Creating Communities in Virtual Space

Donna Lee Fields, Ph.D.
Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación
January 2014

ABSTRACT

Creating successful online classes is more than the simple transference of lessons from the physical classroom to the virtual. It requires familiarization with online tools and the adjustment of educational methodology. Consciously designing a structure which will support and create a feeling of community for the all participants is the core to creating a safe learning environment for students. This paper will present ways in which we can combine online tools with consciously considered structures. The marriage of these elements will infuse the classes with humanity, and will give a physically separated group of students a sense of community.

I          INTRODUCTION online communities

According to data collected by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), public wireless networking technology worldwide more than doubled from 2009 to the present day (JiWire, 2013). As we approach the end of 2013 the number of world internet users has reached 2.5 billion, with predictions that by the year 2026 the numbers will surpass the 3 billion mark (Areppim, 2012). Roughly 30 percent of the world’s population between the ages of 15 and 24 – also called ‘digital natives’ –have been actively online for the past five years or longer (Murdoch, 2011), and more than 17.3 million students from 4 to 18 year olds were enrolled in online courses from 1990 to 2004 in the North America alone, with projections for an additional 15 percent increase – to 19.9 million students – by 2015 (Blake, 2013).

The digital domain has affected and transformed the world in dramatic ways, yet the methods of addressing these changes – above all in the sphere of education – have not kept pace with the inherent needs of this new field. Online classes require a philosophical perspective fundamentally different from that of the physical classroom. To ensure its viability and success, and with even more impunity than in the material realm,  instructors, administrators, and technological support teams of a virtual platform need to be able to communicate quickly and efficiently, educators must be willing to keep abreast of technological resources and advances, methodology must be considered and revised, and, above all, teachers need to find ways to simulate the warmth generated by the human presence in the physical classroom, to that of the virtual. Irrespective of whether teachers a) philosophically support virtual learning, b) object to the all-embracing stance the education community has generally taken regarding technology in the classroom, or c) bewail the loss of kinesthetic activities now being sublimated by touch screens, mobile phone applications, and web quests, they must accept the reality that educational tools are changing and that adaption to the new educational panorama is fundamental.

Already, interactive whiteboards are standard in the classroom environment, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) devices now track students’ movement and work (AT&T, 2008), desks themselves are now computer screens (see Samsung SUR40 technology for Microsoft Surface), electronic books have replaced printed texts on beginning of the year student supply lists, and online training, and undergraduate and postgraduate classes for certification, are flooding the Internet. Nevertheless, educators, especially those who were trained for and entered the classroom before technology began its incursion into that domain, are resisting the call to participate in digitalized forums. This hesitancy, more insidious than it may initially seem, is creating a dangerous generational gap, as students by and large more attuned than their teachers are to the changes and benefits of technology, are ‘growing increasingly intellectually disconnected at school because of the ‘keep out’ signs posted in the virtual knowledge ecology’ (Breck, 2006:7). Intimidation may be what is blocking many teachers from participating, feeling that computers are to supersede them in the classroom. Robert Blake disagrees, pointing out that the threat is not that technology will replace teachers in the future, but rather that teachers who are comfortable with and are trained to use technology effectively will replace those who do not. (2013:xvii).

In the same spirit of caution, those instructors who do take the plunge and incorporate technology in their lessons, need to understand that careful deliberation in assimilating electronic tools into their classroom is imperative; without close attention to how, how often, and to what end these advances are utilized in the educational field, without having training in resolving the paradox of creating a physical connection in a virtual environment (thus ensuring identification and visibility of the participants in what is otherwise digital anonymity), very soon these teachers will have unintentionally created a generation of learners who lack the wherewithal to connect emotionally with their peers on a physical plane. In short, in addition to monitoring and imparting social skills in a traditional classroom environment, educators now have the responsibility to inculcate their students with appropriate behavior in the virtual sphere as well.

Possible worst-case scenarios of the technological venue if training for the teachers is not proffered? Already we have digital platforms monitored by instructors who, for want of experience and faced with technology they are not acquainted with, become quickly frustrated, for example, in their inability to express themselves online and to seamlessly interact with their students. They suffer from the social isolation which the very nature of the virtual environment can engender, and in the political realm, experience abandonment caused by lack of administrative support (Murdoch, 2011). This is exacerbated by a consequent decrease in the student count which can provoke a sense of failure in the more conscientious.

Experiencing similar frustrations on the other side of the phosphorous screen, the participants, for want of fluent and dependable communication with their instructors, become demoralized upon misinterpreting the lack of response from these latter as disinterest. The students also suffer from isolation precipitated by classes given by untrained educators. Especially at risk are those learners who depend on external encouragement and direction; these will soon lose confidence in their own ability to achieve and are the ones who frequently and prematurely abandon their studies (Galusha, 2006).

To avoid this progression of events, educators on every level need to recognize that online learning is not simply the transference of lessons from the physical classroom to the virtual, but rather a venue which requires a shift in paradigm and philosophy and definitive training. With practice, a teacher can learn to successfully manipulate the online tools to then find ways of creating electronic learning environments – communities – which celebrate energetic and authentic connections between all participants.

