them to a shared server. In addition to posting required readings, students also
used the message board to post documents that would be of general interest or benefit to
their colleagues. For example, Mark posted a template of a study guide on the message
board.
Saturday posse- Last term in one of our classes, we had a course outline. I found
this immensely helpful and kept it posted in my office to help keep me on
track. To that end, I have created one for myself for our last class. I am attaching
a copy in case anyone might be interested. I think it is correct, however I offer
mea culpa in advance for any errors. – Mark.
Posting resources was one way that students could give and receive academic support.
Students also used the message boards to more directly for academic assistance. For
example, Christie used the message board to gauge peers’ interest in creating a small
writing group.
Classmates - last semester I found the peer review process to be a very valuable
tool. I'm posting my assignment (dissertation component - introduction) here in
hopes I'll get a volunteer to review. I'll be happy to provide a review of your
assignment in return.
101
As with many message board posts, this conversation was carried offline. Christie
indicated that many students contacted her to express interest in forming a writing group,
and students utilized email to organize subsequent exchanges of papers. For Christie and
other students, the message boards provided a space to easily reach peers, gauge interest
around specific topics, and inform further offline conversations.
Support 3: Instructors who Facilitated Social, Teaching and Cognitive Presence
In the online doctoral program at the University of the West, the technical facets
of the virtual classroom and the learning management system allowed students to have a
range of synchronous and asynchronous connections. Technology boosted students’
engagement, increased students’ interaction and allowed students to develop bonds in the
online program. Students’ experiences were greatly supported by the role instructors
played in building community in the virtual classrooms. According to the Community of
Inquiry theoretical framework (Garrison et al., 2001), instructors can facilitate
community by developing social presence, teaching presence and cognitive presence. In
the online program, instructors developed all of these elements, which in turn helped
students develop a sense of community.
Social Presence
Social presence is fostered when students feel that they can bring their real lives
into virtual classrooms (Garrison et al., 2010). This includes being able to be open,
honest, and self-disclosing about the things impacting students’ academic, social and
emotional lives. Instructors fostered social presence in the EdD program by utilizing a
student-centered pedagogy, which involved using class time to address students’ social
and emotional needs.
102
Classes in the online program began informally. Students would enter at different
times, and begin conversations with peers and the instructor. Conversations would be
about light topics including sports and the weather. The instructors would let the
conversations wane naturally before beginning. At the start of the class, instructors would
check in with students. The instructors would ask how the students were progressing on
assignments and managing the doctoral workload.
The questions asked during the check in served as an icebreaker and allowed
students to express concerns or share successes at the start of the class. One student, Tom,
spoke of his struggles in trying to get a promotion at work. The instructor and the
students gave Tom feedback on how to showcase his skills to superiors and also provided
Tom with supportive feedback or practical resources on professional development.
Another student, Jackie, spoke of an experience of successfully using class concepts to
institute a reform at her job. Students and the instructor gave her affirmative feedback
and encouraged her to keep up her efforts. In these and many more examples, the
instructor-facilitated check-in process allowed students to give and receive supportive
feedback that was associated with a sense of community. Kayla described the impact of
this informal process of connecting at the start of the class.
Dr. Okamoto does this thing in saying, “how are you doing?” That answer can be
“I’m exhausted,” “I’m overwhelmed,” “I just had a job interview, I don’t know if
I’m going to get it or not”… we were comfortable enough (to share) and that built
community. I think our professors were great at doing that. In my perspective
professors were setting up that environment where we are scholars and peers but
we are also support for one another as well.
103
For Kayla and for other students interviewed, checking in was a way that
instructors provided emotional support to students. This type of support and engagement
helped students feel like they were a part of a classroom community. Instructors in the
University of the West demonstrated well developed teaching presence by using a tone in
the classrooms that students described as “warm” and “welcoming.” Instructors gave the
impression that they were interested in the academic, social and emotional lives of
students, and that they were available to provide academic support. This tone was
demonstrated in discussions in the online classrooms, and posts in the online message
board. The instructors used the message board and the online classroom to invite students
to share difficulties and remind students that they were available to provide academic
assistance. The messages displayed a warm, welcoming tone, such as the following
message by Dr. Lukestone.
A few of you have solicited input on plans or on write-up drafts…please don't
hesitate to run questions by me. I would much rather give you some early
direction to help you be confident you're heading the right way. Enjoy the rest of
your week!
Another instructor, Dr. Marconni, created a warm tone by making herself available to
student concerns and questions. Here is a post she placed in the online message board.
I will be diligent in being attentive to your academic needs, but if something slips
past me or I don't respond to your email, please don't hesitate to resend your email
or text me on my cell. Thanks everyone! Anne Marconni
104
The instructors demonstrated a welcoming tone by inviting students to ask questions, and
a warm tone by providing praise and supportive feedback to students, such as in this
message by Dr. Lukestone.
Hey everyone, I genuinely enjoyed watching all of the pitches. I was impressed
with the overall effort you put into them and the ways you incorporated the
criteria we worked on - use of evidence, anecdotes, appealing to listeners'
interests, etc. They were all different but collectively a really great job to all of
you. I truly hope you found it helpful and can use some of the ideas going
forward!
In the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework, Garrison et al. (2000) argue
that instructors can help foster students’ sense of community by being supportive and
engaging. On message boards and in discussions, instructors frequently reminded
students to reach out and connect. Students described instructors as willing and available,
which was helpful in fostering a sense of community.
Teaching Presence
There are many ways to structure an online class. The LMS allowed for use of
video, lecture, whole group dialogue, small group dialogue and private chat. Instructors
could use a variety of these features to facilitate lectures, discussions and other activities.
Teaching presence, or the feeling that comes from feeling engaged and connected in the
online classroom, develops when instructors use curriculum and instruction to facilitate
connection (Garrison et al., 2000). Instructors in the EdD program developed teaching
presence in two ways, by encouraging whole group dialogue and by facilitating small
group discussions.
105
Classes in the online program typically had between 12 and 15 students. To help
the students connect to the curriculum and to each other, instructors often opted for a
discussion-based format. It was common practice for instructors to have whole group
discussions lasting 45 minutes or more. In discussions, all students participated, by
talking out loud and using the chat pod. The discussions were a way to promote
connection and engagement. June drew a contrast between the program and previous
experiences.
I think in my previous experiences with the online training programs it was like
just watch a video and answer questions… so that’s not what this online program
is like. It’s much more interactive and in many ways compared to my previous
Master’s program it feels like people participate more in the discussions.
For Christie, the discussion-based format of the online class was a significant
experience.
The standard classroom when I was in grad school was of a lecture variety. It was
sort of one directional. There wasn’t a lot of interaction with anyone other than
the instructor. You might interact a little in labs but mostly my interaction was
with my computer. In the program, I’m doing all the work beforehand and the
instructor is really a facilitator in making sure that they facilitate the right kinds of
discussions.
In the discussions, instructors used all of the facets of the LMS to help all students
participate in class discussions. Stacey, a self-described “introvert,” said that the
instructor used features like the chat pod to help bring her and other less outspoken
students into the conversation.
106
In the online class I can raise my hands and speak through the LMS or I can type
something in the chat pod. What I’ve found is I might comment on something
someone else is saying in the chat and that will lead to the instructor saying, ‘you
said this in the chat can you elaborate on that?’ It allows for other ways for me to
enter the conversation instead of raising my hand and talking which I was not
very comfortable with in a large class setting.
By facilitating discussions that included all students, instructors demonstrated
high levels of teaching presence. They transformed the classroom into an environment
where all students could participate and collaborate. The result was a dynamic
environment with high levels of interaction and sharing. In addition to facilitating
discussions that integrated both video and chat, instructors skillfully utilized the learning
management system to break students into groups of different sizes, enhancing the
conversational aspect of the class. In the small groups, students were able to learn about
the content and about each other, and to strengthen emerging bonds. For Christie, being
able to talk in small groups to all members of the classroom diversified her experience.
In the breakout rooms they can move us around and make sure that we are
interacting with different groups of people so that’s nice …. there’s also something
to be said for interacting with the other nine classmates.
Breakout rooms allowed students to dialogue with all the students in the
classroom. For online students, who had limited opportunity to dialogue, the breakout
rooms were instrumental. Christie identifies the breakout rooms as a place for peers to
create bonds.
107
In the breakout rooms you have good discussions and not then you share… and
that’s where the relationships are built.
In the breakouts, conversation would alternate between course content and
students’ experiences. In one breakout, Kayla and Marcus talked about managing the
increasing workload. They discussed the frustrations of having to juggle work and school.
