Becoming a "Communal chitect" in the Online Classroom: Integrating Cognitive and Affective Learning for Maximum Effect in Web-Based Education ROBERT WOODS SPRING ARBOR UNIVERSITY SPRING ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED ST ATES INTRODUCTION Successful online instructors realize that building a sense of Ii COlllmunity" in the online dassrooll1 is necessary for successful learning outcomes (Gunawardena, Wiesen- berg & Hutton, 1996; Campbell, 1997; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; McLellan, 1999; Kazmer, 2000; Wegerif, 1998). The developlnent of conullunity "becomes a parallei streanl to the content being explored in online courses: [It is not] something that \"nucks up' or interferes with the process,r (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, p. 30). Many online instruClors build a sense of 'colmectedness and social presence in online courses through verbal and nonverbal llllnlediacy behaviors (Baringer & McCroskey, 2000; McAlister, 2000j Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999), which in turn llla y be experienced II vicmiousl/' by students in the learning process (LaRose & Whitten, 2000, p. 336). More important, perhaps, research demonstrates that imnlediacy or pro- social behaviors positively correlate with SAMUEL EBERSOLE UNlVERSITY OF SOUTHERN COLORADO PUEBLO, COLORADO, UNITED STATES both affective (N1cDowell, McDowell, & Hyerdahl, 1980; Anderson, Norton, & Nussbau111, 1981; Plax, et al., 1986) and cognitive learning (Ric1mloncC Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987; Gorhanl, 1988) in t~e !ace-to-face dassrooul setting. Early findIngs suggest that similar results nlay be obtained in the online setting (e.g., Gunawardena, 1995; McAlister, 2000i Baker, 2000i LaRose & Whitten, 2000). In short, understanding how to build and nlanage a positive socia] dynmnic can encourage knowledge construction in ways that extend learning opportunities lll. the online dassroOlll. In light of the foregolllg, the authors will discuss several online and offline community-building strategies that lllay be used to foster a positive social dynamic in. online courses. Before presen.tlllg specific strategies we will begin by introducing you to what we refer to as communal scaffolding. The cODlnlunal scaffold lets instructors conceptualize how affective and cognitive learning are inextricably Journal Vol 7/ No 1, 2003 © Distance Education Association of Ne,,; Zealand 52 intertwined in the online learning process. It also provides a theoretical base and sets pedagogical gUidelliles for fostering a supportive cOJu:municalion c1inlate ill the online setting. As presented herein, the conlllUllal scaffold is consistl"nl with the aSSulllptions elllbedded in Clilllate Theory - popular in cOlnm,uniLy and social psychology hteratur(~-which assumes that pSyc1l0- social climdles vary with different settings, lhdL dilnates are a product of environlllPnta] and mdividuals' characterislit"s, and that the relationships between climdl<-" setting, and individuals are reciprocdlly influential (Pargament, et aLl 1983). THE COMM,UNAL SCAFFOLD Greenfield (1984) and Harley first used the sl'd[[olding concepl to explain how knowIl)dge is transferred frOlll cognitive to practlcal applications. In such instances the scaffold was used to help visualizE) how the gap between task requirements and skill leV(~ls could be bridged. But when we talk about cormnlmal scaffolding here, we are referring to bridging the gap of another kind the gap between the task (cognitive, intellectual) and interpersonal (social, affective, interpel'sonal) require- 11lents of online learning. The scaffold ie:; built upon the assUlllption - along the lines of Moore's Transacti onal Distance Theory - that the /I distance" in distance education is pedagogical and social, not geographical, and that this separation bet"V(-~en instructor and learner m a classroom enviromnent may be overcom,e through effective dialogue (i.e., instructor-learner interaction) and inslTuctional design (i.e., structure) (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, pp. 199-203). Sim.ilarly, Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey (1978) observed, "There is a diHerence between knowing and teaching and that difference is communication in the dassrooml1 (p. 3). The process of COl1l1nUnication, then, as represented by the intercOlmectedness of the scaffold, is at the heart of the leanli11g experience, whether the setting is onJine or face-to-face. As Figure 1.1 (see following page) depicts, conlIDuna] scaffolding recognizes thal successful online learning must structure social support if learners are to be optIm,ally challenged academically to maxiulize learning benefits. Scaffolding provides support (rigidity) for the structure, whi,ch adds an elelnent of safety to the project, and provides