Download abstract - University of Leeds

Spirit, Trust, Interaction and Learning: A Case Study of an Online Community
of Doctoral Students
Elizabeth Barrett, Sheffield Hallam University
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh,
11-13 September 2003
ABSTRACT
Flexible doctoral programmes, such as the professional doctorate, have developed
alternative ways of supporting doctoral level study including the use of cohort-based
approaches to teaching and the use of online learning. This paper focuses on the role
of the online community through a case study of a cohort of learners on a professional
doctorate programme.The concept of community is examined using Rovai's four
dimensions of community: spirit, trust, interaction and learning (Rovai, 2000). There
was evidence, in this study, of the development of community spirit and trust within
the cohort of doctoral students through the use of online learning; however this was
observed only within a small group of students and half the cohort were not part of
this process. Similarly, online interaction and learning tended to take place amongst a
small sub-group of students rather than across the whole cohort. It is suggested that
the development and maintenance of an online community of learners, within the
framework of doctoral-level study, must be regarded as a central challenge.
1
1. Communities of Practice
A number of positive outcomes have been related to sense of community among
learners. Strong feelings of community are said to increase access to information, and
to promote support, commitment, cooperation and satisfaction between learners
(Rovai, 2000). Communities of practice are therefore considered to be potentially
advantageous to both learners (who may benefit academically, socially and
emotionally from such peer contact) and teachers (for whom the community offers an
additional mechanism for supporting and tutoring students).
Most attempts to define the concept of community are based upon ideas of belonging
and shared commitment. McMillan and Chavis regard 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'. (McMillan and Chavis, 1986, p.9). Wenger, meanwhile, suggests that
the process of becoming a community involves mutual engagement (expectations
about how to interact); accountability to the enterprise (shared understanding of the
community); and the negotiation of meaning (understanding, interpretation and
development of community practices) (Wenger, 1998). Based on recent studies of
community (Hill, 1996; Rheingold, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1994; Bielaczyc and Collins,
1999) Rovai suggests that dimensions of community are setting-specific and that, in
educational settings, communities are based on spirit, trust, interaction and learning
(Rovai, 2001, p.107).
Spirit is the recognition of membership of the community through friendship and
connectedness; its opposite is non-involvement, lack of motivation and drop out.
2
Trust involves credibility (members of the community can be relied on) and
benevolence (members of the community care about other members of the
community) and it is this that allows members to feel safe and to offer each other
feedback and support. Rovai's third key feature of community, interaction, is both
educational and social; socio-emotional material has a particular role to play in terms
of building trust and spirit, notes Rovai, and is necessary if task-oriented material is to
be possible. Finally, learning is a key feature of community as it reflects the
commitment to a common educational purpose and is therefore part of the social
practice of the community (Rovai, 2000).
Reflecting on the nature of an online community, Wellman argues that when
community is viewed as what people do together, rather than where or how they do
them, the concept of community becomes separated from geographical factors
(Wellman, 1999). Sunderland, meanwhile, suggests that the provision of online
learning can address the temporal as well as the geographical gap (i.e. the
asynchronous nature of the medium responds to a community of learners who study
sporadically as well as live far apart) and thus help lower drop out rates by creating a
sense of community among people who may otherwise feel psychologically separate
(Sunderland, 2002, p.234).
Rovai notes that: 'educators who perceive the value of social bonds in the learning
process must reconceptualise how sense of community can be stimulated in virtual
classrooms, particularly in computer-mediated learning environments' (Rovai, 2000,
p.286). He acknowledges the particular difficulties of supporting interpersonal
relationships when non-verbal cues, and other traditional supports to communication,
3
are missing. However, Rovai suggests that: 'Studies of online communities show that
members of such communities exhibit behaviours that are associated with the
traditional concept of community' (Rovai, 2001, p.109).
In considering whether a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) can be used to support
teaching and learning on a Professional Doctorate, the research reported here
addresses the issue of community, and the contribution that this may or may not make
to the experiences of doctoral students. The notion of community among a group of
doctoral students is examined in relation to the four elements of community - spirit,
trust, interaction and learning - proposed by Rovai.
1.1. A Community of Doctoral Students?
Within the social sciences, doctoral students rarely work as part of a team and contact
with other research students can be minimal. Although the provision of structured
research training within the social sciences brings doctoral students together, such
core courses cannot be said to foster a community in the sense of constructing shared
goals, history, commitment to goals, or recognisable community boundaries. Deem
and Brehony ask 'whether the social science approach needs to be as isolating as some
students experience it' and suggest that 'creating the living and working conditions
which facilitate a less individualised and more inclusive environment is vitally
important.' (Deem and Brehony, 2000, p.162).
There have been a number of recent developments in the provision of doctoral-level
education in the UK (for example the 'NewRoute PhD' and 'PhD Plus') reflecting an
awareness that: 'the traditional doctorate may not provide the most appropriate pattern
4
of study for the wider group of students who wish to pursue doctoral research in the
twenty-first century' (Lunt, 2002, p.3). Perhaps the most significant development in
the UK is the Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD) which is now offered by a
growing number of University Departments of Education in the UK. On a number of
professional doctorate programmes, a cohort-based approach is adopted to the
recruitment and teaching of students.
The UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) defines the Professional
Doctorate as:
A programme of advanced study and research which, whilst satisfying the
University criteria for the award of a doctorate, is designed to meet the
specific needs of a professional group external to the University, and that
develops the capability of individuals to work within a professional context.