They also discussed current events. Eventually the dialogue shifted back to school work,
but the breakout was also a place where students could vent about their shared struggle in
the program. Instructors encouraged off topic dialogue in breakout rooms. Dr. Marconni
expressed to the class that dialogue was important, and that a little conversation improved
focus. These discussions allowed students to establish social presence by having
opportunities to have in-depth discussions with peers. June said that she did not think she
would have experienced community without the opportunity to work with peers in the
small groups and to interact with students in this more personal way.
Breaking the students into small groups required instructors to be savvy about
how to use the learning management system. It required some preplanning and sorting.
However, by going the extra mile to use technology in ways that promoted discussion,
instructors were able to maximize peer-to-peer interaction and help create a thriving
online community.
Using Technology to Heighten Teaching Presence and Social Presence
The instructors were skilled in using technology to create a personalized learning
experience. Some instructors would provide personalized video feedback to students on
term papers. In these 5-minute videos, instructors would give ideas for improvement,
provide praise for successful aspects of the students’ work and also link the feedback to a
108
discussion of the student’s progress in the course in general. Interview data revealed that
this technically enhanced mode of providing feedback provided academic and emotional
benefits for students. The ways in which instructors used technology to give feedback
heightened social presence and teaching presence, strengthening feelings of closeness and
increasing feelings of deep learning. For Marcus, video feedback made the instructor’s
recommendations easier to understand.
I love the fact that Dr. Marconni gives video feedback which is easier to
understand which gives me the opportunity to play it back if I didn’t understand
the first time and can make changes the first time.
For Kayla, receiving taped feedback tailored to her work created a level of
personalization that contributed to her sense of community.
Dr. Marconni does this and it makes all the difference…when she gives us
feedback on our larger papers she gave us feedback via video and I think that for
me built community from a professor to student way in a way that minimized
distance. As a long distance learner, it’s one thing to get marks on a paper or track
changes… ‘I read your paper and I’m going to go over this this and this’ and for
me that made me feel very relational and that made me feel very connected to the
campus community.
Students suggested that Dr. Marconni’s video feedback was supportive, and that
providing comments via video made feedback more accessible and easier to understand.
Kayla said that video feedback “made me feel more connected than if Dr. Marconni
would’ve just done track changes.” Video feedback was described as a “thoughtful”
109
touch that reflected the instructor’s interest in the particular nuances of each individual’s
work. The personalized touch was linked to strengthening students’ sense of community.
Students suggested that the ways in which instructors engaged with students was
effective in making them feel supported and connected. Speaking of his experience with
instructors, Marcus said,
They helped me feel like I am a part of the program. They are compassionate,
they are warm, they give me feedback that is constructive, it does not tear you
down it builds you up.
Instructors took deliberate efforts to reach out and connect with students in
multiple ways. By using technology to connect with students and connect them with each
other, instructors helped to foster teaching presence and social presence.
Cognitive Presence
Cognitive presence is fostered when students make deep connections between
learning and lived experiences. In the interdisciplinary online program at the University
of the West, course content was related to students’ professional experiences and career
goals. Students were often asked to link theory to practice and make material applicable
to their real lives. For example, in one reflective task, students were asked to think about
their role as organizational leaders after graduation. The idea was to envision how they
would grow and change over the next three years, and how they would use what they
learned to chart their new trajectories. On the message board, Angela wrote this message
to her professor.
Thank you for this assignment. I loved thinking about all of the possibilities I
want to make to my organization.
110
Students saw the assignment as a powerful and thought provoking exercise. Bob wrote
“It’s healthy and inspiring to dream this big.” Mark wrote “a fun and exciting vision for
me.” Students were excited to do the project and others like it. Theresa posted on the
board,
I am so jazzed about this exercise! I started out slow and as I dedicated more time
to thinking and imagining, a vision emerged that is very clear!
Instructors used the homework assignments and the course discussions to promote
the deep personal reflection that is associated with cognitive presence. In one discussion,
students were asked to discuss the challenges that they had in working as emerging
leaders. Katie showed vulnerability in giving an example about having to independently
fundraise for her work at a nonprofit after her boss did not endorse the project. Ann
Marie described a situation similar to Katie’s, and shares with the group that the tension
between her and her boss was so significant that she quit. The instructor built on that
example, and after linking it to course readings, asked other students to think about their
own examples of workplace tension and how they have used leadership skills to navigate
real experiences. Students were transparent as they shared work-related challenges and
failures. One student, Julie, expressed that she was “embarrassed” to share a challenge
with the class. After sharing, Aaron told Julie that he had been through a similar situation,
and expressed “kudos” to her for “showing courage” on the job. At the end of the
discussion, Sheba used the chat room to type, “it’s just so interesting, the things you don’t
think about but that are right in front of your face.” In this and in many other instances,
instructors probed students to think deeply and relate coursework to personal examples.
Students were vulnerable with the group, and peers were supportive of their colleagues’
111
transparency. The robust dialogue stimulated cognitive presence, and the heightened
awareness of each others’ struggles and the connection between academic and personal
spheres strengthened students’ sense of community.
Support 4: Students’ Positive Attitudes toward the Program
The residential orientation and robust technical platform assisted with the
formation of the online community. Additionally, instructors were attentive to the social
and emotional needs of students, and used technology to facilitate discussions and
activities that were meaningful, intellectually stimulating and involved all students. While
these factors all supported the formation of online community, bonds were also
strengthened because of students’ attitudes toward the program. Students believed that
the program had great utility to them personally and that they needed to connect with
peers to maximize the program’s benefit. Students’ positive attitudes about the program
informed their willingness to connect with peers and enhanced their feelings of
community.
Students’ beliefs about the program’s utility
Interviews and data drawn from the online courses suggested that students had
strong buy-in to the program. Students believed in the program’s ability to support their
future goals. The doctoral program was interdisciplinary, and was geared at students who
were seeking at a unique blend of curriculum in education, business, and organizational
theory. Students generally held positive attitudes toward the program, because they
believed that it was offering a unique set of skills that would lead to career advancement.
Christie describes the program as being perfectly aligned to her job and offering her
competitive advantage in the workplace.
112
When I got promoted, none of the top three candidates had any credibility in
training or education so our CEO said whoever you select needs to get some
credibility. So I instantly went off and took a three-day course on managing the
training function. At the same time I’d always been interested in having a terminal
degree. This is my third degree. I have two degrees in computer science. So I
really didn’t have the time (for another degree)… I had to get into the workforce
to build my retirement… when my boss had that initial conversation with the
CEO one of the things I did was go down to Google and look around. I found
some doctoral programs in education, education leadership, organizational change
and technology so I looked around and I got on some mailing lists… and then I
got into the job and deleted all the advertisements… every once in awhile I read
them. So I got one from the program at University of the West. Something about
it caught my eye. I don’t know what it was, but I went, huh!. I clicked on the link
went to the website and the more I read about the program, it was perfectly
aligned to what I’m doing to my (new) job.
Students believed that the program was unique, and could have significant short-term and
long-term benefits for participants. Kayla saw the program as a practical opportunity to
improve her performance on her current job.
I chose this program was because it really fostered practical application in the
workplace. As an emerging leader in my workplace I thought it would be a great
opportunity to practically apply what I learned during class and I could use my
professor’s feedback to really have a good working and learning environment.
113
In addition to providing students with the opportunity to learn practical skills that
would enhance their professional opportunities, students felt like the program could open
up other opportunities. Several students spoke of the desire to work as adjunct faculty,
and saw the program as an opportunity to earn a terminal degree and pursue that goal.
For students in this program, part of this program’s utility was that it was an
online program that was of top rank. Students had perceptions about the school’s quality,
and contrasted it with for profit programs that they deemed “less prestigious.” Vicki
describes how her views on the program’s quality impacted her decision to enroll in the
doctorate at the University of the West.
I did this program for vanity reasons… my Masters was in an online program at a
for profit college, but there was a part of me that wondered if people saw it as
legitimate. So when I wanted to do a program I thought, it’s an online program
but it’s at University of the West so I wouldn’t have to worry about the credibility
issue.
For students across the country, the University of the West had the prestige,
credibility and name recognition that would be beneficial in the work place. Students also
felt that the University of the West offered the unique format that they needed to be able
to pursue the program while working full time. All of the students sought career
advancement, but as mid-career professionals, they could not leave work to attend school.