This article will address the fundamentals of creating such digital environments, focusing first on  the teacher-centered versus students-centered models in the physical realm, continuing by clarifying why the latter is the only viable alternative in distance learning, the methodologies which optimize online communication between teacher and student, and finally, the importance of consciously designing a virtual community which simulates the warmth of physical interactions in a traditional classroom. It is precisely this space which has become the conduit through which the educational world has been revolutionized, and which would otherwise, without conscious attention, be no more than a cold and lifeless summation of electric charges and, that we first examine.

II         HOW CAN WE DEFINE SPACE? online communities

The existence of space is undeniable. Its nature, on the other hand, has spurred contention and debate for centuries. While physicists define outer space as ‘the infinite extension of the three-dimensional field in which all matter exists,’ (American Heritage, 1993), an agreement between philosophers on its parameters is more complicated. Even before the formally recorded argument between Aristotle and Plato on the subject, the dissension has centered on whether space exists independently of any relationship to matter or is inseparably tied to the existence of substance (Guthrie, 1990). Testimonies supporting or rejecting each premise have become more complex and convoluted with the passage of time.

The nature of cyberspace – referring to the domain characterized by the use of an electronic spectrum which stores, modifies and exchanges data (a computer) – (TechTarget, 2013) has engendered similar debates, (though the very usage of the word ‘domain’ insinuates limits and boundaries, a perhaps paradoxical concept in regards to space). To begin with, as the electromagnetic field which makes cyber travel possible predates the invention of computers (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989), it can be arguably contended that the digital dominion annexed by the modern computer is simply a sector now named, but which has always existed. That is to say that virtual space – just as with that which surrounds our planet – might be an extension of a three-dimensional milieu, and engenders the same question as to whether it is surrounded by, or surrounds, matter (whether it exists independently to or independently of the humans who manipulate data within it). Though establishing such premise changes nothing in the usage of the field, the implication of the available definitions of virtual space is that its existence is independent from material objects (such as computers). Nevertheless, what is more relevant to this discussion is the human need for socialization which has led to the phenomenon of communities forming in both domains.

A.    COMMUNITIES IN OUTER AND CYBERSPACE

To understand this evolution, we need to understand, at least conceptually, the origins of space travel both in outer and in cyberspace. What instigated the inception of both, and why has it attracted such fervent explorers?  What was the motivating factor which redirected people’s focus away from their exploration of the material world towards that of an ostensible void? We could similarly ask ourselves what motivates a person to climb the highest mountain, to leap off cliffs with parachutes, to drop from bridges with rubber ropes, to attempt to break the sound barrier in airplanes, to sail around the world in rafts or in balloons? Perhaps, at least in the beginning, that which compels those who attempt these feats is ego, curiosity, or to see how far the human body can be pushed and still survive. Perhaps those who pursue these ventures do so to feel special, unique, to be the first, to conquer a previously unattainable realm. Conceivably, these (dubiously honorable) objectives are attempted because we as humans simply want to know that these things can be done. Nevertheless, what is pertinent in the progression of the pursuit of these ventures is that, gradually, those who attempt to find and break limits, attract similarly-minded explorers; soon, what began as the search for oneness, for distinction, or prominence within the multitude, becomes a effort in group. In other words, what were at first solitary pursuits become communities of like-minded explorers.

B.     SIMULTANOUS EVOLUTION OF OUTER AND CYBERSPACE

Curiously, outer space exploration (which is probably the world’s most expensive extreme sport), and that of cyberspace – both of which began as solitary ventures into the unknown – are also now entities which have turned into communities, albeit in non-material meeting grounds. Similar in nature and utilized for complimentary purposes, it should not then be surprising (yet it is, nonetheless intriguing), that both entities have developed and have advanced almost simultaneously. For instance, the ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency which is dedicated to developing technology which would aid its own space program) was created by the United States as a response to, and in the same year as, the launch of the USSR’s satellite Sputnick in 1957 – the first to be placed in outer space. Both touted the same objective of venturing out into the unknown.

In the 1960s, the field of cyberspace saw the establishment of virtual nets and electronic messaging, while in outer space humans took space walks and took their first steps on the moon – both venues exploring the possibilities of the new environment. In the 1970s the Internet was constituted, international connection became viable, and the NSF (National Science Foundation) established the first Computer Science Department, while in outer space the first space station was launched into orbit and the first lunar rover was used to explore the surface of the moon – both domains establishing centers of communication adapted to its environment.

The 1980s and 1990s introduced real-time Internet text messaging, hypertext markup language (HTML) enabling a more viable method for sharing information, including photographs, graphs and tables, the creation of web directories, and commercialization took hold leading to today’s online blogging (communal interchanges of information), social networking, Internet encyclopedias, and e-learning platforms. In the realm of outer space, commercialization of satellite services, and the creation of the first space station, and the first orbital observatory, became a reality (Berners-Lee, 1996). Today, reflecting the human predilection of  moving toward other life  forms instead of away from them, it is estimated that 72% of all adults in the United States connect to their Facebook accounts (CNET, 2013), while space stations are shared internationally and cooperatively.

In summary, what were initially solitary projects – ways to gain or find other means of understanding the vastness of the unknown – have inexorably but definitively merged together into what has now become communally occupied space. Cyberspace expert Rena Palloff explains this saying, ‘In the process of communication is the fact that we live in and search for community’ (Palloff, 1999, p. 25).

