Extending Online Community beyond the Course Level

Over the past 14 years, students are increasingly enrolling in distance courses and programs. For example, there was a 5.6% increase in distance student enrollment in fall 2016 semester. The number of students who enrolled in at least one distance course climbed to 6,359,121, which represents 31.6% of all students at higher education institutions in the United States. Almost half of these students (47.2%) were enrolled entirely in distance courses (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Distance learning, particularly online learning, is here to stay.

Yet, student retention remains an area of concern, with dropout rates ranging between 10 to 50% (Angelino, Williams, & Natvig, 2007). Reasons for higher drop-out rates in distance courses include personal student characteristics, family support, employment, and so forth (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). However, online delivery also increases the possibility for miscommunication and feelings of isolation. To overcome the physical and psychological distance associated with online learning, researchers have focused on community development.

McMillan and Chavis (1986) defined community as a sense of membership, perceived value by others, fulfillment of individual needs, and shared emotional connections. Tu and Corry (2002) included instruction, social interaction, and technology in their theoretical framework for eLearning community. Social interaction occurs among course participants (e.g., instructors, students, support personnel), fosters engagement with activities and others, encourages peer collaboration, and facilitates learning. Thormann and Fidalgo (2014) and Rovai (2001) stated that community requires trust. Members must feel safe and supported to share and collaborate with others. We offer the following definition of online community:

A feeling of belonging, affiliation, purpose, and interdependence that exists among instructors and students as they collaborate and progress on shared learning goals and activities.

Numerous studies describe the benefits of online communities (see Angelino et al., Authors, 2004; Exter, Korkmaz, Harlin, & Bichelmeyer, 2009; Glazer, Breslin, & Wanstreet, 2013; Lear, Ansorge, & Steckelberg, 2010; Rovai, 2001; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). Researchers claim it is essential for students to experience community with peers and instructors. To support learning and success, students must interreact and communicate with others. They also need to feel connected with others; they need to perceive a sense of presence, belonging, and trust (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999; Glazer et al., 2013; Rovai, 2001). Students who feel connected to their program, department or university may be more determined to complete their program.

Online community building often occurs at the course level (e.g., Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). This focus is not accidental. According to Tinto (2006, 2012) courses act as the face of the institution. Course involvement represents the most frequent mode of bi-directional interaction between learners and the institution. This interaction helps learners to feel supported and to transition to the rigors of a degree program. 

However, community formation is not automatic. Instructors and learners share responsibilities for its formation and maintenance. Instructors must organize the course to promote collaboration and communication. They must be a part of the course, actively participating, exploring concepts, and guiding inquiry. At times they must direct conversation to maintain alignment with course goals but must also be flexible to identify and leverage individual goals and opportunities (Garrison et al., 1999; Glazer et al., 2013; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). Learners must also communicate personal goals, actively align their goals with course and program milestones, join community activities—even when unsure of the outcomes, and begin to interact and build trust with others (Authors, 2019, in press).

Faculty members leveraged the following methods to build course community: synchronous sessions; group sessions, discussions or social forums; integrating peer assistance, peer-teaching, or peer review; leveraging group assignments; using introductions and ice-breakers; and social media (Authors, 2019; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012).     

However, when courses conclude, community may dissipate (Exter et al., 2009; O’ Shea, Stone, & Delahunty, 2015). Course community has time-limited boundaries. This leaves instructors and students with the task of re-establishing course community each semester, a time consuming and difficult task for all involved. Community development also adds to the workload of faculty members who may not be compensated for its promotion in online environments (Authors, 2019). Thus, while course community is a beneficial element of online courses and programs, it may be insufficient for sustained affiliation and membership.

Models of student retention and success not only focus on the learner and instructor, but also on the program, institution, and surrounding environment (Lee & Choi, 2011; Shea & Bidjerano, 2014; Tinto 2006). Online community formation should also include these considerations and how to add institutional partners to support online learners’ goals. The added focus on community formation that takes part beyond course boundaries, is termed program community.  

We offer the following definition of Program Community:

A feeling of belonging, affiliation, purpose, and interdependence that exists among instructors, support staff, students, alumni, and friends of the program/university as they collaborate and progress on shared learning goals and activities.

Program community takes advantage of current and previous course efforts. Existing relationships formed in courses can be extended and nurtured, maintaining critical interactions between students and faculty members (Tinto, 2006, 2012). Yet, broadening community formation beyond course endeavors distributes involvement among others, allowing professionals not directly related to a specific course or program to be included in membership, and professional support networks that can continue beyond graduation. These partnerships may include library and writing services, employment and health counseling, professional networking, and so forth.  

Brigham (2003) was one of the first individuals who advocated for extending community beyond the course level by supporting programs with the necessary resources. He used four examples of peer networks at the college and program level that provided students with resources such a book exchange, student directory, and program and career information. These networks allowed students to join asynchronous and synchronous discussions, share accomplishments, and find study partners.

Strategies that have been used to build and sustain program community include: cohorts; electronic portfolios; open defenses; research and writing groups; orientations and workshops; streamed conferences, seminars, and webinars; group advising; in-person meeting and socials; meetings at sites near learner residences or places of work; and synchronous mid-semester check-ins. Off-site activities included attending professional conferences or engaging in joint research projects, attending professional development opportunities or sporting events, collaborating with program partners and businesses, placements in intern and externships, and support sessions with alumni (Authors, 2019).

Attendees will be invited to share their thoughts regarding the similarities and differences of program community, course community, and various community frameworks. Presenters will use an interactive question and answer session to engage participants and to arrive at definitions. The audience will be invited to share strategies they have utilized to develop and sustain social presence, community, trust, feelings of belonging and connectedness, etc. in both online courses and programs. Through this shared experience, together presenters and attendees will learn about definitions, theories, and strategies to support one best practice to support online learners.

Presenters will share a slideshow and provide a study-guide handout with initial definitions and strategies during this interactive Discovery Session. Attendees may add notes to the handout based on the shared perspectives and contributions of session participants.   

References

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2). Retrieved from https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2007_4_2/angelino_williams_natvig

Authors. (2004). [deleted for blind review]

Authors. (2019). [deleted for blind review]

Authors. (in press). [deleted for blind review]

Brigham, D. (2003). Building electronic communities for distance learners: Beyond the course level. In Reisman, S., Flores, J. G., & Edge, D. (Eds.), Electronic learning communities: Current issues and best practices (pp. 73-134). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Exter, M. E., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N. M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2009). Sense of community within a fully online program: Perspectives of graduate students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 177–194.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6 

Glazer, H. R., Breslin, M., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2013). Online professional and academic learning communities: Faculty perspectives. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3), 123–130.

Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 71–77. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/lear_0310.pdf

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6:: AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I

O’ Shea, S., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2015). “I ‘feel’ like I am at university even though I am online.” Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1), 41–58. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019970

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

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), 60-69.

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504946

Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, 103-111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009 

Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005

Thormann, J., & Fidalgo, P. (2014). Guidelines for online course moderation and community building from a student’s perspective. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 374–388. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no3/Thorman_0914.pdf

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19. doi:10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W

Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1–8. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.119

Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2002). E-learning community. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 207-218.