Many worked 50 or more hours a week, and could not attend brick and mortar
universities. University of the West offered the credibility and a flexible format catered
toward full time professionals. Students perceived the experience as a great opportunity
and sought to maximize the potential of this unique offering.
114
Student’s beliefs about the benefits of learning from peers
Many graduate students seek out higher education because they believe in its’
utility. In this program, part of that utility was related to the opportunities the program
provided to learn from peers. As an interdisciplinary program, many students came from
different professions and fields. Students came to the program to develop different
competencies, and felt that they could learn from other colleagues with diverse
backgrounds. Additionally, many students in this program had extensive experience in
upper level management, and students felt that the opportunity to learn from their highly
qualified peers was immensely valuable and an experience unique to this particular
program. Ann Marie described the experience of being in a program with students from
different fields.
And so our particular program is intentionally people from different backgrounds.
There’s a lot of people who are from different kinds of business, there are people
in different types of people there’s are really diverse batch of people and there is
no way you could get those people back together in any kind of physical location.
So there’s a whole lot more cross-pollination opportunities…. And there are a lot
more networking opportunities.
Being able to network and to learn from peers in different industries strengthened
students’ experiences. Arianna describes the benefit of learning in an interdisciplinary
environment.
We had an activity about our network and most of my network is people within
education, people at various schools and school districts in my city. This program
gives me an opportunity to connect, network and bond with people of different
115
industries. I’m getting a different perspective on how to operate and function in
my own position.
This program gave Arianna an expanded perspective, one that allowed her to
function better in her current position and give her a competitive advantage after
graduation. Because she felt it beneficial to learn from peers in the program, Arianna met
regularly with her colleagues. Like many other students, she made an effort to connect
with her peers outside of class, engaging academically and socially to build and maintain
bonds with her colleagues. Arianna and the other students in the program felt that much
of their learning and future opportunities came through investing in peer relationships,
and this level of commitment to building social capital helped to create and sustain
students’ sense of community.
Experiences that Undermined Community
The picture of community painted by students was overwhelmingly positive.
Students in the EdD program were highly satisfied with their experience, due to the four
supports identified. Meeting classmates at the beginning of the semester made it easier to
connect online. The LMS allowed students to see each other and chat, contributing to
feelings of closeness. Instructors supported community by creating a warm, engaging,
collaborative environment. Students used the support from the program and from
instructors to create experiences that suited their unique needs. From attending football
games in-person to forming exclusive groups to only sending the occasional email or
phone call, all students were satisfied with their level of communication, and no one saw
any major challenges to the community they constructed.
116
Where students did offer critical feedback, it was about aspects outside of the
community. For example, some students felt the program underestimated the workload
required, and expressed challenges in managing full time work with full time school.
Other students noted that some instructors were not aware of the requirements of other
classes, and some instructors were not aware of how course content fit into the
dissertation requirements. Students shared these and other critiques of the program in
general, but no students could give examples of experiences, practices or policies that
significantly undermined the formation of learning community.
In selecting participants to interview for this study, I took deliberate effort to
search for disconfirming cases of community. Using Rovai’s (2003) theoretical
framework, I sought out students who appeared to be less connected to classroom
community. These students were designated as less involved because they did not speak
much in the online classroom, did not use the chat room heavily, and were not active on
the online message boards. In talking to the participants, this may not have been the best
sampling strategy. Students who appeared to be less engaged were often participating in
the online program through other mediums. For example, students made use of private
chat in class, which allowed them to carry on conversations with other students that were
not visible to the entire group. Students also sent texts or emails during and after class,
and kept the communication going in ways that were not visible to the researcher. In the
interviews I learned that many students who appeared to be disengaged were engaging in
active forms of online and offline communication with peers that were invisible to the
researcher. Also, it is important to note that many students who I perceived to be
disengaged declined to participate in the study all together. Ten students ignored emails.
117
As a result, students with less positive perspectives may have self-selected out of the
study.
There was one student, Ryan, who did self-identify as disengaged and who was
eager to participate in the study. Ryan was the only student who said that he did not feel
like he was a part of the community in the online program. Speaking of his disconnected
experience, Ryan said,
When I get on my computer to go to class, spend two hours and close it. I don’t
interact with anyone outside of the class.
The texting, phone calls and emails that drove many of classmates out of class
interactions were not a part of Ryan’s experience. Ryan attributes a poor orientation
experience to the lack of subsequent interaction.
I didn’t make deep-rooted connections during the immersion I really haven’t had
an opportunity to connect with people in the class. I’ve taken different classes
every semester. The first time I took Saturday classes, before I took
Monday/Wednesday classes, then I took Tuesday/Thursday classes. Some people
stayed dedicated to their time and it works for them but I haven’t stayed
dedicated.
At the immersion, students made connections with peers. When possible, students
would seek to take classes with those peers. Some students would work in pairs or small
groups each semester, and seeing each other week after week increased their feelings of
closeness. This phenomenon was most present for students who took courses on
Saturdays. The “Saturday posse” or “Saturday warriors, as Aaron and others referred to
themselves, would take two classes on weekends. These sessions were characterized by
118
sense of friendliness that appeared to increase over time. Meg described her Saturday
experience.
You see each other every week, if you are consistent about what classes you pick.
And because we are more familiar with each other we are following up on other
things. Like, so and so just had a baby and so we are like “hey how’s your baby?”
We know more about each other and so we are able to go beyond just the class
experience. There’s more interpersonal chatting because we get together before
and after class.
Ryan enjoyed the Saturday classes, but felt that it was too much of a sacrifice for
his weekend, and found the routine “boring”. He skipped around in his class scheduling,
not following a group of students. As a result, he lacked the sustained interaction that
undergirded other students’ peer-to-peer interactions.
Whereas most students in the program took initiatives in making connections with
peers and felt comfortable in doing so, Ryan indicated that he may have benefited from
support in interacting with peers in the online program. For him, the cohort was too large,
and it was difficult to navigate interactions. He suggests that the program assign
counselors that help facilitate connections by encouraging or even requiring students to
connect with smaller groups of students.
We have a cohort of 60. There’s usually 15 people per class. Depending on how
you rotate around your own personal schedule you may never see people again.
So one of my suggestions is to have a cohort within a cohort. So you could have
about five people randomly picked that you would just follow along with and
send reminders and like “hey link up with your cohort about this” … Maybe you
119
have the same writing partners throughout the program. All the materials are the
same, the days are just different. So why not have the same writing partner and
the same collaboration group inside of your program so you work together and
build that with them. 60 people is a lot of people over four terms so I think
something to make it a little bit smaller and narrow it down a little bit (would
help).
However, even with support, Ryan was unsure that he would engage with peers.
While most students interviewed defined peer-to-peer interaction as essential, Ryan was
ambivalent about the need to connect.
I think its because University of the West has such a rich tradition of community
that they really want their online people to have a sense of community and that’s
really good, but I chose an online program because I don’t really have the time for
other interactions. I’m also pursuing the EdD because its in practice and I do these
things I learn about at my job. I really don’t need to get together and do all of the
other things on ground people are doing. I’m on the East Coast. I could’ve gone to
Georgetown if I wanted to. So I think the university needs to take it into
consideration the fact that we are online and there are things they could do to
improve the sense of community and that are small, but they also need to be
careful so that its not intrusive.
While most of the students saw peer interaction as beneficial and important for
success during and after the academic program, Ryan saw the online program as a way to
help him quickly prepare for skills in the workforce. The utility value of peer interaction
was not high for Ryan, and so while he did not experience community, it was not
120
necessarily problematic for him. While Ryan’s experience is different from other students
interviewed, it does elucidate things about online students. Many students are attracted to
online learning because of convenience, and do not desire connecting with peers. For
these students, connecting with peers without support and guidance may be difficult.
Conclusion
In this chapter I explained how students in the EdD program at the University of
the West defined community. I outlined what the supportive social group looked like and
explained how students interacted. Students connected in a variety of social and academic
ways, in-person and off line. From sending supportive text messages, to working in-
person in small study groups, to attending football games, students engaged in many
ways to create community. I also identified four supports to creating community in the
online graduate program. A residential orientation, a robust learning management system,
instructors that attended to students social, emotional and academic needs and students’
positive beliefs and attitudes about the value of the online program all contributed to
students’ sense of community. In chapter five I discuss the implications of these findings.
121
Chapter 5: Implications
The findings of this study suggest that at least four factors impact online students’
sense of community. A residential orientation, a robust technical platform, instructors that
attended to students’ social, emotional and academic needs and the proactive
characteristics of individual students all influenced students’ sense of community in the
online doctoral program at University of the West. In this chapter I address the
implications these findings have for practitioners and for researchers. I also identify areas
for future research about online learning communities.