a place to stand (foundation) for the JI construction workers." As such, it encourages and reinforces cognitive development (knowledge construction) in the context of social connection and facilitation 11luch in the way that LaRose and Whitten's (2000) Social Cognitive Theory provides a fralnework to develop a unified construct of instructional unluediacy for Web-based courses. Furthermore, as interpel'sonal dynamics are fitted into the existing scaffolding structure - through various online and offline strategies to be discussed below -learners are able to extend their range of learning opportunities by collaborating "vith others to achieve goals and complete assignments not otherwise possible. Finally, the scaffold enables instructors and others to isolate individualized needs and customize cOlnmumcation to address a range of learning styles and sodo-cultural variables. In brief, the stronger, nlore secure, and better built yom' scaffold, the m,ore "robust" (Calderwoody 1999) your social dynamic. Learning, Vo17, No 1,2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 53 Figure 1.1 Emphasizes interconnectedness Extends learning opportunities Facilitates knowledge construction The diagram_ on the following page was desiglied to help further conceptualize COlllnlunal scaffolding. It graphically depicts how the scaffold facilitates interconnectedness and shared Provides (social) support Stresses interdependence Helps isolate trouble areas and provide relief responsibility learning outconH'~, and how the COf:,'Tutive and affecli\'l' aspects of online learning may interdl l to produce optim.al results. Journal Learning, Vol 7, No 1/2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 54 N ow that the scaffold has been presented, the next sections focus on how to build it using various online and offline strategies and communication tools. We can these basic conununication tools Comnlunity BUilding Activities (CBAs). They are reliable, easy-to- :incorporate strategies with observable benefits that are COlllman fare in most online learning environments. Online you can scaffold using personalized em.ail, personal discussion folders, llnmediacy, audio/video, and live ellat, to nam.e a few. Offline instructors scaffold through field trips, road trips, on-site experiences, guides emphasizes to be used for which provides internships, apprenticeships, service learning, cohort group llleetings, and phone calls. (1) Personal Discussion Folders (discussion "rooms" or "forulus"): These are simply gathering places (usually created within\Neb-based educational platforms) where personalized threaded discussions between participants in online courses may occur. Instructors are encouraged to begin their online experience by creating a place for students to create a personal profile or II electronic personality" (Pra tt, 1996, JOU1l1f.lZ teaming, Vol 7, No I, 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 55 pp. 119-120). These places m.ight be titled J/ Autobiographies" or IiIntroductions." hl any case, they are places where students' "e-personalities" m,ay be posted and inferences or "impressions" about another learner's personality, values, and traits lllay be fonned. Personal discussion folders let students reduce uncertainty and process social infomlation about others by asking questions in a setting where the nUlllber of COlnnlunications are reduced (Uncertainty Reduction Theory, Pratt, et a1., 1999j Sodal Infornlation Processing Theory, Walther & Burgoon, 1992). They a1,;0 allow students to take advantage of the asynchronous nature of CMC and mak(~ optinlal presentations of IlselP' (Walther, 1997,. Hyperpersona1 COlllll1Unication Perspective). As Pratt and colleagues (1999) reported, CMC participants ask roughly the srune nunlber and sanle types of questions during the]! lnteractions even though CMC Interactio11s were asynchronous and took longer to develop. One difference was that CMC participants asked more questions ainled at getting at the JJ inner self" of the other person. Personal discussion folders, then,. provide an initial place for exploration of the "imler self" to the extent desired by students. In addition, Hancock and colleague's (2001) Information Processing Theory explains type of comlllunication that filay occur in these folders. They observe that lllpression fornlation occurs in conlputer-nlediated comnlUJllcation (CMC) in llluch the same way as it occurs in face-to-face cOlnmunication. Results of their study indicated that impressions fOrllled in CMC envrrOl1nlents were less detailed but stronger than those fOrllled as a result of face-to-face interactions. Thus, online students interacting through this CBA nlay eventually develop stronger reactions to othl~rs, even though those reactions are based on a relatively 8111.all alllount of infornlation and nlay take a slightly