The Struggle for Community and Content

in Virtual Learning Communities

Richard A. Schwier
Mary E. Dykes
University of Saskatchewan

Paper presented at Ed-Media 2004, World Conference on Multimedia and Hypermedia

Lugano, Switzerland, June 25, 2004

Abstract

This paper reports a three-year case study of online communication strategies in a graduate seminar and extends
preliminary findings from the first two years of the study (Schwier & Balbar, 2002; Dykes & Schwier, 2003). It
discusses how different combinations of synchronous and asynchronous communication strategies were
implemented in a graduate-level course, and examines how implementation strategies influenced the balance of
community and content in the course.

Introduction

There is no shortage of advocates for virtual communication in traditional and flexible learning in higher education
(Burge, 2000; Cohill, 1997; Willis, 1994). There are also some voices of dissent (Boehle, 2000; Brook &
Boal,1995; Fabos & Young, 1999), and those who specify the conditions under which online learning is likely to be
successful or unsuccessful (Bates, 2000; Kowch & Schwier, 1998; Moller, 1998; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). But few
describe and examine the contextual experiences and impressions of learners and instructors with the use of
synchronous and asynchronous communication strategies. Our goal in this paper is to help fill this gap by
examining the use of asynchronous communication strategies, and compare them to synchronous communication
strategies. The experiences documented in this paper range over a period of three years in a graduate seminar
course.

Previous research into learning in online discussions has used quantitative research methods for analyzing and
classifying individual text messages to measure or assess student participation, interaction, and levels of thinking
(Bullen, 1997; Howell-Richardson & Mellar, 1996; Ruberg, Moore & Taylor, 1996). Other studies based on
qualitative methodology (Burge, 1994; Burge, Laroque & Boak, 2000; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Stacey, 1999)
use data from interviews with students and instructors to describe and analyze learning. Kanuka and Anderson
(1998) describe student postings as a potentially incomplete indication of learning. "It should be noted that
individual participants might be processing information internally in a reflective manner but not sharing these
thoughts with other participants" (p. 69). The reflections of the instructor and teaching assistants in this paper are
intended to provide examples of practical theory (Marland, 1997) within social constructivist pedagogy. Burge,
Laroque and Boak (2000) encourage instructors and researchers to include reflective descriptions of practice and
strategies used in online instruction. "We believe that it is time now to encourage the writing of intra-personally
reflective and frank records of our experience with Web-Based practice" (p. 82).

Case Design and Context

The case study follows three years of online communication experiences of a group of students in Educational
Communications and Technology as they participated in a seminar on the foundations of educational technology.
Specifically, we wanted to catalog student and instructor experiences and reflect on several lessons we learned as
instructors about how online communication strategies could be manipulated to enhance the learning environment.
In addition, we wanted to consider whether a balance between content and community could be achieved with a
combination of asynchronous and synchronous online events.

Several sources of data inform the ideas presented in this paper. Observations were drawn from the reflections of the
instructor and the teaching assistants in the seminar, and from a review of logs for all of the asynchronous and
synchronous activities. The logs effectively covered three years of instruction and provide verbatim records of each
online event. The instructor and assistants also kept informal journals of their observations during each year.
Following the completion of the course, and after marks were posted, student volunteers and the instructor were
asked to participate in interviews conducted by the teaching assistant, and these data were used to confirm, challenge
or qualify the observations.

Overview of Content and Delivery

In the three years included in this case study, the course, instructor and basic structure of the course remained
constant. In each year, the content was equivalent, and the course included a combination of online instruction and
monthly face-to-face meetings of the group. Content delivery in years one and two occured primarily in the monthly
face-to-face sessions. In year three, much of the content of the course was delivered in online talking head lectures
with accompanying PowerPoint slides. Online events in all three years used WebCT™ course tools for
communication, which included text-based synchronous chat sessions or text-based asynchronous threaded
discussions. The content of the course and its basic structure remained relatively constant. During the three years
we purposefully altered the online communication strategies used in the course, and we made adjustments to the
timing of online events to examine the relative effectiveness and influence that various configurations of
communication strategies would have on the learning environment.

Discussions: Year 1

During the 2000-2001 academic year, a group of seven graduate students, a teaching assistant and an instructor
emphasized the use of synchronous communication (chat) over asynchronous communication (threaded
discussions). Every topic with the exception of one was dealt with in a synchronous, text-based chat session. The
chat sessions were held weekly and lasted approximately one hour. The results of that experience were reported by
Schwier and Balbar (2002). In summary, synchronous online communication was found to have significant
pedagogical benefits. Synchronous online communication contributed dramatically to the continuity and
convenience of the class, and promoted a strong sense of community. At the same time, it was viewed as less
effective than asynchronous communication for dealing with content and issues deeply, and it introduced a number
of pedagogical and intellectual limitations. Asynchronous activities, on the other hand, seemed to promote more
depth and reflection about issues, but lacked some of the community-nurturing benefits of the chat sessions.

