A Student’s Guide to

Strengthening an
Online Community
By Richard E. West

Abstract munity, many report feeling like the title of an

Students usually have plenty of experience article about online students: “Engagement, Ex-
with online social technologies, but they lack citement, Anxiety, and Fear” (Conrad, 2002).
understanding about how to use these tools This article is intended to help college stu-
and methods for course learning. This ar- dents understand how to strengthen the learn-
ticle is designed to help college students who ing community in an online course that has
are anxious about participating in an online been designed to allow rich student interac-
learning community or do not know how to tion. While many articles and books have been
build one effectively. With ideas derived from written to help instructional designers and
research and practice, this guide has been teachers build effective online communities
written to inform online students about learn- (e.g. Bonk, Wisher, & Nigrelli, 2004; Dawes &
ing communities, the benefits they offer, and Sams, 2004; Hildreth & Kimble, 2004; Lewis
how students can assist in building a success- & Allan, 2005; Lowry, Thornam, & White,
ful online community. 2000; McConnell, 2006), guidelines need to
Keywords: online learning community, be directed to the new online students them-
online learning, community of practice, CSCL, selves, providing guidance in learning how to
computer-supported collaborative learning, learn online (Palloff, 2001). This article may be
self-regulation, netiquette, social learning. distributed by instructors to college students
entering an online course to teach them about
what online learning communities (OLCs) are,

M
any college students struggle to use on- why they benefit learners, and how students
line technologies in their formal distance can contribute to strengthening a success-
learning courses. The problem for many is ful online community. While this article was
not a lack of familiarity with online technologies, written for college students, it may have some
as over 80% of students use Facebook (Anderson applicability to high school students as well.
Analytics, 2008), 40% use MySpace (Anderson What Is an Online Learning Community?
Analytics), and many use Yahoo/Google groups, Researchers have been arguing for decades
discussion boards, and instant messaging. How- about what defines a community (Hillery,
ever, these students are unsure how to use online 1955). Some consider a community to be per-
sharing/collaboration tools for learning in their sons within a shared physical or virtual space
college courses. As they enter a learning com- (Lichenstein, 2005; Rheingold, 1993; West,
Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 69
 2007), while others have argued that community 2000; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Weiss,
is defined by feelings of trust, respect, or relation- 2000), and lead to more reflective discourse
ship (Glynn, 1981; Hill, 1996; Sarason, 1974). This (Hawkes, 2006). In addition to helping stu-
article is based on this last definition because col- dents feel more connected, research has found
lege students often do not control their access to that learning communities can lead to higher
other members of an online class, as that is typi- student engagement, greater respect for the di-
cally an instructor’s decision. However, when a versity of all students, higher intrinsic motiva-
course instructor chooses to organize class activi- tion, and higher learning outcomes in the areas
ties so online students can interact, then the stu- that are most important (Watkins, 2005). Pall-
dents need to build the emotional bridges of trust off and Pratt (2001) found that OLCs “[increase]
and relationships with each other (Liu, Magjuka, the likelihood that [students] will stay involved
Bonk, & Lee, 2007) to cre- and motivated” (p. 138), while Liu et al. (2007)