longer tune to form. (Walther & Burgoon, 1992). .," Finally, personal iUlpression formatio11 and uncertainty reduction of the sort described above usually occur during first several days of class before course content is discussed. The benefits of self- disclosure will. extend to the larger issue of group or class dynamics. Woods and Ebersole (2003) report(;:d that encouraging student partidpatioll in one of four types of personal discussion folders Inay result in positive faculty / student relationships, positive relation- ships anlong stu dents, a sense of conlmunity, and satisfaction with the overalllean1i11g experience. (2) Immediacy: Imulediacy refers to the extent to which selected verbal and nonverbal cOlnmunication behaviors enhance intiInacy in interpersonal COrnlllUlucation (Mehrabian, 1969, 1971; Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979) and "reduce perceived distance between people" (Thweatt & McCroskey, 1996, p. 198). Several studies delllonstrate the power of instructor lllmediacy on creating a greater sense of classroonl cOlllmunity aDlong learners. To some degree, each of the online CBAs in this section is designed to foster a certain level of inlnlediacy. Responding to email or threaded discussion in a timely 11lanner is one way to be imnlediate. As a rule of thunlb, we suggest responding within twenty-four hours. In one study, instructor imlllediacy in feedback was the strongest predictor of learning - both affective and cogtutive learning - anlong students (Baker, 2000). In another study,. Journal ~f Distance Learning, Vol 7, No 1,2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 56 ({Student.') felt that the lack of immediate feedback in the online portion of the course was discouraging and contributed to their linlited participation in the online discussions" (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999, p. 33). Note that instructor ill1mediacy in response to student conlmU1ucation may even be experienced II vicariously" as learners observ{~ it while interacting vvith other students in group discussion (p. 33). Sludents eventually develop an expectatic)I1 of presence based on an instructor's response rate. Responding at different tinws of the day even build anticipation (or inlmediacy. Verbal imnwJiacy behaviors such as asking questions in dialogue or otherwisQ initiating discussion, address- ing individual students by name, using personal l'xamples, or talking about experiences outside of class (Gorham, 1988) m.ay lw used by online instructors in a vari()ly of forlllats to increase psychological closeness anlong learners. Nonverbal immediacy behaviors include tone of voice and inflection (Richmond, Gorham" & McCroskey, 1987) and emoticons (note: tone of voice is discussed below under audio / video). Emoticons are grapluc accents or textualized icons created by a series of standard keyboard characters combined to produce a picture (e.g., :-) ). Thompsen and Foulg(~r (1996) found that the use of emoticons reduced reader perception of anger (i.e., flaming) in electronic mail messages. Turlde (1995) explained that such keystroke combinations replace nonverbal cues such as physical gestures and facial expressions used in face-to-face settings to foster inlm.ediacy (Mehrabian, 1971; Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979), thus placing online communi- cation sOlllewhere in between traditional written and oral commU1ucation (p. 183). Indeed, the research has indicated that Ol1lll1.C COllllllunicants cOlllpensate for the lack of such nonverbal cues and physical presence by encoding verbal intimacy cues in the textual messages to convey affect (e.g., Gunawardena,. ]994; Rice & Love, 1987; Wilkins, 1991). Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) found that partidpants in a computer conference enhanced their socio-elTIotional experience through the use of emoticol1S to express 11lissing nonverbal cues (p, 23). (3) Live Chat: We have found that scheduling "virtual office" hours or other times for "live chatU related to course content matters helps us connect with sonle students in ways that elllail or voicenlail camlOt. For many, it helps to reduce perceived interaction difficulty (Arbuagh, 2000) associated with time- independent posting and replying. On a more practical level, this function aHows students to have a conversation without paying for a long-distance calL These chats lll.a y even be archived and reviewed by others in the class at a later time. Students who cannot make it to the virtual hours may still benefit from the questions asked by others. Moreover, students like the quick response tim.e that live chat provides. It adds strength to the immediacy fostered through twenty-four-hour turnaround time dir;;cussed above. And just as in real-tim.e office sessions! live c.hats let us nlodel a m.ore informal, personal