We initially concluded that synchronous and asynchronous strategies were suitable for different types of learning,
and what we experienced was a balancing act between content and community in our group (Schwier & Balbar,
2002). A combination of synchronous and asynchronous experiences seemed to be necessary to promote the kind of
engagement and depth required in a graduate seminar. But from this single experience, we weren’t able to draw any
conclusions about where the fulcrum should be positioned in order to promote the balance we sought.

Discussions: Year 2

During the 2001-2002 iteration of the course, twelve graduate students and one professor from a neighbouring
university registered in the course. Online discussions were shifted from primarily synchronous to an equal number
of asynchronous and synchronous events. Each online topic in the course included both synchronous and
asynchronous events. The normal pattern for online discussion of each topic was to post to bulletin (asynchronous)
in the first week then meet in a chat room (synchronous) the second week to discuss themes that emerged from the
bulletin. We found after the first session that the entire group was too large to conduct an effective discussion in
synchronous format, so two sessions were scheduled for the remaining chat sessions, and students were permitted to
select the session that fit their schedules. Findings from the second year of the case study were reported by Dykes &
Schwier (2003). In summary, the majority of participants strongly preferred asynchronous communication to
discuss content. Eventually some participants looked forward to the follow up chat sessions to add understanding or
briefly share professional experiences relating to the topic of discussion. Community formed partially around
content and partially around shared understanding. Some students at an advanced stage in their programs found a
richer experience when discussing topics with learners at the same stage.

Discussions: Year 3

During the 2003-2004 version of the course, eleven graduate students enrolled in the course, and the format of the
online events was altered to use asynchronous events exclusively. The pattern we followed was to post an
introduction, assigned readings and questions for a topic and require a posting from each student. Then each student
was asked to respond to at least two postings from other students. All activities were completed within a week, so
this resulted in nearly twice as many topics as the previous year. Student and instructor experiences are described
and compared to the previous two years below.

Selected Findings

Data from the third year were combined with results reported from year one (Schwier & Balbar, 2002) and year two
(Dykes & Schwier, 2003) to understand contributions of synchronous and asynchronous events to the development
of community and to learning. A number of discrete conclusions were drawn from the first two iterations of this
study, but this paper will primarily concentrate on findings from year three, and how they qualify earlier findings.

It is evident that a real sense of community can be fostered in asynchronous virtual environments, and it is possible
to nurture genuine collaboration out of “real time” engagement. Development of community is not necessarily fast-
tracked by the use of synchronous communication, as we initially suspected after the first year of the study, nor is
content engagement related only to asynchronous environments as found in the second year. Rather, the
development of community in both environments appears to be related to the meaningful, collaborative engagement
of learners with each other and with content. We found that content and community co-exist in both asynchronous
and synchronous environments.

We did note that asynchronous discussions promoted a deeper engagement of content. We suspect that this was due
to two circumstances:
1. students had ample time to think about the questions posed, and they were able to spend more time thinking
through a posting before making it; and,
2. students did not feel pressed to respond quickly to other students' postings, but they were required to
respond to some of them.

Content and Community

We suspect that exposure to new content challenges students to construct novel arguments and test them internally
before making them public—a sort of intellectual quality assurance program. Synchronous communication brings a
higher level of urgency to discussions and allows less time for quality assurance tests, and so it promotes sharing
ideas that are untested. We call this the “principle of intensity.” Despite the challenge this presents to learners,
intensity is an important feature of successful synchronous and asynchronous events alike. We found that
synchronous events created an aura of urgency due to the intensity of the experience and the dynamic nature of
exchange among participants—interpersonal intensity. But it was also possible to promote intensity in asynchronous
events through the content; the skillful choice of reading material and provocative questions led to strong and
intense exchanges, even when they were “out of time.”
We suspect the delivery of content online in the third year nourished a feeling of intensity. Students were advised to
consider key questions about a topic, read selected material on the topic, then view the online talking head lecture.
In the online lectures the instructor’s goals were to make topics come alive for his student audience and to encourage
a critical approach to the discussion of topics. Students, with some prior knowledge of the topic from the readings,
were invited to observe their instructor's engagement with key questions in the discipline and respond with similar
intensity in the discussions.

