Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning Community
Please cite as: Daniel, B.K., Schwier, R.A., & Ross, H. (in press). Synthesis of the process of
learning through discourse in a formal virtual learning community. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research.
Abstract
This article reports on the analysis of online discussions among graduate students studying the
understanding the process of learning through discourse in these communities. Content analysis
techniques based on grounded theory were employed to synthesize, categorize and summarize
various variables reflecting the process of learning. Results suggest there are fundamentally two
incidental. Both types contribute to our understanding of the process of learning in virtual
learning communities and how a sense of community among learners can be nurtured. Overall
results revealed that learning was multivariate and diverse in these courses, and that our tentative
1. Introduction
drawn from social learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
Learning occurs in all kinds of communities, formal and informal, physical and virtual (Schwier,
2001; Wenger, 1998). Currently, virtual learning communities are gaining wider recognition
among researchers as vehicles for knowledge creation and distribution (Cothrel, 1999; Daniel,
Schwier, & McCalla 2003; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2002).
Schwier & Ross, 2005), with research focusing on building, supporting and sustaining virtual
learning communities. Despite growing research into virtual learning communities, there is
limited theoretical understanding of how the nature of discourse ultimately influences learning in
these communities. To begin to understand this complex relationship, our research investigates
The goal of our study was to explore variables that contribute to our understanding the
categorize and summarize various variables of learning. This paper also examines
2. Related Research
Interest in the notion of virtual community in education has been significant. Schwier
(2001) suggested that the metaphor of community enables educators to discuss richer, deeper,
more complex types of interplay among online learners than does the metaphor of the classroom.
Essentially, learning communities exist when learners share common interests about the
communities as collections of individuals who are bound together by natural will and a set of
shared ideas and ideals. Learning communities are also considered cohesive entities embodying a
culture of learning, in which all members are involved in a collective effort of understanding
So, we suggest that a virtual learning community is composed of people, a virtual location
where they interact, share interests, and employ technologies to work together to achieve goals.
People in virtual communities are engaged in similar things as people in geophysical space,
though people in virtual communities may exhibit different patterns of communication. Virtual
learning communities are normally formed for specific reasons, including the need to share
expertise (professional development), the need to get support (peer-help), the need to acquire
current information and ideas about a particular issue, the need to socialize with others who share
similar concerns, and the need to extend education to isolated learners (distance education).
Fundamental to all kinds of virtual learning communities is learning, however, the process
involved in learning in various kinds of communities can differ significantly and can be
influenced by a number of uncharted factors (McCalla, 2000). Learning theories share common
assumptions about what constitutes learning, but there are also important differences, based on
varying epistemological stances, belief systems, and paradigms. But common to most theories of
brought about by learners’ experiences and interactions with the world (Driscoll, 2005). Learning
can also be regarded as changes in behavioural patterns that might have implicit or explicit
impact on performance outcomes, including the means to stimulate the conditions that can
promote learning (the process) and the results from that process (the outcomes).
Learning has been studied in various contexts and the processes involved in learning appear
knowledge and connecting meanings to their understanding, and by sharing these meanings with
others in the community (Collay, Dunlap, Enloe & Gagnon, 1998; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998).
Research suggests that most learning activities in communities are informal, involving the
exchange of personal experiences, lessons and information (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Wenger
(1998) also stated that sharing tacit knowledge (knowledge drawn from personal experiences)
within a community yields higher success than sharing explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge,
which is an individual, idiosyncratic property, cannot be elaborated and then documented easily,
nor can it be distilled into a discrete data set and stored in an information retrieval system. It is
privately held but it can be made explicit and shared with others in a community.