style of textual interaction. This style, in turn, may enhance students" perceptions of us as being expressive/warnl and generally involved, two conlnlunication behaviors identified by Guerrero and :rvliller (1998) as being pOSitively associated with inlpressions of instructor llnlnediacy, instructor competence, and course content. Journal Lem71ing, Vol 7, No 1, 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 57 Lastly, there is a very real sense in which live chat heightens II the degree of salience of the other persoll in the interaction" (Short, WilliaulS, & Christie, 1976, p. 65). Put another way, live chat may enhance an instructor's co-presence with students. Students participating in live chat filay perceive the instructor as Iirnare real" than those who don't participate in such COlllll1unication. As one student in one of our classes renlarked, really together." like we're (4) Personalized. Email: Another way to conuect with students is to send personalized enlail (PE) outside of regular class time or required course discussion. Personalized email ulight be used to encourage a student who ulade a solid contribution in one of the required discussion formats. Again, as with live chat, PEs are pro-social behaviors that help to create the IDlpression that we are expressive/warm and generally involved. As instructors, we use PEs regularly. The lllessages are usually two to three sentences long and include general words of encourageulent, caring, or support You rna y also use PEs to check up on sonleO~le who does not appear to be as active in discussion as others and depending on the size of the class and your time), you can send the salne type of personalized emails just described to slllall groups. As few as three personal emails sent to students throughout the course of the senlester has been positively associated with students' sense of online community and overal1 satisfaction with the learning experience (Woods, 2002). Personalized enlails nlay be used to enhance students' perception of faculty- student interaction. Clow (1999), Phillips and Peters (1999), Roblyer (1999), and Hacker and Wignall (1997) all concluded that a student's perception of sufficient interaction with instructors and other students is pOSitively correlated with his level of satisfaction with the overall online learning experience. FurUlemlore, a /I sufficient" level of interaction wilh ,," faculty ge]l(~rally creates a iisense or personalization and customization of learnin g" (Boettcl1er, 1999, p. 43) a 11 d helps students overCOllle feelings of rellloteness-perhaps the greal('~l obstacle to fostering a student's sensp (11 conlnlunity in online distance learning (Everhart, 1999, p. 12). Arbaugh (20()O) found that perceived interaction difficulty was negatively correlated wilh student satisfaction, while perceivl'd instructor elllphasis on interaction Wd" positively correlated with stuJ(\nl satisfaction. Arbaugh concluded, " It appears that the flexibility of Ule medium and the ability to develop an in terad i \'1' course envir0l1111ent play a larger rolt, in deternlining student satisfaction lh.ln the ease or frequency with which lIw nlediul11. can be used" (p. 43). (5) AudioJVideo: Some instructors hd\'" used audio nlessages (as a supphmwnl to text) as em.ail attadullents to btl lid student/ faculty relationships and d sense of online cOlllmunity (Woods &. Keeler, 2001). Others include vid(\(l welcomes, use videocams for live dldl sessions), or send personal video dip'- as email attachnlents to create intimdl "- Audio/video elelnents can introdw't' additional conlIDunication cues in llw online learning process that have bt'PI1 pOSitively associated with iUlmediacy in face-to-face settings. In this sense, using audio and/ or video allows instructors lo address SOllle of the concerns highlighted by the /I cues-filtered-out" perspective, wl1kh explaiIls how certain audible (actual words spoken! tone, accents, paralinguistic cues) and visual channels Journal Learning, Vol 7, No 1, 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 58 (atti.re, facial expressions, kinesics, and psychophysiologicaJ responses) are filtered out in CMC (Kiesler, Siegel, & 1984; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). A variation of the audio / video as email attaclm1ent is the slide with recorded narration. Some instructors add personal photographs or other personalized graphics to the slide. As instructors we have that our tone of voice can be used to set the right mood for future communication. It becomes a perceplual framework through which subsequent communication (whether textual or otherwise) is filtered. The use of vocal expressiveness and vocal quality to the list of nonverbal behaviors that create immediacy (Hackman & Walker, 1990; Andersen, Andersen, & Jensen, 1979). Articulation/ clarity were associated