Synthesis of the Process of Learning through Discourse in a Formal Virtual

Learning Community

Ben K. Daniel. Richard A. Schwier, Heather Ross

Virtual Learning Communities Research Laboratory
Educational Communications and Technology
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 0X1

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

theoretical and philosophical foundations of educational technology, with the aim of

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

categories of discourse variables in formal virtual learning communities—intentional and

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

categories of learning share variance.

1. Introduction

The notion of community as a framework for understanding group learning is largely

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).

In virtual learning communities, learning is receiving considerable attention (Daniel,

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 patterns of interaction in a formal virtual learning community.

The goal of our study was to explore variables that contribute to our understanding the

process of learning in formal virtual learning communities as opposed to measuring learning as

an outcome of interactions. Our research questions included:

1. What types of learning are exhibited in written online discourse; and

2. How can identified types of learning be categorized?

Content analysis techniques based on grounded theory were employed to synthesize,

categorize and summarize various variables of learning. This paper also examines

methodological challenges, and offers directions for future research.

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

acquisition of knowledge in a domain. Kowch and Schwier (1998) described learning

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

(Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999).

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

learning, is an acknowledgement that learning involves a persistent change in performance

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

to be contextually influenced. In a community context, individuals learn by constructing

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.

The informal nature of learning in groups or teams is also prominent in socio-cultural

learning and constructivist theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). According to constructivist

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

communication technologies (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Social constructivism views

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-

student interaction, student-teacher interaction and student-content interaction.

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

settings. Furthermore, bounded learning communities emerge in direct response to guidance

provided by an instructor who is supported by a resource base.

3. Research Context and Methods

Several sources of data informed the ideas in our research program, but the data for this

analysis were comprised exclusively of the content of transcripts of online communication in

planned, formal instructional events from a course offered twice over the span of two academic

years (12 credit units of coursework).

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

confine interpretations to the context described in this paper.

In order to understand learning in virtual learning communities/bounded learning

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 &

Lesgold, 2003). Most content analysis techniques follow common protocols.

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):

• Which data are sought for analysis?

• How is the data together with concepts being defined?

• What is the population in which the sample of the data is drawn?

• What is the context in which the data is being analyzed?

• What determines the boundaries of the analysis?

• And what is the target of the inference?

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

Units of Analysis Paragraph Semantic

Analysis

Sentence Code(s)
Cluster 1

Themes Cluster 2

Clustern

Figure 1. Semantic content analysis scheme.

 Analysis of data for this research drew on meaning (semantics) from different levels of

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,

and in a forward and retrospective procedure on all transcripts.

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,

elaboration, inquiry, argumentation, uncertainty, suggestion, clarification, summation and

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

included shared understanding, shared experience, observation, reflection, peer support,

sociability and disagreement.

Table 1. Definitions and Examples of Intentional Discourse Variables in a Virtual Learning

Community

Variable Name Definition Example

Explicit Information Providing new ideas or information “Anthropologists do acknowledge different

without explicit expectation of talents and different responses to

reciprocity environmental stimuli; however,

enculturation, culture specific meaning and

understanding, is necessary for an individual

to think, behave, and develop emotionally in

order to function in his/her particular culture.

The term has different implications for

different theorists within the discipline

(sounds like construction of knowledge to

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

assignment to teach the course and your

position as the old-timer. You are also

inbound in the distance learning community,

since you are thinking carefully about distance

learning environments, engaging with

practitioners in the field and undertaking a

MEd in the Ed Tech. I can't see you in any

periphery in what you describe, unless

perhaps you are viewing your teaching

assignment as a kind of case study; which still

makes you an insider because you are very

teacherly (and professional) in doing so!”

Elaboration Extending the meaning of a particular “Asking me if I would be willing to elaborate .

posting, illustrating with examples . . . . . I would love to elaborate. I probably

should have replied privately to your post.

 This anthropological offshoot may take up

more space on the discussion board than

others may want to see!”

Inquiry Requesting explanations, questions, or “It is not clear who signs off on the project.

expressing doubt about specific ideas or When is an interactive component done?

postings Would the university be willing to sign off on

a prototype so that the corporate partner

knows that when they spend the bucks to get

the final polished version they won't have to

do it over again”.