theory (Newby, Stepich, Lehman & Russell, 1996), how we construct knowledge will depend on
what we already know, including the kinds of historical experiences that we have had and how
we have come to organize these into existing knowledge structures. Social constructivism is
currently associated with learning in groups whose activities are mediated by information
knowledge as grounded in the relationship between the knower and the known. This implies that
knowledge is generated through social interaction, and through this interaction individuals
gradually advance their levels of knowing. Garrison and Anderson (2003) argue that the type of
interaction that can take place in a learning community is complex, and may include student-
Although current theories might be useful for describing learning that is mediated by
information and communication technology in general, they do not adequately describe the
process of learning in virtual learning communities. Learning may manifest itself differently
depending on the context of the community in which it is created, such as whether communities
are formal or informal, bounded or unbounded. Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam and Dunlap
(2004) distinguished between bounded and unbounded learning communities. They suggested
that bounded learning communities are created across courses in higher education or corporate
Several sources of data informed the ideas in our research program, but the data for this
planned, formal instructional events from a course offered twice over the span of two academic
During the first offering of the course, 12 graduate students registered in the course. Online
discussions were scheduled so that each online topic in the course included one synchronous and
asynchronous event over a two-week period. The normal pattern for online discussion of each
topic was to post to the discussion board (asynchronous) in the first week then meet in a chat
room (synchronous) the second week to discuss themes that emerged from the discussion board
postings. During the subsequent year's version of the course, 11 graduate students enrolled in the
course, and the format of the online events was altered to use asynchronous events exclusively.
The pattern the class followed was to post an introduction, assigned readings and questions for a
topic and require a posting from each student. Then each student was asked to respond to at least
two postings from other students. All activities were completed within one calendar week.
A significant characteristic of both groups was that they were comprised almost exclusively
of Western, English-speaking graduate students, with the exception of one student from China.
All of the students exhibited facility with writing, and there was ample evidence that students
were willing to engage in academic argumentation with each other and with the instructor. It is
possible, even likely, that our findings are culturally moderated, and so we caution the reader to
communities, we explored critical discourse variables that emerged from online discussions, and
that were preserved in transcripts of those discussions. Content analysis was the principle
methodology employed in this study. Content analysis techniques are aimed primarily at
determining the presence of words, concepts, and patterns within a large body of texts or sets of
texts (Stemler, 2001). They involve replicable techniques for compressing a large body of text
into few categories based on application of systematic and explicit rules of coding (Krippendorff,
1980; Rourke, Anderson & Archer, 2001). Content analysis techniques have also been used to
map symbolic data into data matrices suitable for statistical analysis (Smelser & Baltes, 2001).
Content analysis is being used increasingly in many domains with the aim of determining
the presence of words, concepts, and patterns within a large body of text (Stemler, 2001). In
recent years many researchers have used content analysis to examine transcripts of computer-
mediated interaction, with the goal of understanding social issues critical to collaborative
learning (Katz, O’Donnell, Kay, 2000; Rourke, Anderson & Archer, 2001; Soller, 2004; Soller &
The process of doing content analysis involves the application of systematic and replicable
techniques for compressing a large body of text into few categories based on explicit rules of
coding (Krippendorff, 1980; Rourke, Anderson & Archer, 2001). When we conducted the
content analysis, we addressed the following six questions, which were adapted from
Krippendorf (1990):
Once these questions were addressed, choices were made about relevant and irrelevant data;
the next step was to code the transcripts. This is done manually normally through reading
through available transcripts and manually noting occurrences of variables, concepts, words, or
unit of analysis.
We used content analysis techniques in a grounded theory context to draw meaning from the data
(see figure 1). Atlas-ti™ (2006), a qualitative data management workbench, provided an
environment for text management and classification that lends itself to network building.
Transcripts of all asynchronous and synchronous events were analyzed using a grounded theory
approach and Atlas ti™ software, with the purpose of extending, refining, and/or altering our
understanding of the role played by online discussion in the development of virtual communities.
Several assumptions underlying the use of grounded theory methodology were explicitly
considered in the research (Strauss & Corbin, 1997) including grounding the emerging theory in
data, acknowledging that learners respond to problem situations actively, understanding that
learners seek meaning, understanding that meaning is created through interaction, being sensitive
to how events unfold during the research and being sensitive to the interactions among
conditions, responses and consequences. Transcripts were coded by one researcher, with a
second researcher reviewing the coding scheme as it emerged. Inter-coder reliability estimates
were not calculated; however, codes were subjected to negotiation between researchers.