III       THE HUMAN TENDENCY TO FORM COMMUNITIES online communities

Humans are social beings. We are genetically programmed to search out others such as ourselves, to share our feelings with, to commiseration with, to find people who can offer us support, advice, approval. This desire to connect is seen in all civilizations throughout time. Folk tales worldwide – reflections of and historic remnants of our societies – are filled with this yearning to establish communities. Rapunzel’s prince wanders blind in the wood for a year with the sole desire to be reunited with his wife and daughters; Red Riding risks her life in the forest time and again to reinforce her grandmother’s ties to the community at large; Hansel and Gretel’s sole wish is to return to their home – their  community – all the while fully conscious that their hangmen (their parents) await them there; Snow White leaves her toxic environment to heal and connect with a community of men who value her; and Rumplestilstkin, in his desperation to form his own family/community, accomplishes the impossible and turns straw into gold. The violence, litigation and cruelty in the world create the illusion that we are pushing each other away, while in fact, what is transpiring is a testing of the waters, a pushing away of what does not fit us, an active search for that place which houses others like ourselves. The formation of such like-minded individuals effectuates a synergetic reaction; a community is formed, producing a power whose sum is collectively greater than of its individual parts (Fuller, 1997).

–          DEFINING COMMUNITY

An agreement on that which defines a community is almost as complex as the discussion on that which constitutes the nature of space, as the different conclusions many great thinkers can attest to. Ferdinand Tonnies, 19th century German philosopher, states that the fabric of a strong community is the ‘unity of will’, a group based on feelings of togetherness and mutual bonds (Wirth, 1926). Mervin Verbit, an American sociologist with extensive research of religious groups, concludes that communities must be composed of content, frequency, intensity and centrality (Glock, 1972). From a psychological perspective, Scott Peck, in his book on community The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, proposes that every community must be composed of inclusivity, commitment and consensus. He suggests that community is essential to humans, and that ‘there can be no vulnerability without risk, there can be no community without vulnerability, and there can be no peace and ultimately no life, without community’ (1987).

In Building Learning communities in Cyberspace, Rena Palloff and Keith Pratt’s exhaustive and inclusive study of the virtual field, propose that the fundamental elements of building any community are: mutually negotiated guidelines, teamwork, faculty guidance, collaborative learning, facilitation, focused outcomes, shared goals, buy-in from everyone, active creation of knowledge and meaning, and interaction and feedback. Identifying an educational community adds one more complex element to the equation. Such a concept is not simply a place in which teaching and learning occur, but also where fostering that which constitutes a communal environment is essential (Infed, 2013).

In this study we will use the working definition of community as: that in which the participants accept each other, work to transcend their differences, make decisions which take into consideration the multiple perspectives of the members, are introspective regarding the interaction of the community, work to know and accept oneself as an individual, are comfortable with the common goal of helping others to feel genuinely accepted, feel safe enough to share and show vulnerability even and especially when conflicts occur, and share the ideal the group be directed, at varying degrees, by all of its members.

IV       TEACHING METHODOLOGIES AND THEIR APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE VIRTUAL CLASSROOM

The virtual environment makes defining a community more complex and so educators who participate in electronic teaching need to evaluate the learning environment they have created in their physical classes to make sure it is appropriate there before attempting to simulate those methods in a space which has fewer concrete and immediate indicators (body language, real times exchanges, etc.). Though many factors are involved and much depends on the chemistry between any given group of students, creating a healthy and effective online class and community will generally be easier for those instructors who lean towards a more egalitarian model than those who are entrenched in the traditional classroom in which the teacher controls all aspects of the studies.

A.    TEACHER-CENTERED CLASSROOMS ONLINE COMMUNITIES

This traditional teacher-centered model, also known as essentialism, is an authoritarian form of teaching which originated in the early 18th century in Prussia, and was championed in the western world by William C. Bagley. It stresses strict and rigorous practices of traditional subjects – reading, writing, math and science – in a highly structured environment. The teacher in this methodology is the center of the classroom both physically and figuratively, and is responsible for keeping order, for setting the tone, and for meting out rewards or punishments based on adherence to classroom rules and scholastic performance. Essentialism is based on the expectation that the teacher is the ultimate authority and guide in the educational process while the students are passive recipients of information and will acquiesce to the decisions of the instructor in all matters. As such, the individuality of these young recipients is generally suppressed (Scott, 2012).  Given that this model was inspired by the Prussian court’s aspirations to achieve social obedience through indoctrination, the fundamental elements in the curriculum were – and are largely even today – ethics, duty, discipline and obedience. The teacher – the surrogate king-figure in the classroom – is always right, and obedience of the students (the king’s subjects) is paramount (Melton, 1988).

Later, at the dawning of the Industrial Revolution, exploited even further by those who had the most to gain by sublimating the population to an even greater degree, the practice of essentialism became an enormously effective means of training children for what would most certainly be their future work in factories. Primary education became state funded, compulsory, and focused only on those skills necessary to function in the industrialized world – reading, writing and arithmetic. As the agenda was to create factory drones and not leaders, only children from the most privileged families were allowed to continue their education after the obligatory, state-funded years, by design leaving the rest of the population with virtually no critically thinking skills with which to effectively challenge authority.

The philosophy of essentialism is manifested in the physicality of the classroom and in the didactics of the teaching. The schoolroom with its rectangular, stark, grey walls housing straight lines of individual desks, faced by that of the teacher dominating the front of the room, simulate the industrial floor design of most factories. Even 200 years later, though many teachers try to soften the stark veneer with colorful decorations and pithy posters, these rooms have never lost their forbidding nature.