Argumentation Critically examining knowledge with “I do believe that this project could be

respect to contrary evidence completed within the stated parameters. I

think that the faculty members who will

eventually deliver this course will have to be

open to change (teaching online, teaching with

a constructivist approach, etc.) as well as be

willing to relinquish some of their course

planning control to a business. While this

partnership does provide opportunities, such a

union raises the specter of big business

creeping into the university setting, something

several people have brought up”.

Uncertainty Explicitly expressing doubt “I am not sure if it was because of our bond

with a traditionally objectivist approach to

learning and our difficulty understanding the

openness and tools of constructivism. Or,

perhaps it was because of a lack of

information in this Digital Solution case study

 that left open so many different possible

answers on posted questions”.

Suggestion Offering alternatives, insights new “I've suggested some discussion points below,

solutions etc. or you can write a comment based on your

reading about motivation. Please stick with

the theme of professional practice and focus

on the instructor's role and responsibility to

motivate learners”.

Clarification Providing concrete examples or fresh “The reference was to how online

explanations communities treat newbie members who ask

questions that may be common knowledge to

the rest of the group. Sometimes these

questions are politely answered, sometimes

they are ignored and sometimes you get

RTFM”.

Summation Summarizing postings, ideas or "So, that’s my take on what we wrote about in

interactions the first of the three part series on ‘learning

communities’, which will take us to new and

exciting place I am sure. I hope I’ve been

able to capture what was said, and if not, you

can always wiki-edit the summary"

Feedback Responding to postings/postings that “You make an interesting assumption about

provide new information the team members. You said, "I’ll assume, all

participants are involved because each

believes this is necessary or at least, a good

thing."
Table 2. Definitions and Examples of Incidental Discourse Variables in a Virtual Learning

Community

Variable Name Definition Example

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

textbook companies. If anyone uses

'Flashback Canada', I find that information is

provided for students, but that they must

construct their own ideas on what happens

next. They are actively trying to guess what

might happen under a list of circumstances,

and not just being given the answers”.

Shared Experience Describing past experiences, stories etc. “I have this same experience of the "guru"

leaving a group. I work in the clinic at the

RPC. A nurse who worked there for 25 years

left suddenly (stress related from our staff

dynamics). I enjoyed working with her. We

clicked; she was smart, calm and patient”.

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

moving on an outward trajectory that could be

quite devastating for the group. The

unexpected change in the dynamics of the

community could potentially undermine the

cohesiveness of the group. It could result in

 other members questioning their own

membership. It could cause members to

question the commitment of others. It could

also turn members against each other

wondering who was responsible for the

exodus of their "guru"”.

Reflection Considering experiences, postings in “This reminds me of a time when I was trying

previous discussions, or situating to find out how not to be a taken by a

current discussions in previous events customer on e-bay. I needed some questions

answered quickly (prior to sending my

money). So I went on some help forum. I am

too lazy to read the FAQ or the many posted

questions asked by other newbies. So I post

my question. It was never answered. I

wondered if that was because of my question

or my history (one or two buys in three years,

no sells). Yet, some vets were answering

questions to others. I thought, who has time

to help out a newbie who could probably find

the same question many times if they read old

posts. I haven't gone back. I guess I should

have structured my learning better :-)”

Peer-support Providing or requesting for help “………, I may need your assistance with the

authorware program :-)”

Sociability Offering expressions of courtesy , “Your life sounds way more exciting than

hospitality and acknowledgement mine! Congratulations on the job. It sounds

like you will get to use much of what you

studied. And the car . . . someday maybe . . . a

 1967 mustang. I won't go into why I would

like one!”

Disagreement One participant challenging the “I disagree (and my stomach is actually in

comments of another without knots ... because I HATE doing so virtually).

supporting evidence ;o) As a group we discussed the concepts of

"perceived trajectories" and "multiple

trajectories." It's not a lot, but isn't there some

part of our discussions that are

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

process inherent in learning.

 Figure 2. Frequency of observations of discourse variables in a virtual learning community.

