What is a community? Is it people coming together “to escape uncertainty” or is it a confusing and potentially conflicted place (Brent 215)? I live in a community with a homeowner’s association and all the signs, marketing and newsletters stress the community that we live in. But it is a forced community, a mere by-product of buying a house on a certain street. With very little in common with our neighbors, we rarely participate in any structured community events.
In our blogs, as individual articles were shared and analyzed, we had the opportunity to read exponentially more material and be exposed to many more authors than we would have been if we would not have posted our information communally. I analyzed the topics and sources used [Appendix], identifying 44 unique sources. Of these, only four sources were used more than once, with only one source used more than twice (nine times). Of 55 total references, there was only one duplicate reference posted [figure 1].
Source Title
|
# articles
|
Computers and Composition
|
9
|
British Journal of Educational Technology
|
2
|
Computers & Education
|
2
|
Journal of Library Administration
|
2
|
Adult Learning
|
|
College Composition and Communication
|
|
College English
|
|
Educational Technology Research and Development
|
|
English Education
|
|
IALLT Journal
|
|
Innovative Higher Education
|
|
Instructional Science: an International Journal of the Learning Sciences
|
|
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
|
|
International Journal or E-Learning & Distance Education
|
|
Journal of Agricultural Education
|
|
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
|
|
Journal of Basic Writing
|
|
Journal of Educational Technology
|
|
Journal of Educational Technology & Society
|
|
Journal of Global Intelligence & Policy
|
|
Journal of Information Technology Education
|
|
Journal of Interactive Online Learning
|
|
Journal of Public Affairs Education
|
|
Journal of Technical Writing & Communication
|
|
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning
|
|
Journal of Writing Research
|
|
Kairos
|
|
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education
|
|
Nurse Educator
|
|
Pedagogy
|
|
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences
|
|
Research and Teaching in Developmental Education
|
|
Rocky Mountain Review
|
|
Teaching English in the Two-Year College
|
|
TESL Canada Journal
|
|
TESL-EJ
|
|
TETYC
|
|
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
|
|
The Internet and Higher Education
|
|
The Journal of Higher Education
|
|
The Journal of Midwest Modern Language Association
|
|
The Journal of Nursing Education
|
|
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
|
How do communities develop within a class? Community building techniques need to be “explicitly explained” in a distance class as to their purpose (Neff 85). While explanations of purpose at an undergraduate level may be needed for “modeling an intellectual community,” this should not have to be explained at the graduate level, as I posit that the purpose of blogging or other asynchronous discussion forums are more than a tool to create class community [1], as students may use these spaces for different purposes and community-building may only be a peripheral benefit. Garrison and Vaughan point constructivist learning theory, in which individuals are “making sense of their experiences” with “inquiry at its core” (13-14). We each had autonomy in our blog subject matter, with broad latitude applied to the interest areas we chose to explore. Pointing to the necessity of students being “actively engaged in the process of inquiry,” with a community of inquiry (CoI) as a method to achieve this, our class blogs could be viewed as both CoI and applied constructivism.
Neff looks to asynchronous communication as created spaces “where students can control the direction of the conversation in ways that they cannot in traditional educational classrooms” (93). She stresses that “learning is enhanced when it is more like a team effort than a solo race. Good learning like good work is collaborative and social, not competitive and isolated. Working with others increases involvement in learning. Sharing one’s ideas and responding to others improves thinking and deepens understanding” (Gamson as cited in Neff 100). Encouragement can also be given for students to use online posting avenues outside single assignments by drawing the content in to other discussions, encouraging students to continue participation, noting that instructors should not be “the bottleneck” and that low-stakes writing often encourages better participation if students aren’t always just writing with assessment in mind or for a particular assignment (Warnock 83).
While graduate students may use blogging for their own research purposes without external motivation, I have used both ungraded and graded blog posts/comments in numerous undergraduate online classes, without clear guidelines as to when, what and how much to post and undergraduate students, in my experience, will usually only post to the requirements. Warnock points to the benefit of assigning primary and secondary posts, with a discussion around the necessity of outlining the expectations and timing for when students should post to encourage active participation, but recognizing that a reward/punishment system will change how posts are perceived within a class. In our class, by having blog posts due at certain times, but with no expectation of what follow-up comments or conversations might ensue from the posts, it was left open to interpretation and posts only appeared sporadically, but never became a major place of conversation within the class.