Curriculums developed with the tenets of essentialism followed strict codes. The two most basic being that 1) lessons were given in the form of repetitive exercises with the object of reinforcing dogged, undisputed ‘truths’, and 2) the students would move from their seats minimally during the 7-8 hour school day, only when permitted, and only for specifically approved motives. The former furthered obedience to all present and future authority figures as well as limiting their ability to analyze and evaluate their surroundings with any sophistication, and the latter prepared the future workers for the 12 to 15 hours that they would later spend working in confined spaces behind heavy machinery requiring unvaried physical movements.

‘Barbarians!’ we cry. Self-serving capitalists! Suppressors of liberty and of individualism! We smugly believe that today such Orwelian manipulations to mold and control an entire working class would have no sustainable breeding ground. Surely, though the physicality of the classrooms today might remain the same, the thinking and intentions of those behind the design of the curriculum has shifted. However, one only needs to consider the stringent and inflexible expectations, the repetitive duties, the long shifts, the restricted spaces with little or no authority or input that one finds in such fields as office work, restaurant, construction, and civil service jobs, and it is not so easy to dismiss the idea that the directives of essentialism still in the classroom do not still serve a substantial sector of the society.

B.     STUDENT-CENTERED CLASSROOMS ONLINE COMMUNITIES

In any case, in the late 19th century-early 20th century, the teacher-centered model, including the preponderance of stress on linguistic skills, (by default devaluing any other competencies that children might possess), became fodder for anti-capitalistic critics such as those who, as mentioned above, vehemently opposed its thinly-veiled hidden agenda of social dominance. The French Marxist philosopher, Louis Pierre Althusser, for instance, decried the system, stating that it exemplified the fundamental problems of capitalistic societies, promoting the reproduction of its economic and the inculcation of its ideological components. He criticized the social order diffused in schools’ curriculum through essentialism which reproduces and promulgates hierarchies and power in the greater society – and, more importantly, at work – thus doubly benefiting the powers that be (Bowles, Gintis, 1976).

Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, explains that the teacher-centered classroom ‘results in the dehumanization of both the students and the teachers’ and that, instead, education needs to be a mutual and authentic approach to learning. He insists that students need to depend on each other so that knowledge be a construction of a whole and not as separate entities (Freire, 1985). American educational specialist J.S. Armstrong, submits that essentialism ignores and suppresses the responsibility of the learner, and that educators have the duty to the students to follow a model which honors their individuality (Armstrong, 2012).

As if as in answer to these criticisms, essentialism has begun to be slowly replaced by other methodologies which recognize the interests of all members of a community – be it educational or secular – and which support the active participation of the students in their own educational process. The student-centered model, implemented through such methodologies as constructivism and experientialism (both themselves purporting the direct involvement of the students in most aspects of the curriculum), has changed the focus in the classroom from the passive to the participatory student.

John Dewey is largely credited with the diffusion of this change in methodology from teacher- to student-centered. In ‘My Pedagogic Creed’ (1897), and Democracy and Education (1916), the psychologist and philosopher argues that education and learning are social and interactive processes and thus the school itself is a social institution through which social reform can and should take place. He insists that students can only thrive in an environment in which they are allowed to experience and interact with the curriculum, and that all students should have the opportunity to take part in their own learning. (Dewey, 2009) More than 100 years later, astrophysicist Carl Sagan presents these same sentiments more succinctly saying that ‘if you, as a student, are given the freedom to find an answer yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth – you’ll never forget it (Head, 2006).

C.    THE SCHOOLROOM MANIFESTING METHODOLOGIES ONLINE COMMUNITIES

The philosophy of the student-centered model is manifested through the physical layout of the classroom and highlights the changes in paradigm between itself and the older, traditional teaching style.  Instead of rows of individual desks facing the front of the room, the tables in the constructivism classroom are joined together to accommodate cooperative student work. Metaphorically and literally, the students look at each other to complete their assignments. No longer does the teacher’s desk dominate the front of the classroom; instead, it is placed to the side, mirroring the role of this instructor who is now a facilitator in the students’ work, functioning more as support than as the omniscient figurehead. Instead of directing the flow of information, this teacher aids the students in designing their own method of working, in helping them search for their own answers to problems, and in supporting their decisions in choosing the materials which might help them complete their assignments. The student-centered teacher still creates the lesson plans, presents the projects and follows

the progress of the group work closely; however, instead of the focus originating from her and extending out, it now begins at the center of each group of students and then, synergistically flows between them.

The theory of multiple intelligences – non-existent in the essentialist classroom – plays an integral part in the student-centered model. Aside from the many activities imbedded in the lessons which honor the different learning styles of each student, the physical classroom reflects the acknowledgement that students assimilate knowledge differently. For the more linguistically inclined of the student population there is a library of books and/or Internet access, for the aurally or musically inclined there is
an audio center, for those with logical and mathematical leanings there is a game center filled with different problem-solving challenges, for those with spatial intelligence there is a place to draw and create. To promote interpersonal skills a student-centered classroom will often offer a place where students can congregate comfortably away from their desks, and for those who need quiet time there are usually corners where students can read or complete assignments individually.