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

of information (Bruner, 1996). In traditional classroom settings, argumentation typically involves

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

intentional discussions. Inquiry-based learning is a student-centered method of learning focusing

on asking questions because students are encouraged to ask questions based on their personal

contexts. Inquiry based learning is consonant with constructivist learning models. In

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

demonstrated several instances of inquiry-based learning, including questioning the assumptions

of their colleagues and requesting explanations.

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

by a set of greeting conventions and protocols for communication and interaction in a

community (Preece, 2000). Sociability is an essential element of a community, and is associated

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,

which is an essential ingredient of community sustainability.

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

likely prompt individuals to share knowledge beyond course content.

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

process of learning and subsequently support for it.

6. Conclusions and Future Research

The discourse variables observed in this investigation can be thought of as preliminary

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

types of interactions have on individual learning outcomes.

We argue that incidental discourse variables discourse variables (variables outside of

required content) play a critical role in building a sustainable learning community, whereby

individuals extend interactions beyond classroom/required content. Engagement outside class

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.

Schwier (2001) suggested that historicity—a sense of shared history—is an important

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

and if there is no memory of or records of previous community interactions it would be very

difficult to create or maintain online community. Furthermore, historicity can encourage

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

indistinguishable. The degree to which each feature is emphasized depends on a number of

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.

Understanding intentional and incidental discourse variables in virtual learning

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

formal learning environments.

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

communities related to discourse among learners.

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

a unified view of working, learning and innovating. Organisational Science, 2, 40-57.

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

communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and

Technology, 29(3), 113-139.

Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & Ross, H. (2005). Intentional and Incidental Discourse Variables in a

Virtual Learning Community. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005, pp. 1953-1965,

Norfolk, VA: AACE

Duffy, J. (2000). Knowledge management: To be or not to be? Information Management

Journal, 34, 1: pp. 66-67.

Van Eemeren & Grootendorst (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-

dialected approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

conditions for professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cothrel, J. (1999). Virtual communities today. The Journal of AGI, 7, 52-55.

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

Learning, 4(1). Retrieved March 22, 2006 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vo5.3/wilson.

Garrison, D.R. and Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for

research and practice. London, UK: RoutledgeFarmer.

Giangreco, M.F., CichoskiKelly, E., Backus, L., Edelman, S., Broer, S., CichoskiKelly, C., &

Spinney, P. (1999, March). Developing a shared understanding: Paraeducator supports

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

Science Mathematics and Environmental Education Columbus.

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

reflective dialogue, 11, 320-343.

Kowch, E., & Schwier, R.A. (1998). Considerations in the construction of technology-based

virtual learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(1),

1-12.

Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S.R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal

communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Ed.), Social psychology: A handbook

of basic principles (pp. 655-701). New York: Guilford

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New

York, NY: Cambridge University.

McCalla, G. (2000). The fragmentation of culture, learning, teaching and technology:

Implications for artificial intelligence in education research. International Journal of

Artificial Intelligence, 11(2), 177-196.

McAlister, S. (2001) Argumentation and a Design for Learning. CALRG reports publications.

Retrieved April, 17, 2005 from http://iet.open.ac.uk/research/calrg/reports.cfm

Mory, E. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future

research. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40 (3), 5-20.

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instructional technology for

teaching learning: Designing instructions, integrating computers, and using media.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Osborne, M., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: Implications of children's knowledge.

Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.

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

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., and Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the

analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial

Intelligence in Education, (12) 8-22.

Schwier, R.A. (2001). Catalysts, emphases, and elements of virtual learning communities.

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

Psychology, 21, 211-232.

Smesler, N.J., & Baltes, P.B. (2001). International encyclopedia of social and behavioural

sciences: Amsterdam: Elsevier

Soller, A. (2004). Computational Modeling and Analysis of Knowledge Sharing in Collaborative

Distance Learning. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact, 14(4): pp. 351-381

Soller, A., and Lesgold, A. (2003). A Computational Approach to Analyzing Online Knowledge

Sharing Interaction. Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education 2003, Sydney,

Australia. pp, 253-260

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research &

evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved March, 22, 2006 from

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hard-Hardman, S. Thorman, C.L., & Dunluap, J.C. (2004). Bounded

community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses.

 International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Retrieved April

1, 2005 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/204/286.

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

of Canada (SSHRCC).