with positive impressions of i11struclor competence and course content (Guerrero & Miller, 1998). Audio/video elements let instructors return valuable communication cues to the online learning process. (6) Regular Updates and Feedback: Instructors can send weekly updates with a checklist of items that students can use to guide their tinle and study. As Inentioned above, if you include the update on a PowerPojnt slide you can add audio narration with little effOlt. Such updates may even inCl'ease students' perceptions of high degrees of faculty interaction. In addition to a few slides that include content we often include slides that students looking ahead to next week's work. As part of our updates we even include an occasional humorous cartoon or illustration related to course content or classroom procedures. has been positively related to instructor behavi.ors and the al1l0unt and type of humor has been delllonstrated to influence learning outcomes (Gorham & Christophel, 1990; Christensen & Menzel, 1998; Menzel & 1999; Comeaux, 1995). Instructors may also provjde detailed feedback on assiglUllents to create imll1ediacy and enhance co!:,rnitive learning. Riehm,ond, McCroskey, Kean1ey, & Plax (1987) found that pro- social behavjors such as nnmecliate reward and teacher feedback were positively associated with cognitive learning. Hackman and Walker (1990) found, "Off-calupus students felt as though they lean1ed more when their instructor provided them with spedfic feedback on individual work through comments on papers, oral discussion or some other 11lea11s" (p. 202). Instructors may aLc;o prOvide feedback to students about their partiCipation levels (De Verneil & Berge, 2000) in ways that enhance intinlacy and extend learning opportunities. (7) Group Discussi.on and Discursive Style: One of the most basic, but often Ul1derestimated, online CBAs learners can use to build connectedness revolves around participation in required group discussion formats. Threaded dialogue can help to build a foundation upon which a more elaborate C01l1m,unal structure can be built. Dialogue introduces students to one another at a cognitive level. Feeling "safeu to express ol1e's views is an important part of building community. Safety is further enhanced by establishing early on in the course rules for appropriate engagement and conduct within required discussion folde.rs. Journal of Distance I,earning, Vol 7/ No 1/2003 © Distance Education Association of Ne1-v Zealand 59 If you are not aware of it, your discursive style lllay prevent you frolll LVJ,llL~~LI.JI.Ll<': with others. It is well established that online learners desire both relational and personal interaction and a learning envirOllllent that welcollles alternative or opposing views (Bluln, 1999). We are therefore careful as instructors to observe our own 11 voices" to lllake sure that we do not shut down or silence opportunities for debate by elinlinating alternative ways of vi.ewing the issues at hand. Along the way, we have had to resist the desire to play /I expert" or be perceived as the "final word" on any issue. Faculty must becom.e conlfortable with playing the part of J/provocateur" instead of iJacadelllician" (Parker, 1999, p. 16), concentrating 111.ore 011 leading discussion and pronl0ting collaborative learning and less on lectures and assessment (Young, 1997). WIllie it is a11 right to critically challenge ideas, avoid accusatory language or leading questions that indicate your biases. Gorh31n (1988) found that n011- imulediacy behaviors ll1clude such items as II criticizes or points out faults in students' work, actions or conunents" (p. 44). Instead, use concrete and descriptive language in your replies. Encourage and lllodel personal expression, whether through nick- nallles, enloticons, or o~her types of lllterpersonal conununication (Chenault, 1998; Lea & Spears, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Rheingold, 1993; Walther, 1996). Always begin your reply to a student's post with a positive comnwnt before critically addresslllg other 111.atlers. As noted earlier, the student's first llanle is another way to build inlluediacy and social presence (e.g., Gorh31l1, 1988) prOviding specific feedback or correction. (8) Create Private Places: To the extent allowable by the instructor and course nlanagenlent platform., create a separate private area for your student.:;; apart from general class discussion. In Blackboard, we usually create a II cyber study room." ,,' where previously assigned discussion groups can nleet apart from required discussion forn13ts for informal chat. This is the sanle idea as the personal discussion folders 1l1.entioned· earlier, but for students only. This is a space that the lllstructor lllay not enter unless lllvited. Such private places - apart ITOlll the lllstructor's watchful eye - allow lllore