D.    VIRTUAL PLATFORMS SUPPORT STUDENT-CENTERED METHODOLOGIES ONLINE COMMUNITIES

In fact, most virtual platforms are designed with the same elements found in a carefully constructed student-centered schoolroom. They have been designed so that there is a designated place for the teacher to upload documents and resources (the library), there is a place where students can find recordings and videos that will help them in their studies (audio/visual centers), there is a Forum where the class can exchange ideas, clarify each other’s doubts about subjects, as well as the freedom to discuss social issues (interpersonal time), and of course access to virtual classes in which the students can work either independently or in groups, depending on the directives of the assignment and their comfort level to complete the assignment. Its very design promotes an egalitarian dynamic between the instructor and the participants. The teacher presents assignments, will monitor the students’ progress, will offer resources whenever possible, and will evaluate completed projects, but the students can design their own method of working and are encouraged to look for the resources necessary to complete their work. Again, we are social beings. Our nature is to gravitate towards centers of energy (in this case, other beings working on similar projects), and in so doing we feel supported and are able to function more efficiently.

The traditional model, in which information is presented unidirectionally – from the teacher to the students – is counter-indicated, impractical, and in fact deleterious to students’ ability to learn in this venue. The dynamic of relying on and having contact with only one person, can augment the student’s feelings of isolation and disconnection.

Distance learning, or what can also be called ‘computer-mediated communication’ can actually transcend the spatial and temporal confines of physically shared space via e-mail, asynchronous (differed-time) communication and chats, or synchronous (i.e., real time) (Blake, 2013), but, words of warning: the instructor needs to participate actively, or whatever tools are available to the class, instead of creating an exchange of energetic communication, will simply carry messages to different unconnected ends. Creating a community means being an active instructor and encouraging participation from each student.

One aspect of the student-centered philosophy transferred into virtual space cannot be taken for granted: the creation of a community. An educator cannot expect that the phenomenon of communities autonomously forming in cyberspace – as has happened in social networks and in gaming, etc. – will so happen in virtual classes. No matter what methodology is used in a distance learning course, the concept of forming a community must be deliberately and carefully planned from the inception of the course.

The key is to find the means with which to transfer the essential elements of a student-centered lesson to the virtual; in other words, an educator needs to learn to manipulate the available technology. A case study of one online teacher’s experience in this venture will illustrate this process more effectively.

E.     CASE STUDY OF ONE TEACHER’S EXPERIENCE IN CREATING A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY ONLINE COMMUNITIES

In 2011, the director of a government agency in Valencia, Spain, hired Pamela to coordinate courses dedicated to the professional development of its workers. These classes – based on one of the best online language programs on the market, Tell Me More – had been available to these employees for three years prior to contracting Pamela and the participants were generally enthusiastic about the course itself. Tell Me More is designed so that the students can study autonomously – the program automatically tracks their progress and designs lessons individually and continuously for each participant. Nevertheless, to give the students a level of added comfort, the department had engaged an independent company to be available to answer any questions they might have during the course. These agents were not, however, language teachers, were never available to speak with the students in real-time, and would only respond to messages periodically. It was not surprising, therefore, (though very disappointing), that though most of the department’s budget had been channeled into the program, more than half of the participants dropped out within the first month of the course and another quarter during the remaining three months. It was the director’s hope, then, that a specialist could improve the constancy of attendance and improve the overall experience and language retention of the participants.

Upon evaluating the different elements, Pamela determined that first, though Tell Me More has a very sophisticated design, and despite the best intentions of the participants, the lack of real-time human contact was prejudicial to the overall goals of the department. Second, though the agency’s platform offered a plethora of educational tools, none of them were being used and so valuable resources that could have attracted and aided the students with their studies, were being overlooked. From the reports over the three previous years, it was clear that during the initial weeks of the course the students connected regularly and seemed to be engaged in their learning; however, the lack of real-time contact and accountability to anyone or anything outside of the program itself, eventually caused the participants’ resolve to adhere to their studies to wear down, and in the end, only the most self-motivated of the group continued until the end of the course.

It was Pamela’s work to actuate the necessary components which would then reactivate interest in the program – to create a community in which the participants felt welcome, eager to learn, and in company with others like themselves. The most important element was to contradict the nature of the program – to give body to what was actually nothing more than a conglomerate of electronic bytes that facilitated the exchange of information. She organized an initial physical meeting with all the participants. Though studies show that meeting physically does not effectuate any important changes in the relationship between the participants of a well-organized distance learning program Pamela felt that it was important to begin this way to dispel the anonymity the students had experienced over the past three years. The meeting was designed to explain the objectives of the course, the mechanics of the platform, and the coordination between the language program and the virtual classes which would be offered. She later posted a video of the meeting on the main page of the platform so that the students could refer to it as needed, and to make it available for those who were not able to attend the meeting.

To maintain as much of a connection as possible with the students after this initial meeting, she turned her attention to the void created between computers and filled these digital bytes with humanity by writing and sending a specialized message to each individual student. These messages contained individualized comments on their progress in the course, suggestions on further plans of studies, recommendations regarding lessons within the Tell Me More program that they might find interesting based on their current trajectory, and the inclusion of links that might supplement their knowledge of different themes in their studies. (To help reduce the level of anxiety of those with lower levels, she wrote to them in their  native language – in this case Spanish – though to honor the studies of those with a higher level she wrote in the language they were studying – in this case English. Of course, whenever those with a lower level responded in English she happily continued in that language.)