(UKCGE, 2002, p.62)
Professional Doctorates, the UKCGE observes, have developed ways of supporting
learning which 'recognise that learning at the highest levels may not be best facilitated
by conventional teaching, and that other forms of directed and guided study are of
considerable value'. (UKCGE, 2002, p.15) One way forward for the Professional
Doctorate, and indeed for other flexible doctoral routes, may be the use of online
learning.
5
2. A Case Study Community: The EdD at Sheffield Hallam University
The EdD at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) consists of three phases, the first two
of which comprise the taught elements of the Doctorate. During the two taught phases
of the programme, students take four study units requiring class contact of 40 hours
each. Online learning is built into the EdD programme in a 'blended' or 'distributed'
way, i.e. it is used in combination with face-to-face contact with students.
The Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) being used at SHU is Blackboard, a VLE
that offers a range of tools to students and tutors via the Internet. These tools include
information services, communication services, assessment services and content
management tools. Perhaps the most powerful facilities in Blackboard are the
communication services; these allow tutors to create discussion forums within which
conversations can take place between some or all of the students who are registered
on the VLE. The 'conversations' can take place asynchronously (i.e. students do not
have to be using the VLE simultaneously) through the posting of messages to selected
discussion forums. In this way, whole-group or small-group discussion can be
supported. Blackboard is being used in the following ways on the EdD programme:

Information Services A range of documents is available to students via
Blackboard; these include programme regulations, unit specifications, staff and
student information and programme and unit schedules.

Communication Services Students can use personal and group email facilities
from within Blackboard and have access to a range of whole and small group
6
discussion forums. These include a chat forum and a range of dedicated
programme-focused and task-oriented forums.

Content Management Students can access course materials (e.g. slides and notes
from taught sessions) from Blackboard as well as a range of supplementary
literature and materials. Assignment specifications and guidance are also
available on Blackboard, as well as generic study materials (for example
concerning writing assignments and conducting literature reviews).
The use of Blackboard on the EdD at Sheffield Hallam was intended to increase the
opportunities for dialogue within the programme and to allow programme materials to
be flexibly used by members of the course. As noted above, doctoral-level study is
typically an isolating experience and we were interested in whether an increase in
opportunities for dialogue online might contribute usefully to the socio-academic
experience of being a part-time distance-learning EdD student.
Moore has argued that the dependent learner needs structure and the self-directed
learner needs dialogue (Moore, 1991). The self-directed learner, it is suggested, will
resent too much structure while the dependent learner will resent not enough. There
thus needs to be a match in provision between learner needs and the opportunities for
structure and dialogue; if there is a mismatch, then both sense of community and
learning will suffer. The challenge for the tutor, in this environment, is to facilitate a
course that accommodates all learners' needs. Lepper and Chabay, however,
acknowledge that: 'It is unlikely that any choice of level of control will be optimal for
7
all students, or even that the same level of control will be optimal for a single student
for all activities or in all situations.' (Lepper and Chabay, 1985, p.266)
2.1. Research Methods
The research reported here is a case study of one cohort of students (N=17) on the
EdD Programme at SHU. The cohort of EdD students is comprised of ten women and
seven men. The majority of students are based in the UK; three students are from
Eire, two are from Zimbabwe and one is from Pakistan. The age profile ranges from
early 30s to late 50s. The majority of students on the EdD programme (12) are
teachers from a range of disciplines within the Higher Education sector. Other
students work within the secondary school or voluntary sectors. When asked (as part
of a questionnaire survey) why they had chosen a part-time professional route to a
doctorate all respondents (N=12) reported that it was 'because it was more structured
than a conventional PhD route' and eight of the students preferred it because it was
'less isolating than a conventional PhD.'
The research project is tracking these students through the taught phases of the EdD
Programme and into the final dissertation phase. The data reported here were
collected between April 2002 and August 2003 and was conducted using the
following methods and approaches:

A Needs Analysis Questionnaire distributed to students at the point of enrolment
on the programme. (N=17)
8

Evaluation Questionnaires on the use of Blackboard on the EdD, distributed to
students on completion of each unit of the programme. (N=12)

Messages posted to the discussion forums within Blackboard by students and
tutors (April-May 2003), analysed by frequency (number and length of message)
and, using categories derived from the data, by type (content). (N=17)
3. Spirit and Trust in the Online Community: social presence
Rovai has developed sophisticated instruments for measuring the strength of online
communities through self-report data from students (Rovai, 2001, p.111). The
instruments, consisting of Likert-scale items exploring the key dimensions of
community, allow the strength of a community to be calculated from the scored items.
Such an approach was considered inappropriate for the current research, given the
small student numbers involved. However, the four key dimensions of community
identified by Rovai - spirit, trust, interaction and learning - are used to structure
discussion of the online behaviour of this cohort of EdD students.
3.1. Community Spirit
Spirit, according to Rovai, is the recognition of membership of the community
through friendship and connectedness (the opposite of this is non-involvement, lack of
motivation and, ultimately, student drop-out). The connectedness and involvement of
students in the online community may be evaluated through the feelings they report
about their membership of the group, but may also be measured by their involvement
in the community, i.e. their participation online.
9
The size of networked communities in VLEs is critical; too few group members will
generate little interaction and too many members may generate a sense of being
overwhelmed. In order to secure full and active student participation, it is suggested,
the online community should accommodate technical anxieties and provide
opportunities for all students to participate within a 'safe' framework (Harasim et. al.,
1995; Hiltz, 1994, Lally and Barrett, 1999). Although the group size for the research
reported here is at an optimum level for online learning, lead-in time to allay technical
anxieties was minimal given the course schedule.