ate a stronger, more effec- reported that when some students indicated
“Instead of walking tive learning community. feeling a strong sense of community, they also
into a classroom Online Learning
Communities (OLCs) are
perceived themselves to be more engaged, sat-
isfied, and successful in their learning (see also
where the teacher is similar to and different
from face-to-face (F2F)
Moisey, Neu, & Cleveland-Innes, 2008).
How Can Students Strengthen Their Online
visibly present, online learning communities in Learning Community?
many ways. Some of the Recognizing the importance of learning
students will often biggest differences are communities is necessary but not sufficient,
interact with each that OLC members often
communicate through
because building online learning communities
requires effort (Schwen & Hara, 2004). Follow-
other and the content text rather than spoken
dialogue, and OLC con-
ing are suggestions for strengthening an on-
line community from the inside out—through
without knowing versations are timed dif- actions of the students within the community.
ferently—varying from in- When instructors design courses that encour-
when or if the stantaneous (synchronous age student interaction, the strength of the
teacher is watching.” chatting) to lasting hours
or days (email or discus-
community that emerges often depends on how
the students engage with each other and with
sion boards). Another dis- the course (Liu et al., 2007). Students can best
concerting difference to new online learners is build an online learning community by focus-
access to the online teacher. Instead of walk- ing on four types of interactions involved with
ing into a classroom where the teacher is vis- every successful OLC: learner-learner interac-
ibly present, online students will often interact tion, learner-content interaction, learner-teach-
with each other and the content without know- er interaction, and learner-tool interaction (see
ing when or if the teacher is watching. While Moore, 1993, for a discussion of three of these
teachers may technically be more accessible interaction types). A stronger emphasis is placed
online through email, discussion forums, or on learner-learner interaction skills, as this
even chat, they may choose to take on more of is often the area over which the students have
a facilitative role. This may make them less vis- the most control and where there are more op-
ible than in a face-to-face course, while allow- portunities for strengthening the psychological
ing the students greater autonomy in working sense of community.
together (Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Learner-Learner Interaction
Why Are Online Learning Communities Learner-learner interactions are a critical
Important? factor in creating a strong learning commu-
Online learning can include everything nity (Conrad, 2005; Gorsky, 2004) with effec-
from independent study with limited interac- tive group problem solving (Merrill & Gilbert,
tion to vibrant, interactive communities in 2008). The first step to effective learner-learner
which students know and support each other interaction is understanding etiquette specific to
and co-construct knowledge together. With online communication (netiquette). Just as face-
different options available in online educa- to-face communication follows unwritten but
tion, why should students invest the effort in acknowledged standards, such as taking turns
strengthening a sense of community in their when speaking, courteous cyberspace commu-
online courses? nication involves important unwritten rules. A
The first reason is because strong OLCs critical courtesy is to always assume good in-
can help students overcome a sense of isolation tent of the person posting a comment or send-
that online students traditionally feel (Canada, ing a message (Palloff & Pratt, 2001). Without