During the course, every week and a half to two weeks she would check the connection frequency of the students and to those who had not connected in more than a week she would send message. These would be light, pithy, gentle reminders to return to their studies as soon as they could. Without physical accountability, many people will feel that their lack of attendance will go unnoticed and if this becomes a reality, they will probably never return to the course. The purpose of sending reminders was to let the students know that even though they weren’t seen in a physical classroom, their presence was desired and their absence regretted. This was yet another way of helping reducing the distance in a distance learning course.

These messages also included open-ended questions which, by their very nature, encouraged the recipients to respond. She solicited comments about the students’ opinions and thoughts about the program, and asked them to send messages to her as often as needed. In this way, along with showing the students the pathway towards timely assistance, she also established leadership within a forming community, but a leadership that was open to suggestion, information, and transformation.

Next, in one simple operation she enacted two essential elements of a healthy community. Though she had discussed the norms and objectives of the course in the initial physical meeting, she uploaded them again in the platform to make clear what the expectations were, ensuring that these would be part of the working precepts of the course. It is a part of human to need guidelines to feel safe – to understand the freedoms, expectations and limits of any given undertaking. (To be realistic, even those who abhor and defy rules need to know what they so as to oppose them!) In the educational setting having land markers is even more important so that students know how they will be evaluated if they wish to continue in the same grouping. Learners like to have their bearings (Murdoch, 2011: 103) and offering them a course ‘map’ helps them go on the journey more enthusiastically.

The key to this move was that instead of simply posting these regulations with the blind expectation which all participants would adhere to, Pamela presented them as the first thread in one of the key features of the virtual platform – the Forum. This resource, though a seemingly ancillary and perhaps innocuous feature, is in fact one of the principal elements, if not the most elemental, to the creation of community. Without it there are – in Pamela’s case – 100 individual participants all working separately and in virtual isolation; activated, the parts (the students) become a whole (a community). This being, with conscious intention, each week Pamela would post a question in the Forum – a debate, a theme, a video, a piece of artwork, a riddle, etc. – and encourage the students to make comments, formulate opinions, respond as they would, and to share their thoughts on the contributions sent by the other participants – their own classmates.

By beginning with the norms and objectives of the course, and encouraging the participants to respond – not only to her posting but to each others’ – make suggestions, possible amendments, etc., she immediately gave them the opportunity to be seen, heard, and acknowledged. Helping them become involved in their own structure, she asked them to offer their own objectives as well, and encouraged them to comment on each others’ goals for the year. This method of opening up norms and rules to debate is also an element of the student-centered methodology called student-voice[1].  For a virtual class to be successful, the participants need to feel involved in as much of the structure of the course as possible, including the time required to complete an assignment, the number of people which might be most appropriate in a work group, whether these groups should be randomly divided or chosen deliberately, or whether the students wished the teacher to make the bulk of the resources available or whether, on the other hand, the search and retrieval of such documents were an important part of the objectives of the assignment.

One of the benefits of this interaction was that Pamela was able to amend some of the course’s objectives to accommodate an oversight in the planning. One of the requisites of the course was initially that each participant attends a given number of synchronous virtual classes. (They could also watch recordings of the classes later, but real-time classes were obligatory.) However, again, just as with the initial physical meeting, because of the very nature of most students who sign up for online classes, it was unreasonable to make attendance obligatory for real-time classes. Familial obligations, work schedules, and geography made such a commitment for many participants impractical at best. Including an element that a student could not complete elevated the anxiety level of an already stressful endeavor. By attending to the students’ comments and explanations, the exchange of messages was extremely productive and Pamela was able to reduce the stress immediately by amending the requirements and adding alternative methods[2] to compensate for those who had scheduling problems and could not connect to the virtual classes in real-time. Recognition of students’ needs and acknowledgement of their justifiable concerns were attended to, and so a safe community was consolidating.

Another of the changes Pamela made was to inform her students that their messages would be answered within 48 hours of having received them. The importance of this should not be undervalued. Having an idea of when one will receive an answer quiets much of the anxiety that can be caused by the uncertainty of knowing if someone is actually on the other end of the ‘Send’ button. When students have technical problems, can’t access a field, or have questions that require answers before their work can continue, they need to know that their messages will be answered in a timely manner (although, remember, of course, that the term ‘timely’ is relative depending on the culture). To combat this variable, universities and educational platforms of distance learning courses usually ask their instructors to post ‘office hours’ so that the students can either connect and carry on a live chat’ with the teacher once or twice a week, or be assured that their messages will be read and answered during those times (if not before). It goes without saying that responding within a 24 hour period would be ideal, but that is not always practical and just as in a physical environment, students need to respect the instructors’ other commitments and act accordingly.

The next task was to take advantage of the ‘Videos’ option of the platform. Tell Me More has an ample library of audio and visual resources included in the course; however, they are directly related to the curriculum and Pamela wanted to broaden the participants’ scope of material, while at the same time giving them the opportunity to augment their own importance in the course. She chose videos which dealt with themes which had been mentioned in e-mail exchanges, from comments included in the Forum, and in discussions in the virtual classes. She divided the videos into three different levels so that the participants could easily find those appropriate for their stage of learning, while at the same time, being free to experiment with easier or more difficult material at their leisure. With the intention of creating yet another arena in which the participants could interact, she opened up a thread in the Forum so that they could share their thoughts on the videos – where they could encourage their classmates to watch certain titles, to warn others to perhaps be aware of the difficulties of understanding specific actors, to include links to their own choices for the rest to enjoy, etc.