As well as critical characteristics of structure and process such as group size and
technical support, full student participation is dependent upon the balance between
academic and social discourse, and the nature and timing of online events. Students on
the EdD course were provided with a space for socialising with each other ('chat
room') throughout the programme, as well as a number of task-focused discussion
areas linked to the programme units. These included 'conference' areas in which
students posted descriptions of their proposed research projects, as well as whole
group and small group discussion areas. The whole group areas supported general
discussion about the programme (for example issues raised by the taught sessions, by
students' reading and research, and by the assignments) while the small group areas
supported collaborative tasks required as part of the study units.
* FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE*
Figure 1 presents summary data describing the overall number of contributions, and
number of messages sent to the Blackboard discussion forums during Phase One of
10
the programme. The overall level of use of Blackboard is clearly linked to the online
activities organised as part of the study units; during unit one of the programme
(April-June 2002) in particular, small group collaborative tasks on Blackboard
enhanced student presence online. Outside the parameters of directed tasks, however,
student participation in open-ended discussion areas (such as the chat room) was
patchy and, towards the end of Phase One, drastically reduced.
Figure 2 describes the participation of individual students in the Blackboard
discussion groups. It is clear from figure 2 that individual orientation to Blackboard
varies considerably among the group, ranging from students who only complete the
minimum online course requirements to those whose presence online is regular. Four
students from the group of 17 could be described as regular contributors to
Blackboard, with a further four making occasional contributions and nine students
making only limited use of Blackboard. There is no correlation between participation
rate in Blackboard discussions and gender, occupation or geographical location.
*FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE*
There is no significant difference in overall male and female participation in
Blackboard in terms of the number or length of messages posted, although men and
women did demonstrate different patterns of participation in different discussion
contexts. The participation profile of individual students tended to remain more or
less steady throughout Phase One of the course (ie. during the year there was very
little change in student behaviour in terms of orientation to the VLE). Although the
patterns of student use of Blackboard did not change over time, students devoted less
11
time to the online community as the programme progressed. In questionnaire returns
made in July 2002, ten students reported that they spent over half an hour a week on
the Blackboard site. However, by the end of Phase One, questionnaire returns
suggested that most students visited the Blackboard site once a fortnight or less (only
four students claimed to access it twice a week or more). There appeared to be general
satisfaction, however, with these very low participation rates. At the end of Phase
One, only three students claimed to be less than happy with the number of
contributions they made to Blackboard, and only one reported that they were unhappy
with the number of contributions made by other students and tutors.
The concept of participation in online learning environments cannot be understood
only through the posting of messages to discussion forums, however. Some students
read messages sent by other students although they do not post any themselves, and
some students use VLEs to access the information and content management services
provided there. All 12 students claimed to have participated in Blackboard at least
passively (i.e. to have read messages posted by other students) and questionnaire
returns suggested that this was the preferred mode of participation for most students.
For example, ten of the 12 students who responded to a questionnaire at the end of
Phase One claimed to have read messages posted by other students in the conference
forum and in the chat room. However, only five students had posted messages in the
chat room and only two students had responded to other students' posting in the
conference forum. Ten of the 12 students claimed to have accessed course materials,
assignment information and bibliographies from the Blackboard site, and reported that
they found these helpful:
12
Very helpful - papers get lost. Computers don't! (M); helpful - definitely for
p/t students and when off campus (F)
This might suggest that the majority of students in the group responded to the
structure (provision of materials and resources) rather than to the opportunities
provided for dialogue in Blackboard. It is supposed that it is the self-directing
students who welcome opportunities for dialogue, and the lack of participation in the
discussion forums by doctoral-level students is therefore something of a surprise.
However, when asked why they thought the chat forum had become so quiet after July
2002, the explanations offered by students focused on practical issues, rather than on
preferred approaches to learning.
We are all very busy people! (F); Perhaps those who normally use the
chat forum are busy collecting information for their small scale study
(F); Perhaps colleagues are too tired. (M); Commitments? time of
year, i.e. Christmas? (M)
Rovai argues that low levels of participation can be considered lurking and that this
threatens sense of community. Citing McKendree and Mayes (1977) who argue that
dialogue between learners can benefit lurkers who read the discussions, Rovai writes:
Admittedly, there is a measure of learning in such situations, but the low level
of participation itself is insufficient to provide sustained benefit to onlookers.
Additionally, active members of the community mistrust those who do not
13
participate, thereby affecting overall sense of community. (Rovai, 2000,
p.291)
Two students who claimed to be unhappy with levels of participation on Blackboard
referred to the lack of interest shown by other students:
I would like to use it more but have been rather put out by other students'
apparent lack of interest. (F)
...it can be frustrating in group tasks when other students don't/can't check bb
as regularly. (M)
In a questionnaire survey conducted at the end of unit one of the programme, students
were asked whether they felt that discussions on Blackboard were dominated by some
individuals. Eight students agreed that they were. Further comments, however,
suggested it was less about domination and more about lack of participation:
Perhaps 'dominated' is too strong - certainly there are many more
contributions from some individuals. I would like to see more from all
students, rather than less from some. (M)
Yes but I don't think this is a problem. Some like it some don't. Those who do
use it. E-dominance is not the same as face to face dominance which would
be more likely to include bullying. (F)
14
The failure to draw all 17 students into the use of the VLE raises a number of critical
structural issues for the design and delivery of online learning at doctoral level.
Firstly if online learning is not a course requirement, and if assessment procedures do
not include online learning, then full participation is not likely to be achieved.