70 TechTrends • September/October 2010 Volume 54, Number 5

nonverbal and auditory cues, text messages can Other important netiquette guidelines
often be misunderstood because they lack the refer to timing. Much online communication
emotional richness of context (Zembylas, 2008). is asynchronous, but most of our daily living
Thus, it is helpful to wait at least 24 hours before happens synchronously and asynchronous
responding to an attack, which could threaten to timing can be jarring. The person expect-
destroy the community, because “the intensity ing a response should be patient about delays,
of the message always seems to wane with time” which may be caused by the other person be-
(Palloff & Pratt, 2001, p. 150). Ignoring this prac- ing sick, on vacation, busy at work, or unable
tice often leads to flaming, or posting of critical to frequently check messages. Especially on
and angry personal attacks, which can destroy weekends, community members should not
the community (Shea, Swan, Li, & Pickett, 2005). expect prompt answers. However, when a re-

Figure 1. A beginner’s guide to netiquette in online conversations.

Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 71

 “Students can best build an online learning community
by focusing on four types of interactions involved with
every successful OLC: learner-learner interaction,
learner-content interaction, learner-teacher interaction,
and learner-tool interaction…”
sponse is expected the recipient should attempt time in this informal space, especially at the be-
to respond as quickly as possible, even if to say, ginning of the semester.
“Good question. I’ll think about it and post Text messages can seem more human with
something tomorrow.” Short messages such as the addition of humor and honesty, emoticons,
this can be equivalent to nodding one’s head and personal and expressive language. To make
to show attention during F2F communication. messages more personal, an individual can frame
Other important netiquette guidelines are pro- a message by bracketing comments to explain
vided in Figure 1 on the previous page. the intended tone of a message: [“I’m just joking
Because, “community is defined by the rela- here”], for example (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Weiss,
tionships and interactions between and among 2000). In addition to making online speech more
people,” (Liu, et al., 2007, p. 11) students build- natural and human, critical listening is impor-
ing an OLC should take the time to develop rela- tant. Kramer (2002) suggests that students can
tionships with other members of the community be better critical listeners online if they are (1)
(Lowry et al., 2000). Researchers agree, “online mentally awake and prepared to participate, (2)
groups are often more effective if they are ini- willing to ask questions, and (3) aware of filters,
tially formed by some type of face-to-face meet- such as biases, judgments, and attitudes that af-
ings,” (Clarke, 2004, p. 14; see also Conrad, 2005). fect how they interpret messages.
However, if this is not possible many OLCs have Perhaps most important is to remember
places where students can post their pictures or that there are three functions of online commu-
short biographies. Simply having a picture at- nities, and efficient accomplishment of a task is
tached to messages can strengthen the recogni- only one of them. Online communities also ex-
tion that there is a human being, with emotions, ist to support the members and to take care of
thoughts, and histories, behind the text. individual needs (Palloff & Pratt, 2001).
Many online communities have a designat- Simply interacting with one an-
ed space for members to socialize about topics other is not enough. . . . Participation
not related to the course content. Often these in an online course is not the same as
spaces are most beneficial if they are for stu- collaboration. Collaboration goes be-
dents only, not instructors. This allows students yond direct engagement in specific ac-
to have the kinds of informal discussions that tivities and is consistent throughout the
they might normally have in the hallways before course. It is a process that helps students
an F2F class begins. Examples of such informal achieve deeper levels of knowledge gen-
social spaces are available in Tappedin (http:// erations through the creation of shared
tappedin.org/tappedin/), the online profession- goals, shared exploration, and a shared
al community for teachers. In Tappedin, there process of meaning-making. (Palloff &
are formal learning spaces (such as the Arcade Pratt, 2003, p. 23)
Conference Room), and informal spaces (such It is through collaboration, not simply in-
as the Hot Tub). This differentiation of spaces teraction, that students have the best learning
lets community members know what type of experiences. Part of effective collaborative, or
dialogue is encouraged in each space. In on- cooperative, learning is developing a sense of
line communities without visual interfaces like trust and interdependence among communi-
those of Tappedin, an informal discussion can ty members (Weidman & Bishop, 2009). This
be as simple as a chat room or discussion thread strengthens the community (Dirkx & Smith,
designated as the water cooler to encourage the 2004) and helps members construct their iden-
kind of informal discussion in that forum that tities as community members (Wenger, 1998).
typically happens in work environments as co- Students can develop this interdependence by
workers meet around the water cooler or coffee relying on each other, rather than the instructor,
machine. Participants can greatly improve their for simple tasks and questions. Relying on peers
connection to each other by spending some during instructional discussions can make in-