Having given the participants the space to become acquainted with each other in more than one arena, Pamela then attended to the ‘Documents’ field of the platform. Again, the Tell Me More program has an excellent speaking section which analyzes the students’ voices; however, understanding the importance of being heard by a live proctor, she used the ‘Documents’ section to upload speaking prompts, asked the students to tape themselves responding to them, and then requested that they send their recorded answers back to her so she could comment on them. Again, in tune with the student voice component, she encouraged them to propose different themes that appeared, and these she would subsequently include in later worksheets. These suggestions also found their way into the ‘Resources’ section of the virtual platform, where Pamela offered links to different sites which could help the students understand different rudiments of their studies.

To work on aural skills, she uploaded clozed texts accompanied with an audio recording. The participants would listen to the tape, fill in the missing words, and then send their finished exercises to her. She, in turn, would check them and send back comments. This established yet another fluid exchange between the students and herself and another way of interacting with the participants directly and giving them active accountability. The students were learning that someone – not just a computer – was focusing on them and monitoring their progress.

Finally, and to tie together all the elements of the course, she implemented the synchronous virtual classes. Supported both by the student-centered teaching model as well as the conclusions presented in the Learning Pyramid on effective didactics, the lessons were focused mainly on oral competence and group work.

Virtually non-existent were discourses as are used in the traditional (teacher-centered) classroom, these having the lowest retention rate in relation to learning acquisition. The Learning Pyramid suggests that discussion and interactive group work raises the average acquisition rate of new knowledge to fifty-percent. Added to this, projects which include ‘hands-on’ processing of information (the students themselves evaluating, rearranging, forming and analyzing material), and demonstrations of completed ventures, the rates go up to ninety percent of participating students. Through individual ‘rooms’ on the virtual platform, and a variety of complementary applications facilitating such work, all this can be achieved online. Creating opportunities for students to work together on projects independently, supports one more aspect of the student-centered model: the self-determination theory. This philosophy highlights the positive features of human nature in that it repeatedly shows that when three innate needs are met – competence, relatedness and autonomy – self-motivation and personality integration eventuate (Chirkov, 2003). A student within a participatory environment which encourages competence and autonomy will develop a greater sense of self and intrinsic motivation and so become a more valuable member of a community. The online classes Pamela designed also gave the participants the opportunity several times a week, to speak directly not only with her, but to their other classmates as well.

Using the above techniques over time, Pamela created a vibrant virtual community. Forum messages were abundant, the participants commenting not only on the theme of the thread but on their classmates contributions as well, e-mail messages began to be frequent and included comments about their families and personal live, videos were watched and suggestions for others which might help other classmates were given, virtual class attendance was constant, and the percentage of study time consistently higher.

V         OTHER ELEMENTS OF STRENGTHENING A COMMUNITY ONLINE COMMUNITIES

There are other elements which can help enormously in solidifying the spirit of community in virtual space. For instance, simply the use of students’ names by the instructor, whenever possible, changes the dynamic and involvement of the participants for a myriad of reasons. In the first place, it helps otherwise anonymous participants to feel seen within a spatial environment so ambiguous and unintelligible that it was first coined a ‘consensual hallucination’ (Gibson, 1984). Secondly, though technology has advanced greatly, most platforms still do not have the means to permit more than three to four participants to activate their video cameras or microphones at the same time. It then behooves the instructor to make every effort to recognize distance learners personally and directly, augmenting their sense of inclusion and visibility.

The argument that, as some educators claim, calling on students by name in a physical or virtual class, might embarrass or make students feel nervous, is contradicted by studies which clearly show that, in fact, the virtual environment offers a more equitable and nonthreatening forum – especially for women and nonassertive personalities. ‘Network exchanges seem to help all individuals…engage more frequently, with greater confidence, and with greater enthusiasm in the communicative process than is characteristic for similar students in oral classrooms (Blake, 2013: 4-5).

Some final thoughts. Though the teacher is no longer expected to be omniscient, she or he must still maintain a certain level of authority, part of which entails being at least as familiar with shared tools as the students. Virtual learning is participatory; however, an instructor may not use as an excuse for not educating her/himself in all the technology used in the classroom that, as the weight of knowledge is to be shared, the students can teach the teachers what applications and software need to be known. The exponential explosion of growth of the internet is at times overwhelming and we cannot be expected to keep abreast of all new technology; however, we can also not expect the respect of our students or the right to authority over them if we do not at least try. ‘Kids should not have to mentor adults’ (Breck, 2006:20).

V         CONCLUSIONS

This study had dealt with the importance of building community within a virtual environment. Within a community, our inner strengths, experiences and truths are supported. Having a community within digital space gives participants the opportunity to maximize their learning and to then venture out into the physical world with more confidence and positive energy.

Many educators mistakenly believe that mastering the technological aspect of virtual classes, and then transferring their lessons from the desk to the screen, is all that is necessary to adapt to the digital age; however, the true key to successful distance learning is in consciously using the available resources to their greatest advantage. This requires both skills: familiarization with online tools and the adjustment of educational methodology to the new venue.