Secondly, the level of incorporation of online work into the programme will have an
impact on participation; Blackboard was used at SHU in a 'blended' or 'distributed'
way, i.e. it was combined with face-to-face work. The integration of the virtual and
non-virtual learning environments needs to be addressed if participation rates are to be
satisfactory. The role of the tutor in achieving acceptable participation rates should
also not be overlooked.
While the data reported here must be treated cautiously because of the small numbers
involved, the following observations about individual orientations to the VLE may be
drawn. With some significant exceptions, individual orientations to the VLE appeared
largely instrumental; students on the programme used Blackboard to access resources
and information; to clarify the assignment objectives; and to provide details of their
own research aims. However, a small group of students (between four and eight) were
more regular users of Blackboard and used the discussion forums in the VLE for more
varied purposes. It is among this sub-group of the cohort of students that a sense of
'community spirit' could be said to have emerged.
3.2. Community Trust
Edwards and Hammond stress that in an online community students need to trust each
other in order to risk sharing their ideas (and confusion) with each other (Edwards and
Hammond, 1998). Rovai, meanwhile, identifies feedback and support as one of the
15
key purposes of the online community (Rovai, 2000, p.295). Members of an online
community feel able to offer each other support if the community is one of trust, i.e. if
there are feelings of credibility (members of the community can be relied upon) and
benevolence (members of the community care about each other) within the
community.
A deliberate attempt was made, during Phase One of the programme, to encourage
students to share ideas and drafts with each other through a collaborative task (the
design and production of a research questionnaire) conducted within small learning
groups of 4-5 students each. Each group of students was provided with a dedicated
discussion forum on the Blackboard site through which, over a period of one month,
the group would meet online to negotiate and complete the task.
An analysis of online behaviour within the three small group forums suggested
differences in terms of individual orientation to the online task, as well as genderbased and group-based differences. The group-based differences, in particular,
concerned the willingness of students to share drafts with each other, and to respond
to each other's work. Within two of the three small groups, there was little exchanging
of drafts; only three messages (out of a total of 16 and 23 posted). In the third group,
however, 43 per cent of the total messages posted (ten out of 23) included the sharing
of drafts. The two groups which tended not to share drafts with each other adopted a
significantly different approach to the task; responsibility for separate sections of the
questionnaire they were designing were allocated to members of the group and
students worked individually on their allotted task, with little exchange or sharing of
16
ideas. By contrast, the students in the third group sought feedback from each other on
their individual contributions to the overall task.
Following Rovai's proposed indicators of trust within the online community, the
different approaches to the task reported here could indicate differences in the levels
of trust within the small learning groups. Given that collaborative group work forms a
significant part of online learning, this might suggest the need for trust to be
developed within sub-sets as well as across an online learning community. When
asking whether the provision of a VLE to students can promote a sense of group
identity and community, therefore, it is important to be aware that the participation
patterns of individual students will vary in an online community in the same way that
they do in a face-to-face community. Just as individual members of large face-to-face
learning groups develop smaller friendship groups from within these, similar patterns
of identity and community are likely to emerge in online environments. Thus where
provision is made for whole-group and small-group dialogue, and where opportunities
are provided for alternative methods of constructing community, any community of
learners will spawn a variety of smaller 'sub-communities'.
The complexity of organising opportunities to develop feelings of trust within a
variety of sub-sets of learners might indicate a need to construct fixed, rather than
fluid, learning sets. Clearly, however, this would imply the reduction of a cohortbased 'community of practice' to several smaller 'communities of practice' operating
within the framework of a larger cohort. In order to assess feelings of community, and
sense of trust, across the cohort of doctoral learners, students were asked whether they
felt they had a 'better knowledge and understanding of members of the EdD
17
programme as a result of using the Blackboard environment'. Eight out of 12 students
believed that they did.
I make assumptions based on contributions which I think give me a better
understanding. (M)
Of the 1/3 of the group who regularly contribute I can honestly say I have
gained some valuable insights into their personalities. (F)
Other students, however, did not think that the online environment had enhanced their
knowledge and understanding of members of the group:
I prefer 'face to face' - I find online discussion very
problematic/unsatisfactory. (F)
Things online are different - people act differently. (F)
Trust and spirit, Rovai suggests, are built through the sharing of socio-emotional
material, as well as through the exchange of task-oriented material (Rovai, 2001;
2002). There was evidence, in this study, of a small learning group approaching a
task within a framework of 'trust', as defined by Rovai; this was observed only within
one small group, however, and not across the cohort of students. A larger group of
students from the cohort appeared to have fostered a community 'spirit' through their
use of Blackboard for social activities; however, half the cohort were not part of this
process and were not integrated within the online community.
18
4. Interaction in the Online Community: social discourse
Rovai's third key feature of educational community - interaction - refers to both social
and educational discourse, i.e. to socio-emotional as well as task-oriented material. A
key strategy for the present study was to provide EdD students with 'places to play
and socialise on-line, as well as places to work' (Harasim, et. al., 1995, p.277).
It has been suggested that two key dimensions of online discourse play a critical role
in the construction of a community of learners: 'listening' (i.e. acknowledging
contributions made by other students) and socio-emotionality (i.e. the inclusion of
affective material) (Barrett and Lally, 1999, p.54) Harisim et. al. have argued that:
'computer-mediated communication is capable of supporting socio-emotional
communication as well as task-oriented communication; in fact, without personal,
emotional communication, the group will not be nurtured.' (Harisim et. al., 1995,
p.277).