Requiring comments on a blog will elicit increased response, as students are often grade motivated, but is commenting on a blog building community or just increasing forced participation – a form of the medicine that is good for you? Warnock focuses on conversation and asynchronous message boards as being a “cornerstone” of his own online pedagogy with a goal of wanting students to “talk with one another” (68). Focusing conversations on students and their responses, Bakhtin points to the response as being the foundation of understanding, rather than teachers talking “to” students (as cited in Warnock 68) it pushed us to think in new ways about active learning and student agency in their own learning.
![]() |
Figure 3: Total Comments to Student Blogs
|
Participation, conversation or interaction do not necessarily equate to community. On our blogs, there were a total of 49 comments averaging 4.5 posts per blog, but only 6 out of 11 students participated by providing comments. 5 students did not participate beyond their own blog posts (Figures 3-5).
![]() |
Figure 4: Response Comments to Student Blogs |
Did the lack of participation on our class blogs diminish the establishment of community within the class? Not at all, because beyond the instructor-required blogs, the class had a private Facebook page in which all of the students were enrolled, but not the instructor. On that page, there were posts almost daily, ranging from shared resources, to assignment questions, to support and encouragement. Social community was established outside the confines of the classroom, but with greater and fuller interactions in the Facebook group, than on any individual blog. As a private, closed space, students may feel freer to express their thoughts, opinions and share on their own terms than on a public blog space, or one required as part of a class.
While echoing the concerns of CCCC OWI Position Statement’s second principle, “an online writing course should focus on writing and not on technology orientation or teaching students how to use learning and other technologies,” the benefit of a blog and having students actively participate in their own learning is valuable. I have had students express the benefits of posting in my classes, but also wish they had their own space to post to where they could create their own online presence. Recognizing that a blog has rhetorical elements and using that discussion as part of a class is also beneficial, as DePew notes, it isn’t about “using” a technology, but recognizing “what does this technology want me to do?” and how can its affordance be of benefit to student learning within an online classroom? Each technology “demands” something from a user, and it is important that this is recognized as part of assigning a technology, such as a blog.
[1] I refer to blogs, discussion posts, and bulletin boards as all asynchronous methods of communication within an online classroom and associate them as a single construct for building community or fostering class interaction for the purpose of my analysis, while recognizing that each is its own individual technology, having its own affordances and limitations.
ID
|
Source Reference
|
Keywords
|
1
|
Gouge, C. (2009). “Conversation at a crucial moment: Hybrid courses and the future of writing programs.” College English, 71(4), 338-362.
|
Online Writing Instruction Rehabilitation Counseling Students
Multi-literacies
Hybrid Courses
Digital Writing
Participation
|
Rendahl, M.A. (2009). “It’s not the Matrix: Thinking about online writing instruction.” The Journal of Midwest Modern Language Association, 42(1), 133-150
|
||
Grabill, J.T. & Hicks, T. (2005). “Multi-literacies meet methods: The case for digital writing in English education.” English Education, 37(4), 301-311.
|
||
Harrington, A. M. (2010). “Hybrid developmental writing courses: Limitations and alternatives.” Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 26(2), 4-20.
|
||
Warnock, S., Bingham, K., Driscoll, D., Fromal, J., & Rouse, N. (2012). “Early participation in asynchronous writing environments and course success.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 35-47.
|
||
Main, D., & Dziekan, K. (2012). “Distance education: Linking traditional classroom rehabilitation counseling students with their colleagues using hybrid learning models. Rehabilitation Research, Policy and Education, 26(4), 315-320.
|
||
2
|
Burgess, Kimberly R. “Social Networking Technologies as Vehicles of Support for Women in Learning Communities.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 122 (2009): 63-71.
|
Social Networking
Women
Online Writing Classroom
Nursing
Blended Learning
Connecting with Students
Anonymity
Supportive Presence
|
Griffin, June, and Deborah Minter. “The Rise of the Online Writing Classroom: Reflecting on the Material Conditions of College Composition Teaching.” College Composition and Communication. 65.1 (2013): 140-161.
|
||
Stevens, Carol J., et al. “Implementing a Writing Course in an Online RN-BSN Program.” Nurse Educator 39.1 (2014):17-21.
|
||
Miyazoe, Terumi, and Terry Anderson. “Anonymity In Blended Learning: Who Would You Like To Be?” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14.2 (2011): 175-187.
|
||
Diekelmann, Nancy, and Elnora P. Mendias. “Being a Supportive Presence in Online Courses: Knowing and Connecting with Students through Writing.” The Journal of Nursing Education 44.8 (2005): 344-346.
|
||
3
|
Shultz Colby, Rebekah. “A Pedagogy of Play: Integrating Computer Games into the Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition 25. Reading Games: Composition, Literacy, and Video Gaming (2008): 300-312.