Implications for Practitioners
Faculty and staff in online doctoral programs play central roles in how students
develop a sense of community. Inside of the classroom, instructors can facilitate positive
interactions between peers, strengthening their feelings of membership within a
supportive group. Outside of the classroom, administrators can design and facilitate
experiences for students to strengthen and maintain their classroom connections. In this
section I provide suggestions for what practitioners can do before and during the school
year to help online doctoral students develop a sense of community.
Before the School Year Begins
Adopt learning technologies that support students’ needs. Students’
experiences in online programs are informed significantly by the technology used to
support the online program and the ways in which that technology is used to promote
learning and peer-to-peer interaction. As practitioners strive to consider how to enhance
students’ experiences in online learning communities, they should select technology that
supports students’ academic and social needs.
122
The EdD program at University of the West was powered by a robust learning
management system (LMS). In interviews, students indicated that the LMS helped
enhance their learning and helped facilitate different peer-to-peer interactions. In
selecting technical systems to support online programs, practitioners should think about
how the different learning technologies can support different types of interactions and
connections. Practitioners must recognize that all learning management systems do not
include the same components, and should select platforms that maximize interactivity
while meeting the academic needs of the particular academic program.
Provide users with adequate training and ongoing technical support. As
practitioners seek to purchase technical systems that support their online programs, they
should not assume that the adoption of progressive web systems will automatically lead
to proper implementation. In fact, the literature suggests that many factors can stymie
successful implementation of learning technologies (Cuban, 2003; Penuel, 2006;
Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Cuban (2003) and others have found that for learning
technologies to be implemented effectively, students and instructors must be trained in
how to use them. In this program, instructors were trained in how to use the learning
management system. Instructor training occurred in multiple sessions, and prepared
instructors to utilize the different facets of the learning management system. Instructor
training appeared to be effective. In observations, instructors seamlessly integrated
multiple assets of the LMS, including the breakout rooms, chat pod, poling system and
other multimedia features. Students cited instructors’ effective use of technology as one
of the elements that increased their engagement in the online classes. Students also
received training in how to use the LMS. They received one-on-one training from staff
123
and also had access to webinars and other digital resources to help them troubleshoot
technical problems. As a result of receiving training before the school year and on going
support throughout the semester, students were able to successfully use the learning
management system.
Training is the first step in promoting the effective use of a learning management
system. However, to truly ensure that an LMS will be used effectively, students and
instructors need ongoing access to technical support. In the EdD program, students and
instructors could access support in a number of ways, including via an email system and a
telephone help line. The program also had technical support staff that would sit in
sessions of classes and provide assistance to students and instructors. Support staff was
able to communicate with students’ offline to troubleshoot any problems that arose
during class. As a result, one student’s technical difficulties did not derail the entire class.
Technical support should be ongoing and easily accessible to effective (Garrison &
Kanuka, 2004; Rovai, 2002). The successful implementation of a learning management
system depends on high quality training and consistent access to technical support
(Penuel, 2006; Warschauer & Ames, 2010).
Educate prospective students about the behaviors that promote success in
online environments. In the online doctoral program at the University of the West,
students who expressed the strongest feelings of connection to a learning community
shared similar behaviors. The well-connected students were proactive in creating and
maintaining relationships with peers. Students with a strong sense of community in the
online EdD program felt a responsibility to regularly reach out to peers and to take
initiative with providing support to their colleagues. During the admissions process,
124
faculty and staff should educate students about the skills and dispositions associated with
success in online environments. Practitioners should make students aware of the
behaviors that contribute to success in online environments and ask students to reflect on
their ability to do these things in the admissions process. In addition to considering the
traditional admissions factors such as academic performance and work experience,
admissions teams may consider asking students questions that allow them to reflect on
their desire to connect with others, their skills with reaching out in online spaces, and
their feelings about being proactive in building and maintaining relationships with peers
with whom they have little physical contact. By making students aware of the practices
associated with online student engagement and asking students to reflect on their ability
to thrive in an online program practitioners can admit students who may be more likely to
thrive in a distance education program.
Consider the role of orientation in helping students make early connections.
Orientations are traditionally used as a space to educate students on the resources for
adjusting to the academic program. In online programs, orientations are one of the few
opportunities for students to connect with peers, instructors and staff outside of class. As
such, orientation represents a significant opportunity for online doctoral students to begin
to bond with peers. At the University of the West, the orientation for online students
included a mix of academic and social activities. During the social activities, such as
lunch and dinner sessions, students were able to have casual conversations with peers,
and they began to make connections with each other. At the orientation students
exchanged phone numbers and email addresses, and kept in contact over the course of the
semester, building on the bonds they made at the early orientation experience. The
125
findings of this study suggest that online doctoral students may benefit from opportunities
to talk with peers and identify commonalities and shared interests.
Before the academic program begins, practitioners should consider creating
orienting experiences that help online doctoral students make connections with peers.
Because online doctoral students have few opportunities to meet peers, orientations
should be intentional in providing these students with opportunities to learn about their
fellow students. At the University of the West, students were able to meet each other in
person and have conversations at the residential orientation. Students in this study
suggested that the residential experience was invaluable, and that it was faster and easier
to bond in person than online. When possible, programs should consider the kinds of in-
person experiences they can create that would support their student population. Of
course, in designing a residential orientation for online students, fiscal and logistical
considerations abound. Orientations cost money for institutions, which have to pay costs
associated with hosting students. Orientations are also costly for students, particularly
those who have to travel far distances or take off of work to attend. Practitioners should
consider whether residential orientations are appropriate for their specific student
population. If a residential orientation at the main campus may prove to be impractical
for the student population, practitioners could consider the role of orientations at multiple
geographic hubs. Local and regional meet ups at the start of the school year could provide
a powerful way for online students to connect and begin to develop a sense of
community.
The orientation at the University of the West was a 3-day residential experience.
While students found this type of orientation very beneficial in helping them bond, this
126
may not be the only model that online students find effective. Orientations can vary in
length and location based on the needs of the student population. A well designed
orientation that occurs over the course of one or two days could be impactful in helping
students to bond. Orientations that are successful will provide multiple opportunities for
peer-to-peer interaction as well as formal and informal learning (Ludwig-Hardman &
Dunlap, 2003; Rovai, 2003). Successful orientations do not necessarily need to have an
overnight component either. Some programs may be able to meet their orientation goals
through a one-day experience. Practitioners should test a variety of models to decide what
structure best meets their needs.
An orientation need not take place in person to be impactful. Online programs
would do well to consider how to make use of existing digital infrastructure to create
opportunities for conversation and interaction early in the academic program.
Practitioners can make use of webinars and virtual classrooms to host opportunities for
students to learn about peers. These webinars or online meetings should be interactive,
and should allow students to have conversations with each other. By creating early
experiences for students to connect with peers, practitioners can take a proactive role in
supporting the development of online doctoral students’ sense of community.
Embed structure in online programs. Orientation helped students in the online program
make connections at the beginning of the school year. Students were able to sustain
connections throughout the school year due to the structure that was embedded in the
online doctoral program. The program utilized a cohort model. The 60 students in the
cohort then progressed through the program in the same way—they took the same classes
in the same sequence. The course content was the same across classes, and students who
127
took courses with different instructors were exposed to the same content. This structure
created a feeling that students were having a shared experience, which helped them
cultivate a sense of community.
Once in the program, the students created their own structure, most notably by
taking classes in the same section blocks. Early on, some students decided to take
weekend courses, while others took their courses during the week. The students
maintained these groupings from semester to semester. As a result, they grew to take
several classes with the same group of students, and were able to deepen their
connections with peers over time. Practitioners should think about how they can
coordinate the schedules of students so that students are having interactions with the
same peers over time. By helping students coordinate class schedules practitioners can
bring structure and cohesion to students’ academic experiences.
During the School Year
The job of helping online students connect with peers and develop a sense of
community does not end when the school year begins. In this section I explore what
practitioners can do during the school year to help improve online doctoral students’
sense of community. I divide this section into two parts. I first examine the steps faculty
can take inside of online classes to help enhance doctoral students’ experiences. I then
consider the steps that staff can take in helping online doctoral students make connections
outside of the classroom.