The chat room, which was specifically intended to provide students with a space to
socialise and to build a sense of group identity, was the busiest of all the Blackboard
forums in terms of number of messages posted (see Figure 1). Of the 108 messages
posted to the chat room between March 2002 and August 2003, more than half (56)
contained some sort of greeting or acknowledgement of the group and 20 messages
contained additional social material, typically questions addressed to the whole group
(see Figure 3). Humour was also evident in a number of messages (16) and there was
some sharing of socio-emotional material (10) as well as a few specific appeals to a
sense of group identity (9).
19
I don't know what the received wisdom is on these things, but does anybody
fancy a spot of food/drink out somewhere on Saturday evening? (male)
As there appears to be a lack of response to being a course representative, I
have taken the opportunity to nominate myself!!! If anyone would like to buy
me a drink on the social night to say thank you I drink wine:)!!! (female)
I will be one too if required, but I have bigger drinks. (male)
I'll give you ten pounds to take my photo off [Blackboard] and replace it with
someone more gorgeous looking. (male)
I am burning for Friday morning and the game with Brazil. I cannot stand the
waiting. It is interfering with my interim tasks. (male)
*Figure 3 about here*
Many of the messages (41) were task-oriented in the sense that they offered
information and resources (22) or requested help (12) or information (7) from
members of the group. A large number of messages posted to the forum (55) were in
response to such requests and queries.
Hi Everyone, how are you doing? Does anybody know of a good resource on
autobiographical research methodology (no - this isn't a joke!). (female)
20
Try the bibliography section here on Blackboard [named person] (male)
A number of messages posted to the chat room made reference to the taught sessions
(24) or to the assignment (13).
After all our talk of Kinesics over the weekend, have a look at this clip of
comedian Peter Kay talking about the use of meaningless body language.
(male)
Actually I'm doing badly. I've just written the first draft of my assignment and
it's more than 15000 words long (it's only supposed to be 8 or 9 thousand
isn't it?). My mother was right - I am all mouth. So this week's effort is how
to remove 6000 of those words. (male)
If you've got 6000 words to spare I'll have them! I am really struggling with
covering 2 other jobs + my own + a life (sort of). I'm beginning to think I'll
have to join EXIT...I hope others are feeling less desperate! (female)
Sorting the items in Figure 3 into either task or socially-oriented communication
categories suggests that Blackboard tended to be used more for social than for
educational reasons. There were 169 postings of socially-oriented material but only 91
postings of task-oriented discussion; thus 65% of all coded material was classified as
social dialogue compared to only 36% task-oriented material. The data suggests that,
at least for some students, social dialogue on Blackboard has formed an important
part of their experience. Even in task-oriented forums, such as the ones set up for the
21
questionnaire-design activity, discussions between some students were characterised
by social dialogue and a sense of group identity:
[named person], you were up and working early! I’ve been thinking but not
really getting down to it...However – I do like this Blackboard thing – you do
feel as if you are in touch with others! (female)
Yes I like BBoard too, I feel part of a group even waving from this side of the
Pennines! (female)
Henri writes: 'high levels of socially-oriented messages may sometimes be a
disruptive element, distracting learners from the purpose of the communication; in
other cases, these messages can be supportive of the learning process'. (Henri, 1992,
p.127) Barrett and Lally note that while:
It is tempting to view the relationship between social exchange, interactivity,
cognitive skills and metacognitive skills/knowledge as essentially hierarchical
with social 'chat' located at the base of a pyramid which culminates in the
'higher order' skills of metacognitive thinking [In an electronic environment]
the relationship between social, interactive, cognitive and metacognitive
discourse and learning may be rather more complex.
(Barrett and Lally, 1999, p.54)
It could, for example, be the case that the sharing of socio-emotional material during
social interactions helps build the trust that Rovai identifies as being a necessary pre-
22
requisite for effective learning within the online community. However, in the present
study, only nine per cent (10) of messages posted to the chat room explicitly shared
emotional material.
Why? Why do I want to do this research??? Why do I want to know why black
children are failing? * Because I’m black * Because I’m black and educated
(therefore I know that one can be young, black and educated) * Because I am
the mother of a black boy (the worst performing group are black boys), and a
lovely black girl. Because of my own children, I BURN!!! (F)
Yates notes that there are gender-based differences in the purposes for which people
engage in linguistic interaction and suggests that men and women may seek different
educational goals from their interactions (Yates, 2001, p.23). She argues that:
The marking out of the boundary between 'legitimate' business or
informational content and illegitimate 'personal' content reflects a number of
complex social concerns. On the one hand they reflect social perceptions of
how CMC should be used and social perceptions about literate practice...as
well as perceptions of public and private communication. In many cases CMC
is clearly being defined as a male gendered, public, information-oriented
medium.' (Yates, 2001, p.25)
Some differences in male and female behaviour in the chat room are evident from the
data. Although women comprised 58% of the cohort (10 of the 17 members of the
group being female) they were responsible for only 38% (41) of mails posted to the
23
chat room. The seven male members of the cohort, meanwhile, were responsible for
62% (67) of the mails posted to the forum. The messages posted by men were more
likely to include a greeting or acknowledgement of the group than those posted by
women; 58% (39) of male messages but only 41% (17) of female messages included
such a group greeting.
Yates suggests that the nature of online communication, with its individualised social
interactions, may favour the forceful and aggressive communicative strategies usually
characterised as 'male'. She writes: 'As in the case of most face-to-face interactions
between mixed gender groups women have to take on male communicative practices
in order to gain access to the discourse.' (Yates, 2001, p.28) Rovai reflects that such
practices can have a significant impact upon the online community: 'The threat to
community', he notes, 'occurs when one or more students use an authoritative tone in
online discussions and those students who have a more inclusive style of discourse
feel put off and reduce their discussion participation' (Rovai, 2000, p.292). Belenky
et. al., meanwhile, identify two different communication patterns: a separate,
autonomous and independent male voice and a relational, connected and
interdependent female voice. Women, it is suggested, value cooperation rather than
competition and it is the connected voice that supports classroom community
building, while the separate voice does not (Belenky et. al., 1986).