|
Computer Games
Writing Classroom
Rhetoric
Adult Learners Pedagogy
Community
Social Media
Digital Imperative
Student Learning
Online Discussions
Academic Performance
|
Ewing, Laura A. “Rhetorically Analyzing Online Composition Spaces.” Pedagogy 3 (2013): 554-560.
|
||
Blair, Kristine, and Cheryl Hoy. “Paying Attention to Adult Learners Online: The Pedagogy and Politics of Community.” Computers & Composition 23.1 (2006): 32-48.
|
||
LeNoue, Marvin, Tom Hall, and Myron A. Eighmy. “Adult Education and the Social Media Revolution.” Adult Learning 22.2 (2011): 4-12.
|
||
Clark, J. Elizabeth. “The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st-Century Pedagogy.” Computers & Composition 27.1 (2010): 27-35.
|
||
4
|
Lee, S.W.Y. (2013). Investigating students’ learning approaches, perceptions of online discussions, and students’ online and academic performance. Computers & Education, 68, 345-352.
|
Student Learning
Online Discussions
Academic Performance
Asynchronous Discussions
Scaffolding
Academic Engagement
Mediation
Roles
Goals
Cognitive Engagement
First Year Writing
|
Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science: an International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(6), 571-606.
|
||
Cho, M.H., & Cho, Y. J. (2014). Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. The Internet and Higher Education, 21(3), 25-30.
|
||
Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van, M. H., & Harun, J. (2014). A Predictive Model to Evaluate Students’ Cognitive Engagement in Online Learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4844-4853.
|
||
Rendahl, M., & Breuch, L. A. (2013). Toward a Complexity of Online Learning: Learners in Online First-Year Writing. Computers and Composition, 30(4), 297-314.
|
||
5
|
Hargis, J., Cavanaugh, C., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2014). A Federal Higher Education iPad Mobile Learning Initiative: Triangulation of Data to Determine Early Effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 45-57. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9259-y
|
Innovation
iPad
Mobile Learning
Effectiveness
Writing
Scrivener
Tools
Word Processing
Kindle
Writing Classroom
Higher Education
Mobile Tablets
Google Drive
Blended Learning
Authentic Learning
|
Bray, N. (2013). Writing with Scrivener: A hopeful tale of disappearing tools, flatulence, and word processing redemption. Computers and Composition, 30(3), 197-210. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2013.07.002
|
||
Acheson, P., Barratt, C. C., & Balthazor, R. (2013). Kindle in the writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 30(4), 283-296. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2013.10.005
|
||
Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
|
||
Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning: Authentic learning and Google Drive. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594-606. doi:10.1111/bjet.12063
|
||
6
|
York, Amy C., and Jason M. Vance. “Taking Library Instruction into the Online Classroom: Best Practices for Embedded Librarians.” Journal of Library Administration 49.1/2 (2009): 197-209.
|
Library Instruction
Embedded Librarians
Online Classroom
Hybrid Classroom
ESL/EFL
Library Resources
Library Services
International
Global
Personal Touch
Library Faculty
English
|
Harrington, Anna M. “Problematizing the Hybrid Classroom for ESL/EFL Students.” TESL-EJ 14.3 (December 2010): 1-13.
|
||
Wang, Zhonghong and Paul Tremblay. “Going Global: Providing Library Resources and Services to International Sites.” Journal of Library Administration 49 (2009): 171-185.
|
||
Zhang, Jie. “Learner Agency, Motive, and Self-Regulated Learning in an Online ESL Writing Class.” IALLT Journal 43.2 (2013): 57-81
|
||
Kadavy, Casey, and Kim Chuppa-Cornell. “A Personal Touch: Embedding Library Faculty into Online English 102.” TETYC 39.1 (2011): 63-77.
|
||
7
|
Yang, Yu-Fen. “A Reciprocal Peer Review System to Support College Students’ Writing.” British Journal of Educational Technology 42.4 (2011): 687-700.
|
Peer Review
College Writing
Students
Online Writing Classroom
Adaptation
Training
Workshop
Evaluation
Assessment
Revision Process
Collaborative Writing
|
Knight, Linda V., and Theresa A. Steinbach. “Adapting Peer Review to an Online Course: An Exploratory Case Study.” Journal of Information Technology Education 10 (2011): 81-100.
|
||
Lam, Ricky. “A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback.” TESL Canada Journal 27.2 (2010): 114-27.ERIC. Web. 31 May 2014.
|
||
Goldin, Ilya M., and Kevin D. Ashley. “Eliciting Formative Assessment in Peer Review.” Journal of Writing Research 4.2 (2012): 203-27.