opportunities for "hyperpersona] cOlnnluuication" (Walther, 1997). The Hyperpersonal COll1.munication perspec- tive recognizes "unique affordances of the mediunl that allow users to achieve nlOre favorable impressions and greater levels of llltimacy than those in parallel FtF activities" (p. 348). . OFFLINE STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNAL SCAFFOLDING Now that online strategies for constructing your scaffold have been explored, we will explore several offline strategies. Offline efforts to build c01umunity, when carefully integrated with the lean-ring 0 bjecti ves of the course, can greatly enhance students' experiences. Known variously as experi- ential learnlllg or contextual learningr constructivist approaches to ]ean1ing that emphasize practical application and sensory experience 1995; Salomon & Perki11sr 1998) are :increaslllg- ly being called upon to enhance the text-heavy focus on online learning. Offline strategies provide a balance for students who filay become frustrated with what they perceive to be too nluch IItalk about theories." Journal T.earning, Vol 7, No 1,2003 © Dis.tance Edu.cation Association of New Zealand 60 While llluch of the recent research has been exploring ways to TIllprove online cOlluTIunication, it is alnlost always undertaken with the assumption that onlllle conmlulucation begins at a disadvantage to offhne, or face-to-face (F2F), C01J1JllU1TIcation. We need to point out that by F2F we do not necessarily mean traditionaL passive, lecture presen- tations. F2F should be 11luch l110re than that and should precipitate the kind of active participation and interactivity that is also the goal for online C0111111ulucatioll. hlteractivity should also be understood TIl terms both of TIlteraction with the course content and interaction with fellow leanlers and teachers. Following are several offline strategies, or offline CBAs, that can be em.ployed to encourage and enhance the building and strengthening of relationships, which, in turn, can extend learning opportunities for online learners. (1) Field Trips, Road Trips, and Onsite Experiences: If possible, instructors should think of a reason to take the online dass 1/ on the road." By this we mean find an opportunity to visit a site where there is opportunity for practical application of the classroom theory. For instance, we recently took a small group of students to a fairly distant city for a day-long selninar that was being sponsored by a professional orgruuzation. The experience of overconling a comlllon adverSity, in this case uleeting at 5:45 A.M. in order to get to the seminar by 8 A.M./ and the camaraderie experienced dUrTIlg the two-hour drive (each way) contributed to the development of relationships. TIl(~ experience of sharing a meal on the trip honle was another opportunity for relatiol1slups to be strengthened. Learning experiences from the road trip can later be incorporated in a ciassroonl or online discussion. Specific course discussion areas, for instance, Inay be to prOvide a sUlllmary of attendees' experiences. A variation of this offline CBA can be initiated by students who live outside the instructor's geographic regi.on, which is the usual case for most online students. Students can llleet a faculty LLL'I;~.LLlV1;;" or other students at a conference organization" We often OI.U' ..... C,.llI.O when we will be at a in their location. We tell thenl that we would like to get together for lunch or have the111 join us at the conference. SOllle out-of-state students even take the initiative to contact us when they will be in our area for a profeSSional or personal €11gagem,ent. We out of our way in those cases to make the F2F llleeting happen. (2) Internships, Apprenticeships, and Service Learning: These offline strategies provide opportuluties for students to engage in experiential learning wIllie they build relationships with people outsi.de of the traditional classroom. The relationslups that are fonned with colleagues, professionals, and l11.el11bers of the cOInmuluty have value not only fronl the perspective of networking, but they can be lnlportant connections to the kind of real-world that students need (Parks-Daloz, 1990). Sludents engaged In COllllllUnity projects or working side-by-side with profes- sionals frequently find the human connection that allows them. to connect theory and practice in ways that did not make sense before. V\lIllie most understand internships and apprenticeships, service learning Inay be less fanliliar. Service learnulg is practical application of knowledge and learning by Journal Leaming, Vol 7, No I, 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 61 working 011 conlUlunity-based projects (Loesch-Griffin, Petrides, & Pratt, 1995). Frequently associated with volunteer service projects! service learrring allows student participants to practice