There is some support in the data from the present study for this identification of male
and female voices. Of the 55 messages posted to the chat room explicitly
acknowledging an earlier posting, or responding/connecting in some way with a
previous message, 32 were sent by women. This means that 78% of female messages
24
posted to the chat room were 'relational, connected and interdependent' compared to
only 34% (23) of the messages posted to the chat room by men.
Henri writes:
The conceptual approach adopted for studying computer conferences must
allow for interactivity and for its absence as well. A conference without
interactivity would comprise a series of statements linked only by the theme or
subject under discussion - we would be faced with a collection of monologues
and one-way statements. (Henri, 1992, p.128)
51% (55) of all messages sent to the chat room could be described as 'interactive' in
the sense that they explicitly responded to other postings to the chat room. Student
and tutor presence in the chat room could therefore be described as a combination of
monologue and dialogue, with a balance of interactivity and non-interactivity. Henri
warns that assessing the levels of interactivity in an online environment can only
describe the learning process, not make judgements about it. The absence of
interactivity in a conference, he notes, should not be interpreted as a failure; some
students will learn from a conference, even if their participation in it is not interactive.
The point about interaction in terms of online communities, however, is that it is the
sharing of socio-emotional material that builds trust and spirit among group members.
As has already been observed, online interactions between students tended to take
place amongst a small sub-group of students rather than across the whole cohort.
Within this group, there was evidence of the sharing of socio-emotional as well as
25
task-oriented material, and this did appear to support the development of spirit and
trust within this small community of learners.
5. Learning in the Online Community
Learning - the fourth key feature of the online community - is considered to be part of
the social practice of the community in that it reflects commitment to a common
educational purpose. Although students engaged in doctoral-level study all share a
common educational purpose (acquiring a doctorate), as has already been observed,
conventional doctoral study can be experienced by some students as isolating especially in the social sciences. Furthermore, goal structures within such
programmes of study are typically individualistic rather than cooperative.
In using Blackboard on the EdD at Sheffield Hallam, we were hypothesising that a
cohort of students following a programme of study for a Professional Doctorate might
be more willing to engage in collaborative work than conventional PhD students.
Such a belief was based on the nature of the student profile (which implied a broader
range of learning styles and approaches to study) and on the learning outcomes of a
Professional Doctorate, which emphasised the production of context-bound
knowledge.
The ESRC Guidelines explicitly require evidence of collaborative research methods
training for both PhD and EdD students and their broad principle for the recognition
of professional doctorates includes the following: 'there should be evidence of the
cohort working with and learning from each other; if the cohort is small, evidence of
interaction with other research students in the institution should be demonstrated'
26
(Lunt, 2002, p.14). The ESRC Training Guidelines on research management and
team-working skills, meanwhile, suggest that: 'Students may...gain confidence if they
can make use of these skills in group work or workshops offered as part of the outlet's
formal research training programme'. (ESRC, 2001, p.16)
A number of authors have focused on the role of the group in shaping individual
cognitive processes. Salomon and Perkins (1998) suggest that, in a collaborative
learning system, alternative solutions are provided by team members and the selection
of the best one is a matter of negotiation. Knowledge, they write:
rather than being transmitted or internalised, becomes jointly constructed
('appropriated') in the sense that it is neither handed down ready-made nor
constructed by individuals on their own. Rather, knowledge, understandings,
and meanings gradually emerge through interaction and become distributed
among those interacting rather than individually constructed or possessed.
(Salomon and Perkins, 1998, p.9)
De Laat and Lally argue that an online community of learners offers a social context
in which knowledge may be understood as constructed by group members (De Laat
and Lally, 2003, p.14). Hudson, meanwhile, stresses that online learning:
is a collective process where partners enter into turn-taking roles both as
senders and as receivers, in which the product is a joint product, although put
together by individual contributions, where each individual's contribution is
dependent upon other influences. A dialogue can be considered as a co-
27
construction of ideas in which the result is a whole that is more than the sum
of the parts. (Hudson, 2002, p.5)
It has been suggested that: 'because the development of each individual in an on-line
learning community may be more dependent upon the community as a whole,
learning in an electronic environment may depend significantly upon group processes
and, in particular, notions of social cohesion and co-operation' (Lally and Barrett,
1999, p.154). Online learning, it is argued:
may be most appropriate when employed within a framework of co-operative
goal structure...when students can only obtain their goal if the other students
with whom they are linked can obtain their goal; in this environment, student
interaction becomes an integral part of the process of learning' (Lally and
Barrett, 1999, p.153).
Rovai, meanwhile, suggests that: 'Online education is inherently student-centred and
augmenting individual learning activities with small group activities promotes
learning, as well as sense of community by helping students make connections with
each other.' (Rovai, 2000, p.292)
A distinction may be drawn, here, between cooperative and collaborative work.
Cooperative work can be defined as work that is accomplished by the division of
labour among participants whereas collaboration involves the mutual engagement of
participants in coordinate effort to solve the problem together. (Hudson, 2002) Such a
distinction provides a useful way of understanding the different approaches taken by
28
students during small group work in the example already given (see section 3.2); two
of the three groups may be said to have adopted a cooperative approach towards the
task, while one of the groups approached the task collaboratively.