Content was identified as one of the most important features of a virtual learning community. It was given greater
importance by students in the third year than in previous iterations of the course, supporting the idea that
asynchronous events support content. But the surprise was that students identified content as very important to the
development of a sense of community in the class. Content was identified as one of the key features students would
look for in future online courses. So it is apparent that students expect to receive substance in courses. If a course (or
discussions for that matter) focus on issues with little substance or importance to the course, they will probably be
less successful.

While strong content was appreciated, it did introduce the question of cognitive load. The addition of regular,
structured online learning activities and discussions inflated the amount of work in the course. Students reported that
the additional course content came at a very real cost to them. The content load increased the pressure on students.
In response, students developed strategies for dealing with the workload, one of which is to connect with other
members of the community. Another strategy was to emphasize the content that was dealt with in discussions, and
sacrifice some of the content that was housed in readings and streamed lectures. In other words, they concentrated
first on content that they were required to use in a public forum.

In order to reduce cognitive load and still deal with the course content, students suggested that they preferred to have
discussions on topics that reinforced content in the class. In other words, topics in modules and topics in discussions
should be similar and discussions should reinforce the content and readings of modules, not introduce additional
topics. Students looked to discussions to elaborate or provide depth to their understanding of what they deemed to be
"course content" and felt that dealing with related topics helped sharpen understanding.

But what comprises actual content? Are discussions content or assignments? One student stated that when
discussion topics differed from module content, he missed talking about the "meat" of the class. Another student, on
the other hand, replied that "I consider the discussions to *be* the meat of the course. I need to experience ideas and
beliefs colliding and reacting. The readings gave us something to talk about, but were they the main reason for
talking?" Most students preferred to discuss the module topic. When discussion topics and module topics were the
same, students tended to view discussions as content rather than assignments.

Social Engagement and Community

In addition to the content-related community, there was strong evidence of social community in the group, and the
two types of community overlapped. As a general observation, the synchronous chats in year one exhibited the
highest degree of informality and social behaviour during discussions, but the mixed approach in year two and the
asynchronous approach in year three also generated a significant amount of social behaviour. In years two and three
we observed over time a growing comfort and informality emerge in the asynchronous discussion treatment with
both students and instructors sharing information about cultural issues and other events in their lives in discussion
postings.

Clearly, opportunities for informal conversation and social gatherings outside of formal class time and online
discussions played an important part in forming a sense of community in the course. Social aspects of a class, such
as having lunch or chatting during coffee breaks become traditions in classes, and a certain amount of tradition and
ceremony seems to be important. In fact, one student suggested that attendance at the lunches should be made
compulsory. At the same time, students began to talk to each other outside of class meeting times, particularly when
they knew each other from other classes or contexts. Students also acknowledged that they were aware that others
might want to have more privacy. There seemed to be a negotiation of the level of connection, and it was based on
personality as well as shared interests. And it appears that the social involvement among students included more
than social talks. There was a place for discussing class content and progress in the class. People reported that virtual
friendships and respect emerged, and there was a great deal of resource sharing through the website as a result.

We suspect that the increased comfort level was also strongly influenced by the infrequent, but regular, face-to-face
(f2f) meetings of the group. In the third year participants made several comments about the importance of f2f in
forming and maintaining community online. They 'met' online much more frequently than f2f, and it was interesting
to see how the two approaches reinforced each other. Online discussions were continued in f2f sessions and f2f
sessions offered a level of familiarity that supported online discussions. The overall effect was additive, regardless
of the type of online communication strategy we employed.

Because face-to-face sessions in the class were critically important to the development of community in the class,
there is every reason to suspect that many of these findings were mediated by the simple fact that the group met on
several occasions. Even the virtual face-to-face sessions (two-way videoconferencing) in year two had a strong
influence on developing a sense of community among the students and instructors. While it may be possible to
build virtual learning communities in entirely distributed and text-based environments, we suspect it would be much
more difficult to accomplish than it was in a mixed mode class.

General Observations about Community

Once a community has formed, it evolves. An instructor hopes this evolution is marked by intellectual growth, and it
often is. As strong communities mature, participants are more comfortable to express themselves, conversations
become more personal and less formal, and participation becomes habitual. Interpersonal relationships become more
intimate and trust grows.

In the third year, students explicitly identified trust as a factor in the development of academic community. Fear of
criticism by some, and the perception of being critical by others was reduced or removed with the growth of trust.