Sample Transcript
Transcript Corpus
Message
Sentence Code(s)
Cluster 1
Themes Cluster 2
Clustern
analysis of units of analysis (sentence, paragraph, and message) based on the contexts of the
interactions. Codes were generated from the meaning of the text. Similar texts were grouped into
themes and similar themes into code clusters. Analysis was iterative, in that after a block of
coding was completed, the emerging codes were then used to review earlier transcripts. In other
words the acts of reading, coding, reading and coding happened over time, between researchers,
4. Results
Analysis of the data revealed two clusters of discourse variables that we labeled “intentional”
and “incidental”. The intentional learning cluster was related to those parts of the discussion that
were required to achieve learning goals and were based on the content of the course (e.g.,
readings, assignments). The variables in this category included explicit information, evaluation,
feedback (see Table 1). The incidental learning cluster of variables were drawn from interactions
that were not based on the content of the course, in other words, those discussions that were
voluntarily generated among individuals in the group (see Table 2). Variables in this cluster
Community
me!”
Evaluation Judging, assessing, or criticizing “My sense is that you are an insider in the
specific postings, and ideas English VLC you taught, by virtue of your
Inquiry Requesting explanations, questions, or “It is not clear who signs off on the project.
do it over again”.
Argumentation Critically examining knowledge with “I do believe that this project could be
Uncertainty Explicitly expressing doubt “I am not sure if it was because of our bond
Suggestion Offering alternatives, insights new “I've suggested some discussion points below,
motivate learners”.
Clarification Providing concrete examples or fresh “The reference was to how online
RTFM”.
Summation Summarizing postings, ideas or "So, that’s my take on what we wrote about in
provide new information the team members. You said, "I’ll assume, all
thing."
Table 2. Definitions and Examples of Incidental Discourse Variables in a Virtual Learning
Community
Shared Building agreement/consensus between “I also agree with the turn toward
Understanding two or more participants about meaning constructivist epistemology in education, but
of discourse not only with the school boards, but with the
Shared Experience Describing past experiences, stories etc. “I have this same experience of the "guru"
Observations Analyzing or expressing opinions about “If a community views a person as being an
a specific situation or item of discourse insider, but the person sees him/herself
Reflection Considering experiences, postings in “This reminds me of a time when I was trying
Peer-support Providing or requesting for help “………, I may need your assistance with the
Sociability Offering expressions of courtesy , “Your life sounds way more exciting than
like one!”
constructivist?”
These discourse variables are not mutually exclusive; we have little doubt that they share
considerable variance. As indicators of learning, they imply learning has taken place, but they do
not provide a direct measure of learning outcomes. In other words they describe the nature of the
5. Discussion
The intentional and incidental variable clusters both inform our understanding of the
process of learning and community building. Among the variables in the intentional learning
cluster, argumentation was the dominant variable within the discussion transcripts. This is
consistent with research that suggests that argumentation is an active process of learning, where
students engage in the use of information by engaging each other, and exploring the implications
two parties: an arguer and an audience. The audience is the entity to whom the argumentation is
directed and who, according to the arguer's beliefs, may not share their viewpoint at the initial
stage of argumentation (Van Eemere & Grootendorst, 2004). McAlister (2001) noted that
introducing students to critical argumentation schemes, through discussion, provides them with
experiences that are a valuable part of joining an academic culture. In virtual learning
communities, argumentation can engage learners in productive discussions that enable them to
deeply and actively explore a topic and in the process gain new insights from each other. It is
also possible that effective argumentation among students can lead to collaborative learning. Our
analysis suggests that graduate students will engage in argumentation even when it is not
explicitly required or encouraged in class discussions. This further suggests that argumentation,
if well-planned and managed, can be deliberately infused into the fabric of course discussions.