The terms cooperative and collaborative are, however, frequently used
interchangeably. It could, for example, be suggesed that the five elements of
cooperative learning identified by Johnson et. al. (1994) could equally be labelled
collaborative learning (see Figure 4). Their framework was therefore applied to the
transcript data from the small group task described in section 3.2 of this paper.
*FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE*
Similar instances (18 and 20) of collaborative learning were identified in the online
discussions of two of the three groups while the other group demonstrated fewer
examples of collaborative learning (11) (see figure 5). The transcript analysis using
Johnson's catagories indicates that while both groups two and three demonstrated
similar levels of overall collaboration, they each adopted different approaches to
collaboration. Group three, for example, demonstrated collaborative learning
strategies in each of the five dimensions, but were particularly good at processing the
group's functioning (8) and at providing feedback to each other (6), and less inclined
to seek other group members' opinions. Group two, meanwhile, drew equally on four
of the five elements of collaborative learning, balancing individual accountability to
the group with responsibility to the group (seeking other opinions; providing
feedback; processing group functioning).
29
*FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE*
Earlier in this paper it was suggested that one of the small groups appeared to
demonstrate higher levels of trust than the others (section 3.2.). The transcript analysis
on collaboration may suggest that this group (group two) were able to build such spirit
and trust through a balanced orchestration of the dimensions of collaboration
identified by Johnson. Discussion in group two continued after the collaborative task
had been completed and included a period of reflection among members of the group:
Well done guys for the splendid efforts we all put in to get the questionnaire
together. What did you think of the process and the way we worked? Did it
make sense to divvy up the work in the ways we did? How did you find the
bits that you were allocated? We can learn from this and the use of
blackboard as a medium to support each other don't you think?
congratulations to us all!!!!!!!!! (M)
The other group in this study (group one) demonstrated the lowest level of
collaborative learning using Johnson's categories. Although all five dimensions of
collaboration were identified in this group's postings, the incidence in each of the
categories was very low, particularly in terms of group processing (1) and
questioning, challenging and providing feedback to others (1). In this group, a male
member of the course tended to give instructions to the group about the task which
appeared to significantly influence group processes within the group. The student was
commited to using an instrument that he had designed and used for a previous study.
30
Here's a first piece of interesting questionnaire for us to ponder. (M)
I'd like to include the questions [from the questionnaire referred to in previous
message] as I can back these up with some decent theory and I'd like to see it
tested amongst people to see if it works again. It'll fill up 2 pages to say the
least. And we can cross reference loads of things against the results with
gender, race, orientation and so on. Luurvely! (M)
sounds fun but aren't questionnaires supposed to be short and snappy... (F)
In the event, this group did use the pre-existing instrument for the task, with the
addition of some more open-ended questions contributed by the female members of
the group.
Possible differences in 'voice' have already been noted and it has been suggested that
the female voice tends to be more empathetic and cooperative in tone. An absence of
collaborative learning approaches within a group of learners could result from the
presence of particular individual voices - which might tend to be masculine - within
the group. Again, this possibility raises questions about the construction of small
learning groups; the challenges involved in organising groups to promote community
spirit and trust have already been noted and it is likely that the task of organising
groups in order to promote interactivity and learning is equally challenging.
31
6. Conclusion
De Laat and Lally conclude from their research into the dynamics of individual and
group behaviour in a virtual professional development environment that 'Group
learning is dependent on the individual contributions. These individuals have different
interests, agendas and abilities in regulating the individual as well as the group
learning processes'. (De Laat and Lally, 2003, p. 23) Certainly, the participation rates
reported in this study reflect the complexity of student motivation for the learning
environment: some students did not participate in either the social or learning
activities within the VLE; only half the students were judged to be positively oriented
towards Blackboard, generally; and only a quarter of students were described as
regular participants within the VLE. Although some students were active in taskoriented Blackboard discussions, others failed to participate in the small-group
collaborative activity online. As Rovai, and others, have noted, a sense of community
may offer several advantages to the learners who are part of it. This small study,
however, suggests that fashioning a sense of community amongst doctoral level
learners is not an easy task. As has been noted throughout this discussion, the
development of a sense of community appeared to be restricted to a small group of
students rather than to the whole cohort.
Furthermore, sustaining a sense of community appeared, in this small study, to be
precarious. The dramatic reduction in student use of Blackboard (see Figure 2), i.e.
the reduction of interactivity, and thus in community spirit and trust, partly reflects
the particular circumstances of senior professionals embarking on a demanding
programme of study alongside busy personal and professional lives. Participation in
an online community, in these circumstances, can become a low priority. However, it
32
is significant that, in this study, the reduction in interactivity coincided with the
withdrawal from the programme of four students, all of whom had been high users of
Blackboard. The community was, in fact, heavily dependent upon these individuals
who frequently triggered conversation and kept the chat room 'live' through their
presence. Rovai argues that the opposite of community trust is student dropout.
However, the circumstances of withdrawal for these particular students were highly
individual in each case and were not at all linked to a lack of feeling of belonging.
Indeed, one of the students (who transferred to a conventional PhD route) expressed
deep regret for the loss of the cohort and the online community that her choice
necessitated.
As well as the impact of key individuals, however, differences in tutor approaches to
the use of Blackboard may be seen to affect sense of community. The reduction in use
of Blackboard also coincided with a period when the site was not being used for
specific learning activities, i.e. students did not need to visit the site in connection
with the study weekends or their assignment work. To sustain a sense of community,
structured learning activities and opportunities need to be provided online; without
such shared purpose and motivation, interaction is not encouraged and community
spirit and trust is not nourished.