Inside the Classroom. For online students, the bulk of their interaction with peers
typically occurs inside of online classrooms. As a result, instructors play a central role in
facilitating online doctoral students peer-to-peer interactions. Students in the online EdD
128
program at the University of the West suggested that instructors contributed to the
formation of the learning community by assigning work that required students to work
together inside and outside of class. This finding suggests that instructors should consider
the role of discussion and collaboration in online doctoral classes, as students suggest that
these activities may enhance their sense of community.
Provide opportunities for discussion. It is widely held that students in online
doctoral programs enroll in them because they are seeking convenient, flexible and
streamlined experiences. While students in the online EdD program were seeking an
focused and accelerated experience, this did not necessarily mean they were seeking an
experience that was devoid of interaction with peers. Students appreciated the
opportunity to engage in extended whole group and small group discussions in the online
program. Instructors in online doctoral programs should consider how they provide
opportunities for discussion within their classrooms. The flipped classroom is one model
of teaching that allows instructors to move away from a lecture-based format into more of
an interactive classroom experience (Herreid & Schiller (2013). In the flipped classroom,
students review course content outside of class. Review of core concepts is done
independently, and class sessions are reserved for discussion, activities and project-based
learning (Herreid & Schiller (2013). Moving away from a lecture-based format and to
more of an interactive, flipped classroom that is centered on peer-to-peer discussion may
help enhance online doctoral students’ sense of community within online classrooms.
Provide opportunities for collaboration. The findings of this study also indicate
that instructors can help students develop supportive social bonds with peers by requiring
collaboration on assignments. The program at University of the West was very
129
collaborative, and students often worked together on group projects. Students had to meet
together during and after class to complete the collaborative projects. While students
suggested that the group projects were logistically challenging at times, many students
indicated that working together allowed them to spend more time having conversations
and building connections with peers. This finding suggests that online instructors should
consider collaboration as a way to promote closeness and peer-to-peer interaction in
online programs. Having students work together, especially early in the academic
program when they are beginning to make connections with peers, may help promote
group cohesion and community. Collaboration in online classrooms does not necessarily
need to happen at an equal degree throughout the entire academic school year. Group
work can be used as a strategy to promote peer interaction and connection, especially
early on in the school year. Once students develop stronger bonds between peers,
instructors might consider reducing the level of required group work. Students in the
online EdD program suggested that once they were familiar with peers they were able to
reach out to them independently to work collaboratively on assignments. Instructors
should consider facilitating bonding early on, and then creating space for more organic
interaction as the semester progresses (Garrison, 2011).
Outside of the classroom. The class-based experiences that online students have
are central to their experiences in the academic program. However, experiences that
occur outside of the classroom can also significantly impact online doctoral students’
sense of the community. Students in the online EdD program suggested that their sense of
community was developed through interactions in virtual and physical spaces outside of
class. Students frequently connected via text, email and social media, and used
130
technology-based forms of communication to provide academic and social support to
each other. Some students also met in person, attending sporting events or studying
together in the library. Practitioners can encourage and even facilitate students’
interactions outside of class. In this section I provide suggestions for how practitioners
can help enhance doctoral students’ sense of community outside of class.
Encourage digital connections. In the online EdD program, students used
technology to communicate outside of class. Students utilized email, group texting apps,
Facebook and other social media to communicate with peers weekly. By using
technology to connect outside of class, students were able to provide peers with academic
and social support. Practitioners should educate students about the digital tools that
previous groups of students have used to connect. Practitioners should also inform
students about the strategies that other students have used to make technical connections
effective and beneficial. By exposing students to the range of possibilities for digital
interaction, and highlighting which tools have been effective for students in previous
cohorts, practitioners can encourage online doctoral students to engage with peers outside
of the classrooms.
In the online program at University of the West, much of the interaction between
peers was student initiated and directed. Students took the initiative to develop and
maintain Facebook groups for their cohorts, and created and facilitated email threads and
group texts. The students in the online EdD program indicated that they preferred
connecting with students when it was peer-generated. Students indicated that they would
not like if program administrators created a Facebook group for the class or tried to force
other types of communication outside of classes. This finding suggests that at the doctoral
131
level, students may benefit from being encouraged but not required to communicate in
different ways. Practitioners should expose students to the range of possibilities for
connecting outside of class, but do not necessarily need to create or manage these digital
spaces.
Encourage in-person connections. One of the most significant findings of this
study was that many students in the online doctoral program were interested in
connecting in person. Students who lived near the main campus met in the library weekly
to study. Students who lived in other states flew in for a football game. Practitioners may
be able to build upon the willingness of online doctoral students to connect by helping
facilitate these face-to-face interactions.
Programs can utilize institutional assets to encourage meet ups for online students.
Sports, in particular, are a powerful institutional asset that can connect online students
with the broader campus community. In the online EdD program, 28 students traveled to
the University of the West’s main campus to attend a football game. Many of these
students did not live near the main campus, and several traveled across country to attend
the game. Attending the football game required students to pay for plane tickets, hotel
rooms and tickets to the game. Students worked together to coordinate room, board and
cross country travel. They also worked together to plan a pre-game meal. Though
attending the game represented a significant expenditure of time and money, students
who attended said that the experience helped them feel like they were not just students in
the online EdD program, they were University of the West Warriors. Attending this event
together was a way for them to connect to a national network of current students and
132
alumni, and feel like they were truly apart of the community at the University of the
West.
The football game meet up took place because one of the students in the online
EdD program took the steps to coordinate it. One student invited peers, purchased tickets,
and helped coordinate logistics to and from campus. Students appreciated the dedication
of their peer in coordinating the activity, but suggested that staff at the University of the
West should have helped students in coordinating an event of that scale. Students
suggested that program staff could have made the football game a more official event by
inviting all of the students, helping students coordinate the event and hosting an official
tailgate at the football game. Students suggested that staff coordination of the game-
related events would have strengthened the community by making them seem like events
designed specifically for the online community.
Practitioners can help coordinate meetings at the main campus, particularly
around larger events like homecoming or other football games. Practitioners can also help
strengthen the community among online students by inviting them to other events around
the main campus. In the study, several students described attending mixers and sporting
events at or around the main campus. Students were not invited by staff in the online
program, but found out about the events on the Internet or from other university
communication. Students were willing to attend events that were personally and
professionally interesting, and program staff can support online doctoral students by
making sure that they are informed about these events.
While some students in the program were willing to travel to the main campus to
attend an event, for many students in the online program, this was not a financial or
133
logistical possibility. Practitioners should consider helping students connect with peers at
university-affiliated events in various regions through out the country. Students may not
be able to travel to the main campus but may be willing to attend regional meetings to
connect with peers. By creating events in regional hubs or by informing students of
events in their areas, practitioners can help students in online doctoral programs become
engaged and informed about the broader university community.
Implications for Researchers
In the previous sections of this chapter I have discussed the implications that the
findings of this study have for practitioners. I have argued that practitioners can do a
range of things to enhance online doctoral students sense of community before and
during the school year, including selecting learning technologies that meet students
academic and social needs, providing students and instructors with adequate training on
how to use technology, admitting students who are interested in creating and maintaining
connections in virtual environments, using orientation to help students make connections,
encouraging dialogue and collaboration in the classroom, and providing students with
information about online and offline activities that connect them with peers and the
university more broadly. In this section I discuss the implications that the findings of this
study have for how research on online community is conducted. I divide this section into
three parts. In the first part, I discuss conceptual considerations for how researchers
explore online community. I then discuss the aspects of online community that warrant
further research. I conclude by identifying methodological approaches that would be
appropriate in furthering research on online community.
134
Conceptual Considerations for Research on Online Community
The findings of this study push researchers to expand perspectives on community.
The experiences of students at the University of the West call researchers to think more
broadly about where online community occurs, the way relationships form in online
community and how technology mediates relationships between online learners. A more
expansive view of online community will lead to research that more accurately captures
the experiences of today’s online students.
Expand perspectives on where community occurs. In describing their
experiences of online community, students in the online EdD said that their learning
community extended to multiple spaces. Many spaces were virtual, including the online
classroom and social media platforms. The community was also present in other digital
spaces, including email and group text. For students at the University of the West, the
online community also occurred in physical spaces, such as in the library where students
met for study groups, on the main campus where students met for football games and at
various meeting places across the country. In the online EdD program, community
spanned virtual and physical boundaries. The findings of this study suggest that online
community is as much a social location as a virtual one. For students in the online EdD,
community was present wherever they were frequently connecting, including online and
offline spaces. Researchers might consider expanding notions of virtual community to
include interactions by a group of individuals that encompass multiple physical and
virtual spaces. Researchers at the K-12 level have begun to explore how online
interactions can span across virtual and physical platforms (Ito, 2013). However,
researchers in post-secondary education have often limited their understanding of online
135
community to interactions that occur in online classes (Garrison et al., 2010; Rovai,
2003). Such research has not examined how online students interact simultaneously in
other virtual and physical spaces. Going forward, researchers should be mindful of this
limitation and seek to fill it through more comprehensive work on online doctoral
students online and offline connections with peers.