72 TechTrends • September/October 2010 Volume 54, Number 5

teractions more meaningful (Seo, 2007). When a visible role. Because technology is critical to
content misunderstandings do require the in- the online community, students’ interactions
structor’s input, the group can approach the in- with the technology are important. Many stu-
structor together. When learning communities dents choose to take academic courses online
develop this interdependence, instructors can because doing so is less expensive and more
avoid having to stamp out little fires and instead convenient than moving on site. However,
can provide quality instructional feedback in the despite being economical, students should
most critical areas. be prepared to invest in the appropriate tech-
nology to allow them to be full community
Learner-Instructor Interaction participants. It is not fair to other members
of the learning community if a participant is
Learner-instructor interactions are also
using a slow Internet connection, an outdated
critical for effective student learning in OLCs
computer, and incompatible software, it could
(O’Leary & Quinlan, 2007). Swan (2002) found
make it very difficult to collaborate with oth-
that interaction with the instructor was one of
ers and may force the individual to withdraw
three factors significantly related to student per-
from the community because of technologi-
ceptions of the course. Online instructors estab-
cal barriers. Student OLC members should
lish their social presence through multiple ways,
expect to invest in the right tools to engage in
including the instructional design of the course,
the community (Dirkx & Smith, 2004).
organization of the materials, and directed facil-
In addition, students should take respon-
itation of the activities (Shea et al., 2005). Thus,
sibility for knowing how to use the technol-
the instructor may not always communicate di-
ogy. Conrad (2005) reported that new online
rectly with each online student but may establish
learners often are preoccupied with functional
connections with each of them in other ways.
and technical concerns. Students who are un-
When students recognize their instructor’s ef-
familiar with the technologies or the instruc-
forts to create teaching presence, their sense of
tional medium should invest some time up
community can improve (Shea et al., 2005).
front mastering these tools so they can focus
Additionally, many of the same recom-
on their learning. This is important because
mendations for learner-learner interactions also
“frequent technical failures or connectivity
apply to learner-instructor interactions, par-
issues may leave members out of the com-
ticularly regarding netiquette, communication
munity gathering place and thus hinder the
timing, and making efforts to establish greater
development of a sense of community,” (Liu
social presence online through pictures, bio-
et al, 2007, p. 12). Sometimes technology can
graphical sketches, and informal conversation
become a scapegoat when things go wrong
at the beginning of the semester. This helps the
(Dirkx & Smith, 2004), even though the reali-
instructor understand the students’ needs, per-
ty may be that the students did not sufficiently
sonalities, and learning goals.
prepare themselves to use the tools.
Finally, successful learner-instructor inter-
No matter how skilled students are with
action clarifies expectations, establishes pro-
technology, they should expect that technology
cedures, and defines community rules. This
will—not may—fail some of the time. To avoid
is part of what is typically called the norming
anxiety, community participants should con-
period of group relationships (Tuckman, 1965)
scientiously save documents and even discus-
where community members define the norms
sion board posts in separate locations. Before
of their learning community. Students can
scheduled synchronous chats or conferences,
contribute to successful norming with their
all should test their technology setup or login,
peers and instructors by sharing their opinions
so that precious group discussion time is not
early in the semester —and asking instructors
wasted with technical glitches.
for theirs—about how often communication
Learner-Content Interaction
should take place and in what format. Addi-
The final type of interaction in an OLC is
tionally, students can ask questions to clarify
between learners and content. In OLCs, stu-
the expectations for participation and collabo-
dents must exhibit greater self-regulation in
ration. Because of the faceless nature of online
studying the course content. Canada (2000)
learning, developing these norms can prevent
states, “The online student, however, cannot
future misunderstandings.
live by RAM alone. Even more importantly
Learner-Tool (Technology) Interaction
[than tech skills] is the ability to manage time
Tools, including modern technologies, are
and work effectively” (p. 36). Self-regulation is
always important mediators within problem-
highly correlated with success in online learn-
solving communities, especially in online
ing communities (Anderson, 2007). Because of
learning communities where technology plays
Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 73
 the nature of OLCs, teachers may be less pres- Department of Education, 2003). Thousands
ent, deadlines may be softer, flexibility may be of students who are enrolled in online classes
greater, and homework may be oriented to- and academic programs are in danger of feeling
wards more self-directed problem solving. In disenfranchised, isolated, and unsupported in
this environment, students who do not care- their learning. An effective method for address-
fully monitor their own learning can lose track ing these difficulties is through an active online
of time, fall behind, and become overwhelmed learning community, but instructors cannot
or intimidated (Gabriel, 2004). They also have build these communities alone. The success of
less external motivation to develop relation- an online community depends on the efforts
ships with other members of the community, of its members to build it. As Palloff and Pratt
since they cannot see faces (2003) wrote,
“The success of an waiting for responses. As The virtual student needs to ac-
Canada (2000) described cept the different role of the instructor
online community it, the traditional learner is online and recognize that the deepest
much like an athlete who learning in an online course comes
depends on the is constantly under the from interacting with everyone in-
efforts of its members coach’s observation and
so is highly motivated to
volved. Reaching that level of under-
standing, and being willing to take on
to build it.” keep performing. The on- responsibility for creating the learning
line learner, in contrast, is community as a result, is critical to its
much like a pianist practicing in private for a formation. (p. 20).
recital that will come at a future, possibly un- The guidelines in this article can help stu-
determined, date. dents understand what it means to learn in an
Lowry and colleagues (2000) recommend- online community, as well as what the commu-
ed that members of online communities set nity should expect of them. This may help learn-
their own deadlines to help them stay motivat- ers get past simply having an “experience that is
ed. Just as in physical communities, members shared” and progress towards something much
of a virtual community can offer to give peer more meaningful: “creat[ing] a shared experi-
critiques of assignments, which would require ence,” (Schrage, 1990).
self-imposed deadlines so that students stay on
schedule. If the teacher does not have assigned Richard E. West is an assistant professor at Brigham
topics or roles for discussion, the community Young University. He has taught online and face-to-face
members can select these topics and determine courses on technology integration for preservice teachers,
who will fill the rotating moderator role. Many program evaluation, and instructional design. He has pub-
lished articles related to communities of innovation/learn-
researchers feel that focusing comments — and
ing/practice, technology integration, distance learning, and
perhaps even labeling them as particular kinds evaluation. He tweets at richardewest and blogs at http://
of messages or responses — can lead to more byuipt.net/wests/rick.
effective online dialogue (Jeong, 2004).
Finally, by understanding the technolo- References
gies and medium used for the course, stu-
dents can often find more efficient ways to Anderson Analytics. (2008, December 1). Blogging in-
interact with the content. This is important creasing in popularity among Generation Y. Retrieved
because a main challenge in online learning from http://www.andersonanalytics.com.
Anderson, B. (2007). Independent learning. In M. G.
is managing all of the reading (Gabriel, 2004).
Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance
By understanding the course technologies, education (2nd ed., pp. 109-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
students can often discover ways to use RSS Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
syndication to search, sort, and aggregate con- Anderson, T., & Kuskis, A. (2007). Modes of interaction.
tent into “customized and personal views of In M. G. Graham (Ed.),
emerging content” (Anderson & Kuskis, 2007) Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 295-309).
that can help students regulate and organize Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
their learning. Also, by using descriptive and Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A., & Nigrelli, M. L. (2004). Learn-
meaningful titles in discussion board posts, ing communities, communities of practice: Principles,
students can alert their peers to what their technologies, and examples. In K. Littleton, D. Miell, &
comment is about, whom it is for, or what it is D. Faulkner (Eds.), Learning to collaborate, collaborat-
ing to learn. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
responding to.
Canada, M. (2000). Students as seekers in online courses.
Summary In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.),
Online learning is firmly entrenched in Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom
the United States educational system (U.S.