The difficulties of encouraging students to work together and to collaborate within the
framework of doctoral level study - where goal structures are individual rather than
cooperative - has already been noted. Rovai argues that: 'to encourage all learners to
access and participate in online discussions on a regular basis, learners should
understand that course participation is not only a course requirement, but is also a
33
graded component of the course'. (Rovai, 2000, p.291) Achieving the full
participation of EdD students through coursework that is non-assessed, within the
framework of individual doctoral-level study, must be regarded as a central challenge
to the development of online learning.
The social context for learning provided by a professional doctorate programme,
however, offers a framework for developing new approaches to doctoral-level study.
As Lunt writes, the EdD 'encourages innovative approaches to curriculum, pedagogy
and assessment, to the development of 'communities of practice' and to thinking about
forms of work-placed learning and higher professional development.' (Lunt, 2002,
p.18). However, further research is needed in the area of learning and teaching in
electronic learning environments before these opportunities may be fully exploited.
Williams poses some urgent questions including, for example: What learning
approaches do students adopt for learning on-line and does this tell us something
about the situations in which electronic learning is best employed? and Do we need
new theories to explain some of the complexities and subtleties of learning through
electronic media? (Williams, 2002, p.271). Additionally, however, we need to ask
how we can structure collaboration between students on programmes, such as those at
doctoral-level, which have not traditionally adopted such approaches to learning.
Correspondence: Dr Elizabeth Barrett, School of Education, Sheffield Hallam
University, 36 Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield S10 2BP. UK
34
References
Barrett, E. and Lally, V. (1999) Gender differences in an on-line learning
environment, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, pp. 48-60
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., and Tarule, J. (1986) Women's ways of
knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Bielaczyc, K. and Collins, A. (1999) Learning communities in classrooms: a
reconceptualization of educational practices, pp. 269-292, in Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Card, K.A. and Horton, L. (2000) Providing Access to Graduate Education Using
Computer-Mediated Communication, International Journal of Instructional Media,
27 (3), pp. 235-245
De Laat, M. and Lally, V. (2003) Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching
collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community,
Instructional Science, 31, pp. 7-39
Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2000) Doctoral Students' Access to Research Cultures are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25, 2, pp. 149-163
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2001) Postgraduate Training
Guidelines. Swindon: ESRC
35
Edwards, C. and Hammond, M. (1998) Introducing e-mail into a distance learning
course - a case study, Innovations in Education and Training International, 35 (4), pp.
319-328
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. (1995) Learning Networks: A Field
Guide to Teaching and Learning On-line. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Harris, R.A. and Niven, J. (2002) Retrofitting Theory to practice - a Reflection on the
Development of an e-Learning Community, pp. 243-247, in Banks, S., Goodyear, P.,
Hodgson V. and McConnell, D. (Eds), Networked Learning 2002: Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Networked Learning. Lancaster University and
University of Sheffield
Henri, F. (1992) Computer conferencing and content analysis, pp. 117-136, in Kaye,
A.R. (Ed) Collaborative Learning through Computer Conferencing (The Najaden
Papers). London: Springer
Hill, J.L. (1996) Psychological sense of community: suggestions for future research,
Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (4), pp. 431-438
Hiltz, S.R. (1994) The Virtual Classroom: Learning without Limits via Computer
Networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Hudson, B., Hudson, A. and Steel, J. (2002) Orchestrating interdependence in an
multinational virtual learning community, Paper to Intensive Programme oneLearning of Socrates Project EDIL
36
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A. (1994) Basic elements of cooperative
learning, pp. 317-324, in Feldman, K.A. and Paulsen, M.B. (Eds) Teaching and
learning in the college classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Grinn Press
Lally, V. and Barrett, E. (1999) Building a learning community on-line: towards
socio-academic interaction, Research Papers in Education, 14 (2) pp. 147-163
Lepper, M.R. and Chabay, R.W. (1985) Microcomputers in education: motivational
and social issues. American Psychologist, 20 (4), pp. 217-230
Lunt, I. (2002) Professional Doctorates and their contribution to professional
development and careers. ESRC project R000223643
McKendree, J. and and Mayes, J.T. (1977) The vicarious learner: investigating the
benefits of observing peer dialogues. Paper presented at Computer-Assisted Learning
Conference (CAL '97), Exeter, UK
McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. (1986) Sense of community: a definition and
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1), pp. 6-23
Moore, M.G. (1991) Distance Education Theory, DOESNEWS, 1, 25
Rheingold, H. (1991) The virtual community. New York: Summit
37
Rovai, A.P. (2000) Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning
networks, The Internet and Higher Education, 3, pp. 285-297
Rovai, A.P. (2001) Classroom community at a distance: A comparative analysis of
two ALN-based university programs, The Internet and Higher Education, 4, pp. 105118
Salomon, G. and Perkins, D.N. (1998) Individual and social aspects of learning,
Review of Research in Education, 23, pp. 1-24
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994) Building community in schools. New York: Jossey-Bass
Sunderland, J. (2002) New Communication Practices, Identity and the Psychological
Gap: the affective function of e-mail on a distance doctoral programme, Studies in
Higher Education, 27, 2, pp. 233-246
UK Council for Graduate Education (2002) Professional Doctorates
Wellman, B. (1999) The network community: an introduction to networks in the
global village, pp. 1-48 in Wellman, B. (Ed) Networks in the global village. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge: CUP
38
Williams, C. (2002) Learning On-Line: a review of recent literature in a rapidly
expanding field, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26, 3, pp. 263-272
Yates, S.J. (2001) Gender, language and CMC for education, Learning and
Instruction, 11, pp. 21-34
39