Consider the role of weak ties in online learning communities. Not only
should researchers reconsider their understandings of where online community occurs,
researchers should evaluate the types of relationships that support the formation of
learning communities in online doctoral programs. In exploring community, education
researchers have often focused on the frequency of interactions as a measure of social
bonds online (Dawson, 2008). The findings of this study suggest that peer-to-peer
interactions do not need to be frequent to be meaningful to students. Social network
theorists have long held that healthy social networks are made up of strong and weak ties
(Granovetter, 1973). Strong ties refer to the relationships individuals have with people
they frequently interact with and with whom they share high levels of trust and
connection. Weak ties refer to the relationships individuals have with people that are
characterized by feelings of connection, but also are defined by less frequent interaction
and feelings of trust and support that are not nearly as strong as they are with strong ties.
Students in the EdD program often cited numerous connections with strong ties. These
were the peers with whom students spoke to weekly, and the friends they would meet
with on campus to study. Students in the study also identified a number of weak ties in
the program. Most students could identify several peers with whom they had infrequent
interactions, but were confident they could reach out to for support.
136
Granovetter (1973) posited that weak ties are also important in maintaining the
health of a community or social network. When individuals have weak ties, they can
spread information to a broad network. However, weak ties may often represent reduced
or strained connections, and limited avenues for social support. Education researchers
should assess the role of weak ties in online learning environments. Specifically,
educators should consider the benefits online doctoral students might receive from being
connected, however loosely, to a social network of peers with whom they have infrequent
interactions. Students in the online EdD suggested that the network of weak ties was
beneficial, and knowing that at a network was present, even if inactive, was beneficial for
them. Researchers should explore whether or not online doctoral students need to have
frequent virtual interactions outside of the classroom to feel close. Researchers should
consider how varying levels of interactivity with strong and weak ties impacts online
doctoral students’ sense of community.
Conduct an in-depth exploration of how technology supports community.
Just as researchers should evaluate the types of relationships that support the
formation of online communities, researchers should examine the technical facets that
enhance online doctoral students’ sense of community. The various features of a learning
management system support connection in various ways. In this study, being able to see
each other in real time via the virtual classroom helped simulate an in person experience.
The ability to share content asynchronously via a message board helped students provide
academic support outside of class. In exploring students’ interactions in online programs,
researchers cannot analyze the tools of a learning management system in aggregate.
Students in this study suggested that they used some elements of the LMS at certain
137
times, and rarely used other elements of the LMS. By parsing out which elements of
technology students’ use and what drives this use, researchers can generate findings that
explore how different aspects of learning technologies impact online students sense of
community.
In exploring how different technical tools support students’ sense of community,
researchers should critically examine how different subpopulations of students use
different aspects of learning technologies. For example, students in the online doctoral
program frequently used some aspects of the LMS, such as the course wall, but did not
use others as frequently, such as the groups in the LMS. Students cited busyness and the
existence of other social networks as reasons why they did not use these elements of the
LMS. Researchers should understand what technical tools certain groups of students find
useful and what tools they find unnecessary. It is important for researchers to explore
how and why different groups of students decide against using different aspects of
learning management systems. By considering what students use and do not use,
researchers can generate a holistic picture of how and why different types of learning
technologies support different groups of students. With this type of understanding,
researchers and practitioners can make better decisions about the design and
implementation of learning technologies for post-secondary students.
Aspects of Online Community that Deserve Further Research
Researchers and practitioners will benefit from an expanded perspective on how
online learning communities form in post-secondary environments. In the previous
section I argued that researchers should expand their understandings of online community
to include students’ experiences within and across virtual and physical platforms. I also
138
argued that researchers should explore the different types of relationships that form in the
online space, and how technology use varies across different subpopulations. In the
following section I provide suggestions for areas that online researchers should consider
studying as they seek to expand perspectives on online learning communities.
Explore students’ experiences in various online contexts. Drawing on this
study, researchers should continue to do highly contextual work about online community.
The setting for this particular case study is a unique context-- that of an interdisciplinary
doctoral program at a top-ranked private institution. This program featured a 3-day
residential orientation and a robust learning management system that allowed for students
to see and hear peers in real time. Not all online programs feature a residential
component, and many programs do not utilize a platform that is as technically advanced
as the one at the University of the West. To get a deeper picture of how online doctoral
students construct community, researchers should examine students’ experiences in a
range of different programs, including those without residential components, and those
with varying types of learning management systems.
Because the technical platform that supports an online academic program is so
central to how students connect, it is particularly important to assess and compare online
students experiences building community within different learning management systems.
There is widespread variation in the learning technologies used in various programs.
Blackboard Learn is the most widely used learning management system, but the open
source software Moodle remains popular, particularly at smaller universities (Dahlstrom,
Brooks & Bichsel, 2014). At least 15% of post-secondary institutions do not use a
learning management system at all, but opt to use websites or apps to deliver online
139
courses (Dahlstrom, Brooks & Bichsel, 2014). This no doubt leads to an experience that
is very unique to a particular institution. Subsequent research should capture the
differences in constructing community in programs supported by the aforementioned
learning management systems. Researchers should provide thoughtful analyses of how
the different facets of these delivery methods impact students’ experiences building
community.
Include the perspectives of diverse stakeholders in research. As researchers
continue to do work in various contexts, their research should include a closer
examination of the experiences of different stakeholders in online environments.
Instructors play a central role in online programs, and their perspectives were not
included in this case study. Subsequent research should capture instructors’ experiences
in creating and maintaining community. Researchers should delve deeply into how
instructors came to teach in online programs, how they were prepared to teach online, and
what support and professional development they receive. In capturing the perspectives of
instructors in research on online community, researchers can create a more holistic
picture of the factors that impact online students’ sense of community.
Examine the role of student support services in online community. In this
study the researcher has argued that researchers understanding of the online experience
cannot be limited to what occurs in the classroom. Students’ experiences are influenced
by their interactions with student support service staff and their involvement in
extracurricular activities. Kretovics (2003) argues that online students are commuter
students who use a different vehicle, and deserve access to the same institutional
offerings as traditional, on-ground students. Even though it may be beneficial to provide
140
online students with access to the array of services that meet their social, emotional and
academic needs, it is often difficult and costly to administer support services at a
distance. Some institutions are working creatively to serve long distance learners, using
web-based supports, telephone lines and partnerships with resource providers in various
locations. Research needs to be done about the structure, viability, implementation and
impact of support services for online learners.
Explore the experiences of students from diverse backgrounds. As researchers
seek to understand how online communities form in different contexts and as they delve
into the experiences of different stakeholders in online programs, researchers should also
look into the experiences of diverse students in online programs. Women and minorities
may experience disparate treatment in online environments, and researchers should
consider how this may manifest in virtual educational spaces (Rovai, 2007). In addition
to covert forms of discrimination, women and minorities may face overt harassment in
online spaces (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). Women are more likely to be victims of cyber
bullying than men (Li, 2006). Instructors may also be targets of cyber bullying, as
disgruntled students may harass and slander instructors on social media sites or forums
dedicated to expressing negative classroom experiences (Faucher, Jackson & Cassidy,
2014). In understanding students’ experiences of community online, researchers should
also be attentive to exclusion, discrimination and harassment in online learning
environments.
141
Methodological Considerations for Researchers Exploring Online Learning
Communities
As researchers seek to expand the breadth and depth of what they explore relative
to online environments, there exists a need for research that is both comparative and
longitudinal. Comparative work should examine the experiences of different
subpopulations of students (e.g. undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students), students’
experiences using different learning management systems (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle) and
students experiences in different types of online programs (e.g. blended, fully online,
synchronous and asynchronous). Future research should also take a longitudinal approach
in exploring how online students create community. Students’ experiences within
community change over time, and researchers need to do longitudinal work to document
when, how and why students’ feelings of community may increase and decrease.
Longitudinal work should include research that compares the experiences of different
cohorts of students over time within the same academic program. By following multiple
cohorts simultaneously and over time, researchers can identify issues related to
community that are group specific as well as issues that are more institution specific. By
conducting analyses that are both longitudinal and cross-sectional, researchers can
explore community from multiple angles.