74 TechTrends • September/October 2010 Volume 54, Number 5

 (Vol. 84, pp. 35-40). San Francisco: Jossey- Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36-53. Global networks: Computers and interna-
Bass. Kramer, C. (2002). Success in on-line learning. tional communication (pp. 57-82). Cam-
Clarke, A. (2004). E-learning skills. New York: Albany, NY: Delmar. bridge: MIT Press.
Palgrave Macmillan. Lewis, D., & Allan, B. (2005). Virtual learning Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense
Conrad, D. L. (2002). Engagement, excite- communities: A guide for practitioners. New of community: Prospects for a community
ment, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ expe- York: McGraw-Hill Education. psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
riences of starting an online course. The Lichtenstein, M. (2005). The Importance of Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new
American Journal of Distance Education, Classroom Environments in the Assess- technologies of collaboration. New York:
16(4), 205-226. ment of Random House.
Conrad, D. L. (2005). Engagement, excite- Learning Community Outcomes. Journal of Schwen, T. M., & Hara, N. (2004). Commu-
ment, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ expe- College Student Development, 46(4), 341- nity of practice: A metaphor for online de-
riences of starting an online course. The 356. sign? In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray
American Journal of Distance Education, Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in
16(4), 205-226. (2007). Does sense of community matter? the service of learning (pp. 154-178). Cam-
Dawes, L., & Sams, C. (2004). Developing An bridge: Cambridge University Press.
the capacity to collaborate. In K. Littleton, examination of participants’ perceptions of Shea, P., Swan, K., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A.
D. Miell, & D. Faulkner (Eds.), Learning building learning communities in online (2005). Developing learning community in
to collaborate, collaborating to learn. New courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Edu- online asynchronous college courses: The role
York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. cation, 8(1), 9-24. of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchro-
Dirkx, J. M., & Smith, R. O. (2004). Think- Lowry, M., Thornam, C., & White, C. T. nous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82.
ing out of a bowl of spaghetti: Learning to (2000). Preparing higher education learn- Seo, K. K. (2007). Utilizing peer moderating
learn in online collaborative groups. In ers for success on the web. In R. A. Cole in online discussions: Addressing the
T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A controversy between teacher moderation and
learning: Theory and practice (pp. 132- critical primer. Westport, CT: Greenwood nonmoderation. American Journal of Dis-
159). Hershey, PA: Information Science Press. tance Education, 21(1), 21-36.
Publishing. McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and Swan, K. (2002). Building learning commu-
Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning together: Ex- communities. New York: Open University nities in online courses: The importance of
ploring group interactions online. Journal Press. interaction. Education, Communication & In-
of Merrill, M. D. & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effec- formation, 2(1), 23-49.
Distance Education, 19(1), 54-72 tive peer interaction in a problem-centered Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental se-
Glynn, T. (1981). Psychological sense of com- instructional strategy. Distance Education, quence in small groups. Psychological Bul-
munity: Measurement and application. 29(2), 199-207. letin, 63, 384-399.
Human Relations, 34(7), 789-818. Moisey, S. D., Neu, C. & Cleveland-Innes, U.S. Department of Education, N. C. E. S.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Tuvi-Arad, I. (2004). M. (2008). Community building and com- (2003). Distance education at degree-grant-
Use of instructional dialogue by university puter- ing postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001.
students in a distance education chemistry mediated conferencing. Journal of Distance Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/
course. Journal of Distance Education, Education, 22(2), 15-42. display.asp?id=80
19(1), 1-19. Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interac- Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as learning
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse vari- tion. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan communities: A review of research. London
ables as indicators of reflective online (Eds.), Review of Education, 3(1), 47-64.
interaction. American Journal of Distance Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 19- Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online
Education, 20(4), 231-244. 24). London: Routledge. classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton,
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (Eds.). (2004). O’Leary, P. F. & Quinlan, T. J. (2007). Learner- & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective
Knowledge networks: Innovation through instructor telephone interaction: Effects on teaching in the online classroom (Vol. 84,
communities of practice. London: Idea satisfaction and achievement of online stu- pp. 47-51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Group Publishing. dents. American Journal of Distance Educa- Weidman, R. & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Using
Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of com- tion, 21(1), 133-143. the jigsaw model to facilitate cooperative
munity: Suggestions for future research. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning in an online course. Quarterly Re-
Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), learning communities in cyberspace: Effec- view of Distance Education, 10(1), 51-64.
431-438. tive strategies for the online classroom. San Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of commu- Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Learning, meaning and identity. Cam-
nity: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from bridge: Cambridge University Press.
20(2), 111-123. the cyberspace classroom: The realities of West, R. E. (2007). Defining and measuring
Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. learning communities by their boundaries.
response time and message content on Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual Presentation at the annual conference of
growth student: A profile and guide to working with the Association for Educational Communi-
patterns of discussion threads in computer- online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. cation and Technology, Orlando, FL.
supported collaborative argumentation. Rheingold, H. (1993). A slice of life in my vir- Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult learners’ emo-
tual community. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), tions in online learning. Distance Educa-
tion, 29(1), 71-87.

Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 75