Inquiry was another significant discourse variable that emerged from the content of the
on asking questions because students are encouraged to ask questions based on their personal
constructivist models, learning is the result of ongoing changes in our mental frameworks as we
attempt to make meaning out of our experiences (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985) and it normally
takes place through negotiation and discourse. Further, when students are encouraged to make
meaning based on their own personal experiences, they are generally involved in developing and
restructuring their knowledge schemes through experiences with given phenomena and
productive discussions guided by their instructor (Haury, 1993). In this research students
Feedback was also observed among the group. Feedback can qualify, extend, approve or
refute a statement, and it is vital to learning from conversation between learners. Feedback
mechanisms can be used to structure the communication process, and also to encourage
reflection. The use of feedback can encourage effective participation because understanding
increases when frequent, high quality feedback is provided (Krauss & Fussell, 1991; Mory,
1992; Schober & Clark, 1989). In this study, participants continually provided feedback to each
other, and the quantity of feedback enhanced the likelihood of learning in this environment
(Brown & Volt, 2005). In virtual learning communities where there are few opportunities for
non-verbal cues and feedback beyond emoticons and embedded descriptions (e.g., <grinning>),
immediate and contextualized feedback can improve learning and reduce uncertainty. The
importance of feedback was to a large extent intentionally built into the design of the discussions
under study, as participants were required to respond meaningfully to the postings of others. But
we found that feedback was provided equally in both intentional and incidental discussion, and
we conclude that it is a natural occurrence in academic discussions that can be encouraged and
nourished.
In both intentional and incidental clusters, sociability was the dominant variable observed,
and it dwarfed other variables in its frequency of occurrence (see Figure 2). This is partially due
to our coding scheme, which included common greetings as examples of sociability, but
nevertheless, sociability was a prevalent and significant indicator of interaction. Does sociability
equate with learning? We would suggest that it does not, but that it nurtures the learning
environment in important ways. The notion of sociability suggests that individuals desire to
associate with each others in a collegial, friendly community. Sociability is typically evidenced
with common hospitality. Individuals become sociable with those individuals they interact and
identify with in the community. Sociability can nurture respect for individual and shared values
and adherence to common social protocols. In addition, sociability can encourage members of a
learning community to relate to each other informally, and develop strong social networking,
Shared understanding and shared experiences were observed in the data. Shared
understanding evolves over time as members learn about each other, spend time together, and
engage in the work of their group. Giangreco (1993) noted that in order for groups of people to
become effective teams it is vital that they develop a shared understanding of the underlying
beliefs, values, and principles that will guide their work together. Shared understanding can
We observed instances of extended knowledge, but we are not sure whether these were
more closely tied to the intentional design of the discussions or the natural dynamic of the
community. Data in this study revealed vibrant discourse where individuals vigorously engaged
in sharing experiences, offering reflections and making critical observations. The level of
discourse manifested in these variables supports the notion that learning in a community can be
informal where individuals can deeply engage in sharing personal past experiences within a
cultural context (Wenger, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978). Further when people interact with each and
establish certain persistent patterns of behaviours, which can be analysed organised and
categorised, it is then possible to come up with a set of assessment criteria for understanding the
variables to identify gross occurrences of group engagement and the process of learning in
virtual learning communities. However, other measures are required to assess the impact these
required content) play a critical role in building a sustainable learning community, whereby
requirements helps individuals to make social connections, and thereby can nurture a sense of
community. Since VLCs are bounded by time, it is important that individuals are able to develop
a deep level of social engagement and networking that extends beyond the formal boundaries of
the course.
Wilson, Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam and Dunlap (2004) noted that the limited nature of
contact and interaction in online courses inhibits students from establishing deep relationships
and engagement. They pointed out that establishing deeper levels of identity change is rare and
that developing it may depend on the intensity of learning experiences and whether students will
encounter each other in future courses. In a learning environment where learners are able to
establish lengthy, frequent and durable interactions, they can build a common identity. This
implies that learners will continue their relationships after a course of study is completed.
element of a virtual learning community. Historicity helps individuals sustain positive social
interactions. Ludwig-Hardman, Thornam and Dunlap (2003) indicated that a learning community
history is largely formed by the community’s heritage, shared goals and belief systems. For
instance, a positive history of interaction in the past can encourage effective interaction in the
future. Kollok (1996) observed that if members of a group will not meet each other in the future
collective identity to emerge. Duffy (2000) noted that a shared history encourages group identity,
which enhances reproducibility as new members contribute, support, and eventually lead the
community to the future. It is worth noting that our research has not revealed a high incidence of
comments about a shared history in course transcripts, but we speculate that historicity is a
variable that is manifest in other ways, not confined to the text of discussions in a particular
course.