As senior scholars in a graduate program students are expected to lead seminar discussions in many of their courses.
Our program emphasizes a social constructivist orientation. We felt that the same expectation should be made of
students in the conduct of online discussions, so they were assigned the responsibility of moderating discussions
with a team member.

Participants volunteered comments about the team moderating activity. They had mixed experiences with team
moderating in this course. The team moderating activity was not always positive, mainly because the partner did not
participate as fully as expected or share responsibilities equally.

But there was evidence that the act of moderating a discussion improved learning for the moderators. Participants
commented on deeper learning in the moderator role, and that they more carefully read documents being discussed.
The positive experiences were also based on the process of moderating. Participants commented positively on the
process of moderating and sharing the work of responding to postings. But previous experiences with academic
group work were frequently not positive, partly because of assessment, and some of that experience coloured their
predispositions to these activities.

One participant commented on the uneven response to postings in discussions. Some students' comments attracted
more response than others. We thought this might be partly explained by late postings to discussion boards -
students might already be putting efforts into the next topic. But a close inspection of the postings by one student
who attracted fewer responses suggested that these postings were among the strongest made by the class. Is it
possible that other students were impressed with the statements and had little elaboration to offer? Were other
students intimidated by the quality of these postings? We can only speculate from the data available, but it is clear
that students notice disparate responses in groups, and they are a cause for concern.

Plurality may take on a particular shade of meaning in a formal VLC by drawing principally from other formal
learning environments for support. In other words, it could be that we think of supporting our work in one formal
learning environment by associating it with work in other formal learning environments. For example, discussions in
instructional design might be bolstered by formal study in organizational behaviour, but not by work experiences in
the fast food industry. Do informal or less formal communities have less to offer? Probably not. But there may be a
perception that it is important to "stay in the academy" with argumentation—that it is somehow improper to bolster
an academic argument with examples and ideas drawn from outside the academic arena. In year three, students
were asked if their experiences in other communities influenced their actions in the course community. There was
no clearly identified theme among responses. We suspect however that the experience in this virtual learning
community will influence the actions of students in future iterations of the course.

Conclusion

In a blended, or mixed mode delivery of courses, it is possible for students to quickly form a virtual learning
community that is firmly anchored in content with the use of asynchronous discussions. The "principle of
intensity," or strong engagement and motivation, may be promoted in asynchronous discussions with the use of
provocative questions and structuring interaction between students. When the instructor's role in the delivery of
content is not confined to face-to-face sessions, and when the instructor's 'voice' is linked with content delivered
online, intensity may be increased. But the overall development of community and its effectiveness in promoting
learning happens over time and is founded to some degree on social engagement and the development of trust.

References

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boehle, S. (undated). My exasperating life as an online learner. Retrieved August 15, 2000 from
http://www.trainingsupersite.com/publications/magazines/training/006cv3.htm
Brook, J., & Boal, I.A. (1995). Resisting the virtual life: The culture and politics of information . San Francisco:
City Lights Books.
Bullen, M. (1997). A case study of participation and critical thinking in a university-level course delivered by
computer conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: the learners' perspective. Journal of Distance
Education, 9(1), 19-43.
Burge, E.J., Laroque, D., & Boak, C. (2000). Baring professional souls: Reflections on Web life. Journal of
Distance Education, 15(1), 81-98.
Burge, L. (2000). The strategic use of learning technologies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohill, A.M. (1997). Success factors of the Blacksburg Electronic Village. In A.M. Cohill and A.L. Kavanaugh
(eds.), Community networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia (pp. 297-318). Norwood, MA: Artech
House.
Dykes, M.E., & Schwier, R.A. (2003). Content and community redux: Instructor and student interpretations of
online communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2), 79-
99.
Fabos, B., & Young, M.D. (1999). Telecommunication in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of
Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.
Howell-Richardson, C., & Mellar, H. (1996). A methodology for the analysis of patterns of participation within
computer mediated communication courses. Instructional Science, 24, 47-69.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord and knowledge construction. Journal of
Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
Kowch, E., and Schwier, R.A. (1997). Considerations in the construction of technology-based virtual learning
communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(1), 1-12.
Marland, P. (1997). Towards more effective open and distance teaching. London: Kogan Page.
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 46 (4), 115-122.
Paloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online
classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ruberg, L.F., Moore, D.M., & Taylor, C.D. (1996). Student participation, interaction, and regulation in a computer-
mediated communication environment: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
14, 243-268.
Schwier, R.A. and Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous
communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, 28(2), 21-30.
Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 14-33.
Willis, B. (1994). Distance education: Opportunities and challenges. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation and contributions of graduate students in the courses employed
in this study.
This study was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.