Conclusion
In this case study I have identified four factors that contribute to students’ sense
of community in one online doctoral program. A residential orientation, a multifaceted
technical platform, instructors’ savvy teaching practices and proactive students all
contributed to community in the online EdD at the University of the West. These findings
have several implications for research and practice on online community. Practitioners
142
should be attentive to the ways in which they can support students’ efforts to create and
maintain community before and during the school year. In considering admissions
practices, student support, and program design, practitioners can create online programs
where students are more likely to experience a sense of community. Researchers should
consider how they might expand their understanding of where and how community
occurs in online doctoral programs. This includes exploring the social location of online
community across virtual and physical boundaries, examining the role of strong and weak
ties in learning communities and exploring how and why certain learning technologies
support the experiences of online doctoral students. As more programs go online,
research needs to be done that captures the nuances of students’ online experiences in
different environments. In providing thick description of students’ experiences in one
unique context, this research begins to fill a gap in the literature on online community.
143
References
Akyol, Z. & Vaughan, N. & Garrison, D.R. (2011). The impact of course duration on the
development of a community of inquiry. Interactive Learning
Environments, 19(3), 231-246.
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United
States. Babson Survey Research Group.
Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning:
Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. The Internet and
Higher Education , 188-196.
Bambara, C. S., Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G., & Athey, S. (2009). Delicate Engagement:
The Lived Experience of Community College Students Enrolled in High-Risk
Online Courses. Community College Review , 36 (3), 219-238.
Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means
for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 61(1), 84-103.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research , 55 (4), 485-540.
Billings, D. M., Skiba, D. J., & Connors, H. R. (2005). Best practices in web-based
courses: Generational differences across undergraduate and graduate nursing
students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(2), 126-133.
Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Priem, J. (2008). Data for free: Using LMS activity logs to
measure community in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education , 11
(2), 65-70.
Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in
an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81-98.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning
technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 2, 37-43.
Burnsed, B. (2011, April 20). Online Education May Transform Higher Ed. US News and
World Report .
144
Cho, M. H. (2012). Online student orientation in higher education: a developmental
study. Educational Technology Research and Development. 60(6), 1051-1069.
Conrad, D. (2005). Building and Maintaining Community in Cohort-Based Online
Learning. Journal of Distance Education , 20 (1), 1-20.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. IAP.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R. & Kinsel, E. (2007). Role Adjustment for learners
in an online community of inquiry: identifying the challenges of incoming online
learners. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching
Technologies, 2(1), 1-16.
Curry, R., Baldwin, R., & Sharpe, M. (1998). Academic advising in baccalaureate
distance education programs. American Journal of Distance Education , 12 (3),
42-52.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3‐D virtual
environments?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32.
Dahlstrom, Brooks & Bichsel (2014) The Current Ecosystem of Learning Management
Systems in Higher Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Louisville,
CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Dare, L. A., Zapata, L. P., & Thomas, A. G. (2005). Assessing the needs of distance
learners: A student affairs perspective. New Directions for Student Services ,
2005(112), 39-54.
Dawson, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense
of community. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 224-238.
Dennen, V. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion
behavior. Computers in Human Behavior , 24 (4), 1624-1633.
Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students'
motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68,
167-176.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. (2009). Blogs in higher education: Implementation and
issues. TechTrends, 53(3), 95.
145
DeWever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis
schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A
review. Computers & Education , 46 (1), 6-28.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using learning communities to create an
open source course management system. In World conference on educational
multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (Vol. 2003, No. 1, pp. 171-178).
Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet
communities. British Medical Journal, 323(7321), 1103-1105.
Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among university
students: Gendered experiences, impacts, and perspectives.Education Research
International, 2014.
Floyd, D., & Casey-Powell, D. (2004). New roles for student support services in distance
learning. New Directions for Community Colleges , 128, 55-64.
Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-
completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education , 97-112.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice. New York: NY. Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of
distance education, 15(1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community
of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1),
5-9.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative
potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 258-291.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology,
1360-1380.
146
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of
study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1),
19-42.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online Personal Networks Size, Composition and Media
Use among Distance Learners. New Media & Society, 2(2), 195-226.
Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
Hirt, J., Cain, D., Bryant, B., & Williams, E. (2003). Cyberservices: What’s important
and how are we doing? NASPA Journal , 98-118.
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers &
Education , 52 (1), 78-82.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., & Watkins, S.
C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media
and Learning Research Hub.
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral
program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods
study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93-135.
Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational
Technology Research and Development , 57 (4), 487-510.
Kietzmann, J. H., Silvestre, B. S., McCarthy, I. P., & Pitt, L. F. (2012). Unpacking the
social media phenomenon: towards a research agenda. Journal of Public
Affairs, 12(2), 109-119.
King, M. F. (2008). Ph. D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic
data from the Ph. D. completion project. Council of Graduate Schools .
Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber services or
virtual communities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (3)
1-15.
Lai, K. W. (2015). Knowledge construction in online learning communities: a case
study of a doctoral course. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 561-579.
147
Lederman, D. (2014, February 28). U.S. projects college enrollment to grow by 14%
through 2022. Inside Higher Ed.
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: implications for
practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development.
59 (5), 593-618.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools a research of gender differences. School
psychology international, 27(2), 157-170.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the Ivory Tower: The causes and consequences of
departure from doctoral study. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield .
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online
students: Scaffolding for success. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 4(1)
Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000) Internet Communication and Qualitative Research. A
Handbook for Researching Online, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology , 14 (1), 6-23.
Melguizo, T. (2011). A review of the theories developed to describe the process of
college persistence and attainment. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research (pp. 395-424). Netherlands: Springer.
Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John
Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation:
Revised and expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Aanalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Moody, J. (2004). Why are the Attrition Rates so High? The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 5(3), 205.
Ouzts, K. (2006). Sense of community in online courses. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 7(3) 285-296.
148
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building online learning communities: Effective
strategies for the virtual classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social
sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (1), 43-54.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A
research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(3), 329-
348.
Pigliapoco, E., & Bogliolo, A. (2008). The effects of psychological sense of community
in online and face-to-face academic courses. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 3(4).
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-
mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243-1254.
Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette online: from nice to necessary. Communications of the
ACM, 47(4), 56-61.
Pyhältö, K., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2009). Developing scholarly communities as
learning environments for doctoral students. International Journal for Academic
Development , 14 (3), 221-232.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the
literature. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(1), 19-
48.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 3 (1).
Rovai, A. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online
programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1-16.
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The classroom and school
community inventory: Development, refinement, and validation of a self-report
measure for educational research. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(4), 263-
280.
149
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Scagnoli, N. I. (2001). Student orientations for online programs. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(1), 19-27.
Schlossberg, N. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues for building community.
New Directions for Student Services, 1989 (48) 5-15.
Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a virtual
classroom system: Elluminate live vs. Macromedia breeze. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 331-345.
Shea, P. (2005). Servicing students online: Enhancing their learning experience. New
Directions for Student Services , 112, 15-24.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster
“epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers
& Education, 52(3), 543-553.
Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2011). Balancing between inspiration and
exhaustion: PhD students' experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in
Continuing Education , 33 (1), 33-50.
Taylor, B., & Holley, K. (2009). Providing academic and support services to students
enrolled in online degree programs. College Student Affairs Journal , 28 (1), 81-
102.
Thoms, B., & Eryilmaz, E. (2014). How media choice affects learner interactions in
distance learning classes. Computers & Education, 75, 112-126.
Tynes, B., & Berry, S. (2015). Online Learning. Encyclopedia of Education,
Economics & Finance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, Il : University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in
online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). Digest
of Education Statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016-006),Table 311.15.
150
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016b). The
Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144), Undergraduate Retention and
Graduation Rates.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can One Laptop per Child save the world's poor?
Journal of international affairs, 33-51.
Waycott, J., Sheard, J., Thompson, C., & Clerehan, R. (2013). Making students' work
visible on the social web: A blessing or a curse? Computers & Education,68, 86-
95.
White, J., & Nonnamaker, J. (2008). Belonging and mattering: How doctoral students
experience community. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice , 45 (3),
676-698.
Wyatt, T., & Oswalt, S. B. (2013). Comparing mental health issues among undergraduate
and graduate students. American Journal of Health Education, 44(2), 96-107.
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-
representation on behavior. Human communication research, 33(3), 271-290.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning
communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,30(3),
220-232.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Chau, P. Y., & Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of
belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social
capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management , 32 (6),
574-588.
Zydney, J.M., deNoyelles, A., Seo, K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online
environments: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols on interactions
within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77-87.
151
Appendix A: Observation Protocol
Observation Protocol for Study of Community Building in Online Settings
Date
Time
Course
Lesson/Activity
General Observations
Observations will take place at 10-minute intervals
Time Observations
Reflections
152
POST OBSERVATION REFLECTIONS
Community of Inquiry
Teaching Presence
“Teaching presence is defined as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and
social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educational
worthwhile learning outcomes.” (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, p. 54)
Instructional Design and Organization
Note any examples of the following:
Utilizing medium effectively
Establishing netiquette
Making macro level contents about course content
Facilitating Discourse
Note any examples of the following:
Identifying areas of agreement/disagreement
Seeking to reach consensus/ understanding
Encouraging, acknowledging or reinforcing student contributions
Setting climate for learning
Direct Instruction
Note any examples of the following:
Present content/questions
Confirming understanding through assessment and explanatory feedback
Inject knowledge from diverse sources, e.g,, textbook, articles, Internet, personal experiences
(includes pointers to resources)
Respond to technical concerns
153
Social Presence
“Social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics into
the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves as ‘real people.” (Garrison,
Anderson and Archer, pg 30)
Interpersonal communication
Note any examples of the following:
Self-disclosure
Use of Humor
Open Communication
Continuing a thread
Quoting from others messages
Referring explicitly to others’ messages
Asking questions
Complementing, expressing appreciation
Expressing agreement
Cohesive Communication
Addresses the group as we, us, our, group
Addressing or referring to participants by name
Communication that serves a purely social function, greetings, closures
Cognitive Presence
“Cognitive presence is the extent to which the participants in any particular
configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained
communication.” (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, pg 42)
In what ways do students make meaning in the classroom?
154
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
1. Can you please tell me a little bit about you, where you live, what you do, and
why you decided to do this particular program?
2. What’s it like being in an online program? How does it compare to a face-to-face
program? Describe your experience so far.
3. This is a study about community. How would you define community or learning
community? Do you feel like you are in a community? Why?
4. Talk to me about your class experience. When you are in class does it feel like
you are in a learning community?
5. What do instructors do to help you feel like you are in a learning community? Do
the instructors do anything to undermine your sense of learning community?
6. Describe your experiences using the learning management system. How does the
LMS help you connect? Are there any aspects of the LMS that are difficult to
use? How do instructors help you use technology?
7. The program began with a residential orientation. What was that like? How did
meeting peers in person at the beginning of the program impact your interactions
throughout the school year?
8. Do you have any interactions with peers outside of class? Describe them.
9. Can you describe a time when you received support from members in your
program? What happened, what was that like?
10. Are there any barriers toward forming community in this online program?
Explain.
11. If you were designing a program, how would you design it to improve how
students interact and connect?
12. Would you like to add anything about how online students construct community?
Thank you for your participation.
155
Appendix C
Coding Scheme
Note - This coding scheme is taken from Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W.
(2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5-9.
Category Code Subcode Definition
Social
Presence
Social presence is the ability of learners to
project their personal characteristics into the
community of inquiry, thereby presenting
themselves as ‘real people.’
Social
Presence
Interpersonal
communication
Interpersonal
communication
Conventional expressions of emotion,
including repetitious punctuation, conspicuous
capitalization, emoticons
Self-disclosure Presents biographies, details of personal life
outside of class or expresses vulnerability
Use of Humor Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements,
sarcasm
Social
presence
Open
communication
Continuing a thread Using reply features to quote others’ entire
messages, or cutting and pasting selections of
others’ messages
Quoting from
others messages
Using software features to quote others’ entire
messages, or cutting and pasting selections of
others messages
Referring explicitly
to others’ messages
Direct references to contents of others’ posts
Asking questions Students ask questions of other students or the
moderator
Complementing,
expressing
appreciation
Complimenting others or contents of others’
messages
Expressing
agreement
Expressing agreement with others or content of
others messages
Cohesive
communication
Vocatives Addressing or referring to participants by
name
Addresses or refers
to the group using
inclusive pronouns
Addresses the group as we, us, our, group
156
Category Code Subcode Definition
Teaching
Presence
Teaching presence is defined as the design,
facilitation, and direction of cognitive and
social processes for the purpose of realizing
personally meaningful and educational
worthwhile learning outcomes.
Instructional
Design and
organization
Setting curriculum
Designing methods
Establishing time
parameters
Teaching
presence
Instructional
Design and
Organization
Utilizing medium
effectively
Establishing
netiquitte
Making macro level
contents about
course content
Teaching
presence
Facilitating
discourse
Identifying areas of
agreement/disagree
ment
Seeking to reach
consensus/
understanding
Encouraging,
acknowledging or
reinforcing student
contributions
Setting climate for
learning
Drawing in
participants,
prompting
discussions
Assessing the
efficacy of the
process
Engaging Dialogue
157
Category Code Subcode Definition
Teaching
Presence
Direct
Instruction
Present
content/questions
Focus the
discussion on
specific issues
Summarize the
discussion
Confirming
understanding
through assessment
and explanatory
feedback
Diagnose
misconceptions
Inject knowledge
from diverse
sources, e.g,,
textbook, articles,
Internet, personal
experiences
(includes pointers
to resources)
Responding to
technical concerns
Cognitive
presence
Cognitive presence is the extent to which the
participants in any particular configuration of a
community of inquiry are able to construct
meaning through sustained communication.
Emergent Codes
Code Subcode Definition
Social/Emotional
Support
The process of asking questions and
providing answers that were relevant to
students’ social and emotional needs
Creating A
Personalized
Learning
Experience
The process of asking questions or
providing feedback that was tailored to
the needs of an individual student
Checking In The process of asking students to share
their feelings with the class
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Over the past decade, enrollment in online education programs has increased rapidly, with the fastest area of growth occurring at the graduate level (Lederman, 2014). Currently, 25% of graduate students are in fully online programs (Allen & Seaman, 2015), a figure that is expected to grow by nearly 20% over the next decade (Lederman, 2014). There are no national statistics on attrition from online programs, but researchers estimate that attrition may be significantly higher than in on-ground programs (DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006). The causes of attrition in graduate programs are many, but surveys of online students have revealed that feelings of isolation and lack of academic support are associated with attrition from academic programs (Ke & Hoadley, 2009). At the same time, research suggests that a sense of community can be a protective factor against attrition from higher education (Tinto, 1997). However, community, defined as feelings of connection, belongingness and mutual support with peers and instructors, has been underexplored in the literature on online education (Rovai, 2003). In this qualitative case study I utilized data from three sources—video footage from six classes, message boards from six classes, and interviews with 20 students to learn about how online doctoral students define and create community. Findings indicated that students in the doctoral program under study felt strong feelings of community, which they defined as connection and mutual support from peers. Data from student interviews and observations of the synchronous and asynchronous components of the online classroom indicated that four factors— 1) a residential orientation, 2) a robust technical platform, 3) instructors who facilitated teaching, cognitive, and social presence, and 4) the students’ positive attitudes toward the online experience contributed to students’ sense of community in the online doctoral program. The findings of this study have implications for research and practice in online environments, and researchers and practitioners can use this data to design programs that engage and retain more online students.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
Implementing field-based online graduate professional programs: a promising practice study
PDF
Crisis intervention and mental health support services in online graduate degree programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors
PDF
Online student attrition in blended learning programs
PDF
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
PDF
Financial stability and sustainability in online education: a study of promising practice
PDF
Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies
PDF
Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway
PDF
Student engagement in online education: an evaluation study
PDF
Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development
PDF
Sense of belonging in an online high school: looking to connect
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
An examination of in-school and online protective factors for adolescent trajectories of online victimization and harassment over time
PDF
Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
PDF
A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment
PDF
Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments
PDF
Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School
PDF
Recruiting and hiring online learning teachers for online high schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Berry, Sharla
(author)
Core Title
Exploring community in an online doctoral program: a digital case study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Urban Education Policy
Publication Date
02/13/2017
Defense Date
12/07/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Community,doctoral education,education technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Melguizo, Tatiana (
committee chair
), Banet-Weiser, Sarah (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sharlabe@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-334487
Unique identifier
UC11258117
Identifier
etd-BerrySharl-5046.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-334487 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BerrySharl-5046.pdf
Dmrecord
334487
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Berry, Sharla
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
doctoral education
education technology
online learning