As mentioned earlier, the discourse variables identified in this paper are not mutually
exclusive; in fact, they reflect the complexity and interdependency of variables involved in the
process of learning in this community. Further, the intentional and incidental clusters of
discourse variables suggested that the process of learning in virtual learning communities is a
multivariate phenomenon that includes formal and informal features and that can be supported in
coherent ways.
In many learning environments, formal and informal features of learning are seamless and
factors including the nature of the learning environment, the instructor and the domain. In other
words, the boundaries between informal and formal features of learning in virtual learning
communities, and subsequently the variation among incidental and intentional variables, are
ignored in the literature. We argue that distinguishing these variables is critical to understanding
the process of learning in virtual learning communities, and possibly supporting it.
communities helps learners in at least two ways. One benefit is guiding learners to complete
formal course requirements. Another benefit is that understanding interaction among learners
implies a deep understanding of learners, and informs the provision of support for engagement
beyond course content. Informal interaction is a necessary ingredient for building social
networking, which in turn can support community continuity and growth. Furthermore, if an
explicit goal of the learning context is to nurture and promote a sense of community, then it is
critical to support incidental discourse variables. However, if the learning context does not
require students to informally interact and form a community, then the instructor can emphasize
intentional discourse variables to minimise time spent on issues unrelated to the central foci of
the course. We do not take the stance that one type of learning environment is superior to
another, but that educators can make deliberate choices to manage the nature of discourse in
This article presented a number of variables that can be used to think about learning in
virtual learning communities. The paper attempted to make two specific contributions. First, it
presented a preliminary framework that researchers can use to categorise and understand
discourse variables in VLCs. Second, if these variables are validated, they imply related
strategies to support learning. However, these results are preliminary, in that they are based on
data that have not been externally validated. The researchers are refining the coding scheme and
introducing strategies for calculating reliability estimates for the data, but caution the reader to
consider these findings tentative. Ultimately, we intend to employ Bayesian Belief Network
methods to determine relationships among the variables, singling out the most important ones,
and developing reliable, stable and portable indicators of learning in virtual learning
7. References
Atlas.ti (2006). ATLAS.ti Scientific Software DevelopmentGmbH. Retrieved March 22, 2006
from http://www.atlasti.com/index.php.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning and communities of practice: Towards
Brown, A. R. & Voltz, B.D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved April, 11, 2005 from
http://www.irrodl.org/content/v6.1/brown_voltz.html
Bruner, J. (1996). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Daniel, B.K., Schwier, R.A., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning
Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & Ross, H. (2005). Intentional and Incidental Discourse Variables in a
Van Eemeren & Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-
Driscoll, P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Collay, M., Dunlap, D., Enloe, W. & Gagnon, G. W. (1998). Learning circles: Creating
Ludwig-Hardman, S. & Dunluap, J.C. (2003). Learner support services for online students:
scaffolding for success. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Garrison, D.R. and Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for
Giangreco, M.F., CichoskiKelly, E., Backus, L., Edelman, S., Broer, S., CichoskiKelly, C., &
for students with disabilities in general education. TASH Newsletter, 25(1), 2123.
Haury, D.L. (1993) Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC/CSMEE Digest. Clearinghouse for
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge
construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1). Retrieved March 22, 2006, from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/kanuka.html.
Katz, S., O'Donnell, G. and Kay, H. (2000). An approach to analyzing the role and structure of
Kowch, E., & Schwier, R.A. (1998). Considerations in the construction of technology-based
1-12.
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S.R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
McAlister, S. (2001) Argumentation and a Design for Learning. CALRG reports publications.
Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instructional technology for
Osborne, M., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: Implications of children's knowledge.
Palloff, R, & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. New
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., and Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the
Implication for research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 5-18.
Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive
Smesler, N.J., & Baltes, P.B. (2001). International encyclopedia of social and behavioural
Soller, A., and Lesgold, A. (2003). A Computational Approach to Analyzing Online Knowledge
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hard-Hardman, S. Thorman, C.L., & Dunluap, J.C. (2004). Bounded
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada (SSHRCC).