inter- personal relationships and caring for others. This expn)ssion of caring, which is denlonstrated through practical c01unlunity service, is a return to the activism of eadier decades, but with a decidedly nlOdern, or should we say postulodenl, sensibility. Students ulight apply their skills and trainillg to solve a problenl that lllight otherwise renlain unsolved, and in so doing forge friendships and relationships that enrich their lives (Weiler, LaGoy, & ROVller, 1998; Root, Callahan, & Sepanski, 20(2). (3) Cohort Group Meetings and Proj ects: SOl1le prograuls use this strategy during the SUll1ll1er prior to the autumn selnester of dasses. For example, online students llleet F2F 011 call1pus for all intensive two- to three- week class session in early August. Individuals are assigned to slllall groups on the bases of personality inventories that are adnlinistered shortly after enrolinlent into the progranl (Calderwood, 1999). Students share lneals together, attend conferences, work on group assignments, and attend classes together. Students usually report feeling a strong sense of cOlllmunity with others following SUdl llleetings. Cohort activities greatly increase retention rates and reports of overall satisfaction with the learning experience. They also serve as an excellent comlllunal foundation that can be built upon by instructors in subsequent online courses (Imel & Tisdell,1996). Another variation of this strategy is a cohort or class meeting within an individual class. In one instance we held a class meeting half way through the selllester at a local coffee house. Students in the immediate area (and SOUle as as two to three hours away) attended the Ineeting. Upon return to our regularly scheduled online activitiesf we observed a measurable change in the depth of reflection in posts / replies to our discussion questions. We had fE:~wer late papers and "absences." However, it is recolllmended that any such meeting tal(e place only after students have dem,onstrated a certain level of comJort and responsibility in interactirlg with one another in the online £'flr',-""rr (4) Phone Calls: WlwE:: this lllay seeUl simplistic or obvious to SOUle, it is often overlooked by online instructors and students. It is surprising what a personal phone call can do to enhance a sense of connectedness. In one distance education study, off-caulpus students felt as though they learned more when their instructor used phone calls to express caring and provide specific feedback (Hackman & Walker, 1990). While the phone might arguably be seen as an If online" strategy (especially in light of emerging Internet phone services), since it is more personal, lllore fanliliar, and less technologically coulplex than cOlllputer-m,ediated comnlunication, we have chosen to treat it as an II offline/! strategy. Besides, those on the receiving end, regardless of the originator's source, will Ulost always be using a traditional hand-held unit. And because phones are important social tools that are part of the Anlerican fabric, con1munication by phone is often perceived as less task- related than, say, elllail. CLOSING THOUGHTS SO, how do we contribute to the kind of conlll1unal infrastructure that builds Journal Learning, Vol 7, No I, 2003 © Distance Educati0l1 Association of New Zealand 62 cOlmectedness and pronlotes learning? Perhaps the starting place is to recognize the strong COlUlection demonstra.ted ill the research between a positive sodal dynmnic and cognitive learni11g. Practitioners must also recogIllze that a positi v(' social d ynmnic requires intentionality - that is, community just doesn't harren but is created through it variety of verbal and nonverbal comnlunicdtion cues. BeC01lling more effective in huildillg COmmUlllty begills with precisp d(:;finitions and m,easure- ment of community and the collection of data hc~yond sinlple self-report by students. Aw~mpts to TI10re fully defilw comJnunity in the online setting (e.g., Gergen, 1991; Jones, 1995; Shell, 1995; Pratt 1996) (.ll1d various approaches to the Ineasurement of community (Rovai & Lucking, 2000; McAlister, 2000; Baker, 2000) havf' moved us lnuch closer to our goal. It should htl noted that there are no shortcuts to developing com,nlunity. It takes time, and there is 110 substitute for time spent in coull11unication with others - whether online or offline. Of course, tinl() alone is insufficient. The lime spent with claSslnates and with the il"Lstructor m.ust be structured in such a way that enhances the all- ilnportant transfer of intellectual and en:\Otionul capitaL REFERENCES Andersen, J. F., Andersen, P. A, & Jensen, A. D. The measurement of irrunediacy. Journal of Applied Commullicat'i011 Research, 7, 153-180. Anderson, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring the relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30, 377-392. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. jourl1(.Jl of Management Education, 24/ 32-54. Baker, J. (2000). TIle effects of insb'uctor im.mediacy and Shldent cohesiveness on affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA Baringer, D. K, & McCroskey, J. C (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student inlmediacy. Communication Education 49/ 178-186. Blum, K D. (1999). Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher education: Learning styles, participation barriers and communication patterns. lournal of Asyncl11A 01lOUS Learning Network/ 1(3). Retrieved February, 2001, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/ Vo13_1ssue1/blum.htm Boettcher, J. V. (1999, April). Cyber course size: Pedagogy and politics. Syllabus/ 12(8),42-44. Calderwood, P. E. (1999, October 19). Supporting communif:y in schools: TIle relationships of resilience and vulnerability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educationa1 Studies Association, Detroit, Iv!!. Eric Document: ED438606 Campbell, T. (1997, April 14). Key elem,ents of social design. Microsoft Internet Magazine. Retrieved from http://home.Inicrosoft . com/ reading/ archive/tech-4-14.asp Chenault, B. G. (1998). Developing personal and enlOtional relationships via computer-mediated communication. Computer Mediated Communication A1agazinej 5(5). Retrieved from http:/ / www.december.com/cme/ mag/199B/ Inay / chenault.htm] Christensen,L. J., & Menzel! K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between student reports of teacher irrunediacy behaviors and perceptions of state motivation, and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral h~arning. Communication Education; 47, 82-90. Journal of Distance Vol 7, No 1/ 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 63 Clow, K E. (1999). Interactive distance learning: Impact on student course evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education 21(2). Comeaux, P. (1995). The impact of an interactive distance learning network on classroom. COll1munication. Communication Education, 44,353-361. De Verneil, M., & Berge, Z. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in education. International Journal Educational Telecommunications, 6, Everhart, R (1999, April). Creating virtual com.munities. Syllabus1 12(8), 12-16. K (1991). TIle saturaf:ed self: Dilemmas identity in conten-tporary life. New Basic Books. Gergen, K J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process, constructivism in education. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, Gorham., J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37,40-53. Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers' use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 39, 46-62. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. ] 17-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. L & Miller, T. A. (1998). Associations between nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of instructor con1petence and course content in videotaped distance education courses. Communication Education, 47, 30-42. Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Social presence ·theory and implications for building online communities. Paper presented at the Third Inten1ational Symposium on Telecommunications in Education, Albuquerque, NM. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147- 166. Gunawardena, C. N., & F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor or satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The Americall Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3),8-26. Hacker, K 1. & Wignall, D. 1. (1997, Winler) Issues in predicting user acceptance {'I computer-n1ediated communication III inter-university classroom discussion d" an alternative to face-to-lace interacli( '11 C0111mun£cation Reports, 10(1), 108-11-1. Had::man, M. Z., & Walker, K B. (19t)(\) Instructional communication in t h· televised classroom.: The effects of svstr'Il1 design and teacher immediacy on st~lld!'IH learning and satisfaction. Communicnt'(')i Education, 39, 196-206. Hancock, J. & Dunham, .P. ImprE-'sslt'lj fonnation in compllter-m.edir, J. (2001, November). The effect of instructor's use of audio e-mail messages on student participation in and of online learning: A preliminary case study. Open Learning! 16(3),263-278. J. R (1997, October 3). Rethinking the of l hv professor in an age of high- tech look Chronicle Higher Education, A26-A2R Robert Woods is Assistant Professor of Communicntil)JI, Arbor University! Spring Arbor, A1ic1Iigrl1l, States. Samuel Ebersole if. Professor and Instructional Development ill Information Teclmol- ogy Service::. nt tile University of SoutJu-',rn Colorado, Plle[JJ1), Colorntio, United States. Journal Learning, Vol 7, No 1, 2003 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 67