A word of warning, but only as a means of helping distance learning teachers in their work: Given the population of students who use virtual platforms as their vehicle of studies, online teacher will find that no matter how many resources they use, no matter how hard they search for ways to more effectively or regularly communicate, they will not always be successful. There are some students who choose online classes because their family schedules do not permit time out of the house when classes are given, others because they live far from the centers where the classes are given and it is not feasible to make the commute, and others whose characters, unfortunately preclude them from daring to attend in person. As stated earlier, many of these shine in these courses, using the computer screen as a security blanket to hide behind, at the same time giving them the confidence to peek out and participate in manners they would not in a physical class. However, others do not like contact in whatever form and for these, once they have decided to abate or surrender their studies, no amount of encouragement from the teacher can change their minds. In these cases, the instructor needs to accept and move on, giving her or his energy to the participants who are still committed, to continue consciously designing a structure which will support and create a feeling of community and integration for the all participants of any course is the core to creating a safe – and therefore successful – learning environment for students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ONLINE COMMUNITIES

American Heritage Colllege Dictionary (1993), Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Akanegbu, Anuli (2012),’50 Striking Statistics About Distance Learning in Higher Education’, Vernon Hills, IL, EdTech.

Areppim (2012), Insight, ‘Global Internet Users Forecast’, Bern, Switzerland, Areppim, 18 October, 2012.

Armstrong, J. Scott (2012). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning.

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

AT&T (2008), ‘RFID Tags Help Schools Keep Tabs’, Trend Report: Education, http://www.corp.att.com/edu/docs/k12rfid2.pdf, Retrieved 05/11/2013.

Bowles, S. y Ginitis, H. (1985), La instsrucción escolar en la América capitalista, siglo XXI, Madrid.

Berners-Lee, Tim (1996), \”The World Wide Web: Past, Present and Future\”.

Blake, Robert J. (2013), Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.

Breck, Judy (2006), 109 Ideas for Virtual Learning: How Open Content Will Help Close the Digital Divide, Oxford, London, Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003), Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination perspective on internalisation of cultural orientations, gender and well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110.

CNET News, (2013), http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57596997-93/social-networking-corrals-72-percent-of-u.s-adults/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=readMore, Retrieved 14/11/2013.

Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: WLC Books. (Original work published 1916)

Fletcher, Adam (2004), Giroux, H. and Searls Giroux, S. Take Back Higher Education: Race, Youth, and the Crisis of Democracy in the Post-Civil Rights Era. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Galusha, Jill M. (2006), ‘Barriers to Learning in Distance Education,’ University of Mississippi, The Infrastruction Network.

Gibson, William (1995), Neuromancer, New York, New York, Harper Voyager Publishing.

Glock, C. Y. (1972) ‘On the Study of Religious Commitment’ in J. E. Faulkner (ed.) Religion’s Influence in Contemporary Society, Readings in the Sociology of Religion, Ohio: Charles E. Merril: 38-56.

Guthrie, W. K. C. (1990). \”A history of Greek philosophy: Aristotle : an encounter\”. Cambridge University Press. p.156. ISBN 0-521-38760-4

Head, Tom (2006), «Conversations with Carl». Skeptic 13 (1):  pp. 32–38. Citada en Head, Tom, ed. (2006). University of Mississippi Press. ed.

Highfield, Roger (16 October 2001). \”Colonies in space may be only hope, says Hawking\”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 5 August 2012.

Infed (2013), ‘Explore the Theory and Practice of Community Educaiton’, YMCA George Williams College, England, Wales.

JiWire (2013), JiWire Mobile Audience Insights Report Q2 2013, ‘Understanding Today’s Mobile Audience’, Mountain View, CA, USA,

Lembeck, Michael F. (2006), ‘Why Space Exploration is Important to the United States’, National Space Society, FLIR.

Measuring the Information Society, MIS 2013, ‘Measuring the World’s Digital Natives’, www.itu.int/go/mis2013. Retrieved 30/10/2013.

Melton, James (1988), \”Absolutism and the eighteenth-century origins of compulsory schooling in Prussia and Austria,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murdoch, Matthew & Muller, Treion (2011), The Learning Explosion: 9 Rules to Ignite Your Virtual Classroom, Salt Lake City,  Utah, Franklin Covey Publishing.

Oxford English Dictionary (2 ed.) (1989). Oxford University Press.

Palloff, Rena M. & Pratt, Keith (1999), Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, California, USA, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.

Peck, M. Scott (1987), The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, New York City, Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R. J. (1983b, Winter), \”How much Gall is too much gall? Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences\”, Contemporary Education Review 2 (3): 215–224.

Fuller, R. Buckminster (1997), SYNERGETICS, ‘Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking’. Retrieved 16/11/2013.

TechTarget (2013), Cyberspace – definition, http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/cyberspace, Retrieved 29/10/2013.

Tönnies, F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, p. 22.

U.S. Department of Education (2013), ‘The Condition of Education 2013’, IES National Center for Education Statistics NCES 2013-037.

Wirth, Louis (1926), The Sociology of Ferdinand Tonnies, American Journal of Sociology Vol. 32, No. 3 (Nov., 1926), pp. 412-422.

[1] A fundamental part of the student-centered methodology is the student voice in which the teacher encourages students to influence their own learning regarding the style, context, evaluation, decision-making and advocacy. They are given room to systematically participate in the educational process in what affects them personally, sometimes to the degree of choosing curricula, having input in calendar planning, voting on evaluative methods, assessing obligatory assignment, etc. It is often cited as a vital element in successfully engaging students in their own educational process (Fletcher, 2004).

[2] Some examples of compensatory work for those students who have justifiable reasons for not connecting to synchronous classes are, for instance:

More articles

Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace