Building Learning Communities in Online Courses: the importance of interaction

This article discusses course design factors affecting the success of asynchronous online learning, with a specific focus on the social development of learning communities through online discussion. It reports on an empirical investigation of correlations between 22 course design factors and student perceptions of satisfaction, learning, and interaction with instructors and classmates using data collected from 73 courses offered through the State University of New York Learning Network (SLN) in the spring 1999 semester. Data analyses revealed that three factors were significantly related to student perceptions—clarity and consistency in course design, contact with and feedback from course instructors, and active and valued discussion. An explanation for these findings may center on the importance of creating opportunities for interaction in online learning environments. In this vein, preliminary findings from research on the development of community in online course discussions is presented. Drawn from content analyses of asynchronous discussions in an online graduate course in education, this research examines the ways in which course participants use verbal immediacy indicators to support the development of online community. Findings support an equilibrium model of social presence in online discussion which suggests that as affective communications channels are reduced, discussion participants use more verbal immediacy behaviors to support interaction among classmates. Taken together, the findings support the importance of interaction for online teaching and learning.

[1]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication , 1968 .

[2]  Dorothy Fuller,et al.  Internet Teaching By Style: Profiling the On-line Professor , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  Daniel V. Eastmond.  Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing , 1995 .

[4]  J. Gorham,et al.  Effects of immediacy on recall of information , 1988 .

[5]  M. Moore.  Editorial: Three types of interaction , 1989 .

[6]  Jay David Bolter,et al.  Writing Space: the Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing , 1990 .

[7]  J. Gorham.  The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning , 1988 .

[8]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  The Virtual Classroom: Learning Without Limits Via Computer Networks , 1994 .

[9]  Robert D. Tennyson,et al.  Cognitive Science and Instructional Technology: Improvements in Higher Order Thinking Strategies. , 1989 .

[10]  D. Garrison,et al.  Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing , 1999 .

[11]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education , 1995 .

[12]  Margaret E. Madden,et al.  Students' Satisfaction With Graduate School and Attributions of Control and Responsibility. , 1981 .

[13]  Christina Haas,et al.  Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy , 1995 .

[14]  Patricia Kearney,et al.  Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal immediacy and student cognitive learning: Affective learning as the central causal mediator , 1996 .

[15]  Alexander J. Romiszowski,et al.  Hypertext’s Contribution to Computer-Mediated Communication: In Search of an Instructional Model , 1992 .

[16]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Becoming a virtual professor: pedagogical roles and ALN , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. , 1998, Annual review of psychology.

[18]  Martin Lea,et al.  Contexts of computer-mediated communication , 1992 .

[19]  Dawn M. Poole.  Student Participation in a Discussion-Oriented Online Course , 2000 .

[20]  Edna C. Ward,et al.  An Instructor's Guide to Distance Learning. , 1995 .

[21]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The LISP tutor: it approaches the effectiveness of a human tutor , 1985 .

[22]  Mingming Jiang,et al.  A Study of Factors Influencing Students’ Perceived Learning in a Web-Based Course Environment , 2000 .

[23]  Kyle L. Peck.  The Design Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software , 1988 .

[24]  Stephen Powers,et al.  Student Satisfaction with Graduate Education: Dimensionality and Assessment in a College Education. , 1985 .

[25]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy Behaviors and Cognitive Learning , 1987 .

[26]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[27]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[28]  David W. Park,et al.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[29]  Richard A. Lanham,et al.  Book Reviews: The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts , 1995, CL.

[30]  A. Bork.  Advantages of computer based learning , 1986 .

[31]  Karen Swan,et al.  Building Knowledge Building Communities: Consistency, Contact and Communication in the Virtual Classroom , 2000 .

[32]  Karen Swan.  Nonprint Media and Technology Literacy Standards for Assessing Technology Integration , 2000 .

[33]  S. Turkle.  Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[34]  Rosalie Wells.  Computer-Mediated Communication for Distance Education: An International Review of Design, Teaching, and Institutional Issues. ACSDE Research Monograph Number 6. , 1992 .

[35]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[36]  M. Fitzgerald,et al.  Horses for courses. , 2004, International journal of nursing practice.

[37]  R. Wiseman,et al.  The effects of verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy on perceived cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning in the multicultural classroom , 1990 .

[38]  P. Whitten,et al.  Re‐thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: A social cognitive exploration , 2000 .

[39]  R. Wells.  Computer-Mediated Communication for Distance Education: An International Review of Design, Teaching, and Institutional Issues , 1992 .

[40]  Ann Bainbridge Frymier.  A model of immediacy in the classroom , 1994 .

[41]  Lorena F. Ruberg,et al.  Student Participation, Interaction, and Regulation in a Computer-Mediated Communication Environment: A Qualitative Study , 1996 .

[42]  Charlotte N. Gunawardena,et al.  Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing , 1997 .

[43]  Linda M. Harasim,et al.  Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment , 1990 .

[44]  Roger C. Schank.  Horses for courses , 1998, CACM.

[45]  Laura J. Christensen,et al.  The Linear Relationship between Student Reports of Teacher Immediacy Behaviors and Perceptions of State Motivation, and of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Learning. , 1998 .

[46]  Jay David Bolter,et al.  : Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology , 1993 .

[47]  Diane M. Christophel.  The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning , 1990 .

[48]  Karol I. Pelc,et al.  The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks , 1996 .

[49]  Marilyn Deegan,et al.  Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing , 1993 .

[50]  V. Richmond.  Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation , 1990 .

[51]  P. Kearney,et al.  Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes , 1985 .

[52]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Computer-support for collaborative learning: learning to support student engagement , 1999 .

[53]  M. Danchak.  Presence in Mediated Instruction : Bandwidth , Behavior , and Expectancy Violations , 2001 .

[54]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  As we may think , 1945, INTR.