|
||
Woo, Matsuko Mukumoto, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Xuanxi Li. “Peer-feedback and Revision Process in a Wiki Mediated Collaborative Writing.” Educational Technology Research and Development 61.2 (2013): 279-309. Web. 27 May 2014
|
||
8
|
Arslan, R. (2014). Integrating feedback into prospective English language teachers’ writing process via blogs and portfolios. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 131-150.
|
Feedback
Blogs
Portfolios Scaffolding
Collaboration
Technical Writing
Synchronous Discussion
Facilitation
Agricommunication
Web
Instruction
Attitudes
Service Learning
Distance Education
|
Yeh, S., Lo, J., & Huang, J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397-419.
|
||
Day, T.M., Raven, M.R. & Newman, M.E. (1998). The Effects of World Wide Web Instruction and Traditional Instruction and Learning Styles on Achievement and Changes in Student Attitudes in a Technical Writing in Agricommunication Course. Journal of Agricultural Education,39(4), 65-75.
|
||
Ya Ni, A. (2013). Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research Methods. Journal Of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.
|
||
Soria, K. M., & Weiner, B. (2013). A “Virtual Fieldtrip”: Service Learning in Distance Education Technical Writing Courses. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 43(2), 181-200. doi:10.2190/TW.43.2.e
|
||
9
|
Chen, Pu-Shih Daniel, Amber D. Lambert, and Kevin R. Guidry.“Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement.” Computers & Education 54 (2010): 1222-1232.
|
Engagement
Online Learners
Web
Writing
Online Composition
Ecologies
First Year
Persistence
Web-Based Writing
Technologies
Complexity
Blending
|
Gillam, Ken and Shannon R. Wooden. “Re-embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space.” Computers and Composition 30.1 (2013): 24-36.
|
||
Kuh, George D. et. al. “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education 79.5 (2008): 540-563.
|
||
Gouge, Catherine. “Writing Technologies and the Technologies of Writing: Designing a Web- Based Writing Course.” Kairos 11.2 (2007).
|
||
Rendahl, Merry and Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch. “Toward a Complexity of Online Learning: Learners in Online First-Year Writing.” Computers and Composition 30.4 (2013): 297-314.
|
||
10
|
Wach, Howard, Laura Broughton, and Stephen Powers. “Blending in the Bronx: The Dimensions of Hybrid Course Development at Bronx Community College.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 1 (2011): 87.
|
Community College
Hybrid
Course Development
Multi-Modalities
Engaged Learners
Composition
21st Centuryt
Developmental Writers
Conversations
Online Learning
Basic Writing
Web-Enhanced
Environments
|
Gillam, Ken, and Shannon R. Wooden. “Re-Embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space.” Computers and Composition 30. Writing on the Frontlines (2013): 24-36.
|
||
Arms, Valarie M. “Hybrids, Multi-Modalities and Engaged Learners: A Composition Program for the Twenty-First Century.” Rocky Mountain Review 2 (2012): 219.
|
||
Stine, Linda. “Basically Unheard: Developmental Writers and the Conversation on Online Learning.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 38.2 (2010): 132-148.
|
||
Stine, Linda J. “Teaching Basic Writing In A Web-Enhanced Environment.” Journal Of Basic Writing 29.1 (2010): 33-55.
|
||
11
|
Mandernach, Jean B., Amber Dailey-Herbert, and Emily Donnelli-Sallee. “Frequency and Time Investment of Instructors’ Participation in Threaded Discussions in the Online Classroom.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 6.1 (2007). 1-9.
|
Instructors
Participation
Online Classroom
Rapport
Distance Education
Relationships
Facilitating
Reflection
Interactivity
Writing
Online Course
Qualitative Study
Twitter
Test
Assessing
Outsomes
Student Collaboration
Engagement
Success
|
Murphy, Elizabeth and Maria A. Rodriquez-Manzanares. “Rapport in Distance Education.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 13.1 (Jan 2012). 167-190.
|
||
Conner, Tonya. “Relationships First.” Journal of Global Intelligence & Policy 6.11 (2013). 37-41.
|
||
Andrusyszyn , Mary-Anne and Lynn Davie. “Facilitating Reflection through Interactive Journal Writing in an Online Graduate Course: A Qualitative Study.” International Journal or E-Learning & Distance Education 12.1 (1997). 103-126.
|
||
Junco, Reynal, C. Michael Elavsky, and Greg Heiberger. “Putting Twitter to the Test: Assessing Outcomes for Student Collaboration, Engagement and Success.” British Journal of Educational Technology 44.2 (2013): 273-287.
|
Wow, way to raise the bar Carol! Great job.