RESEARCH IN ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITY

RESEARCHIN ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITY
Chih-HsiungTu, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
and
Michael Corry
AssistantProfessor
The George Washington University
2134 G Street, N.W.
Washington,DC 20152
Email:ctu@gwu.edu Email:mcorry@gwu.edu
Abstract
Onlinelearning community has been considered as one of the most important learning conceptsin technology-based instructions. Yet online learning community has not been well-definedor well-examined. The social learning process has been suggested as the fundamentalfactor to examine in an online learning community to ensure online participantsand the community will grow and evolve in terms of their knowledge acquisition.Four basic elements and four theoretical constructs in online learning communitysuggest an ideal theoretical framework for future research. The purpose of thispaper is to examine current literature and current research concerning onlinelearning community, to discuss the impacts of online learning communities on humanlearning, and to propose a theoretical construct for future development of onlinelearning communities.
Introduction
The importanceof online learning communities has been emphasized by recent studies (Office ofLearning Technologies, 1998; Tu & McIsaac, 2001; Hiltz, 1998). The definitionof an online learning community is still evolving and remains obscure (Officeof Learning Technologies, 1998). In fact, little conceptual framework has beendeveloped regarding this new learning environment. From a social learning aspect,learning community is defined as a common place where people learn through groupactivity to define problems affecting them, to decide upon a solution, and toact to achieve the solution. As they progress, they gain new knowledge and skills(MacNeil, 1997). All of these activities and interactions occur in an online environment,called Online Learning Community (OLC), or online learning network (Hiltz, 1998).OLC has been applied widely in online education. People learn online, and thusare called a learning community, even in correspondence study or independent study.Therefore, people learning together in an online environment have been acceptedas an online learning community. However, researchers (Tu & McIsaac, 2001;Schlager et al., 2000) are aiming toward a community that learns/evolves, in additionto being a community for learning. Sharing information has never been a big problemin human learning; however, how humans apply appropriate information to knowledgeconstruction is more important than simply obtaining information. In other words,it is necessary to examine knowledge construction in a learning community andadvance to the level of a community that learns, rather than just a communityfor information sharing and learning together.
Online LearningCommunity (OLC)
Researchers have attempted to define OLC from its fourbasic components: community, learning, network, and technology (Office of LearningTechnologies, 1998).
Community
The broader viewof "community" has been defined as a place where people conduct communityactivities, share common beliefs and share a means of communicating (Brooks, 1997).This suggests three components of community: location, activity, and beliefs.Wharf and Clague (1997) emphasized relationships among community members and theircommon interests (beliefs): "group of people share relationships and commoninterests. Geographical elements seem to be less important in this situation."Galbraith (1995) researched the definition of community from among 94 proposeddefinitions that appear in the literature. He agreed that community should beseen as the combination of interrelationships of geographic, locational units,non-locational units, systems, and characteristics that provide relevance andgrowth to individuals, groups, and organizations. Based upon various definitions,community seems to take place within social interaction about common interests,while location becomes less important. Office of Learning Technologies (1998)agreed that community interests are better suited for a learning environment.
Learning
"Learningis a process of transforming experience into knowledge, skills, and attitudesthrough a variety of processes" (Galbraith, 1995). Many people use "learning"and "education" interchangeably. In fact, Galbriath (1995) recognizedthe differences and distinguished learning from education. Basically, learningmay occur in a systematic social process/interaction. Learning also occurs withinindividuals, which may or may not be the result of "education"; however,through an interactive social process, knowledge, skills, and attitudes can beobtained.
Moreland and Lovett (1997) classified three types of learning:formal learning, non-formal learning, and informal learning. Formal learning refersto systematic processes and pre-planned activities that generally are providedby educational institutions and organizations to obtain certain desired goals.Non-formal learning occurs outside the educational system; however, learning activitiescan be organized too for target learners to achieve certain learning objectives.Informal learning refers to the individual gains of skills, knowledge, and attitudesfrom everyday experience and from one‘s social environment.
Based of thesediscussions, community learning can refer to a situation in which learning occursas a social learning process. MacNeil (1997) argued that, in community learning,community members should work together to solve their problems and to improvetheir communities. Several researchers (Graham, 1997; Schlager et al., 2000; Tu& McIsaac, 2001) have distinguished the learning community from communitylearning. Learning community has been seen as a community for participants tolearn together and learning is gained horizontally, as opposed to where the learningis gained horizontally and vertically, called community learning. In other words,community members learn and the community itself also learns. In fact, both typesof learning are critical because community growth and development and the learningof community members enhance each other in the process. Lifelong learning is agood example of the relationship between learning community and community learning.
Network
Sociologically,a network is defined as a pattern of communications and relationships (Schuler,1996). Graham (1997) argued that community networks are essentially grassrootsorganizations in their development. The growth of communities and learners relyon the sustainability of self-organized local initiatives; and the issue of localcontrol and autonomy is crucial to their usefulness and relevance. The conceptof "the community is the network" is also emphasized; that is, a communityis first and foremost a social process. Therefore, community networks are essentialtools for mobilizing community participants around local social issues. Communitynetworks also enable community members to access and share information resourcesmore easily, to stimulate their knowledge, and to contribute to their empowerment.
Technology
Networktechnology (CMC technology) systems have been used as a medium of communicationrather than for their technological properties (Tu, 2000a). Examining CMC systemsrequires examining an interactive communication model. Technologies in an onlinelearning community setting can be classified as synchronous (real time communication)or asynchronous (time-delayed communication) systems (Jonassen et al., 1995; McIsaac& Gunawardena, 1996; Walther, 1992). Asynchronous communication is communicationthat does not require participants to be communicating at the same time or inthe same place; e.g., electronic mail, electronic bulletin board, and listserv.Synchronous communication requires participants to be communicating at the sametime, i.e., real-time computer conferencing. Audio and video conferencing systemsare not included in this discussion. These technologies possess the potentialto enhance learning in an online environment.
Learning Impact
Thisimportance of OLC can be explained by the impact that OLC have on human learning.
CollaborativeLearning
Asynchronous online learning communities with collaborationdemonstrate effective instruction. Ocker and Yaverbaum (1999) found that asynchronouscollaboration is as effective as face-to-face (FTF) collaboration in terms oflearning, quality of solution, solution content, and satisfaction with the solutionquality. However, online learners were significantly less satisfied with the asynchronouslearning experience, both in terms of the group interaction process and the qualityof group discussions. Additionally, Hiltz (1998) argued that an online learningcommunity with collaborative design is more effective than working individually.The ideal collaborations can be facilitated by well-constructed software to supportgroup activities and interactions. However it can only facilitate the desiredbehavior, not produce it.
Equal Access
An onlinelearning community has the potential to equalize economic and learning opportunity.OECD (1996) has identified online learning as an effective means by which disadvantagedgroups and individuals can acquire and improve their skills and knowledge. Althoughthis argument is strong, there is little evidence to specify the impact that onlinetechnology exerts on equality (Neuman, 1990; Doctor, 1992). Graham basically agreedwith the value of an online learning community; however, the construction of theideal online community network model itself should be optimized and not focuson the impact of technologies. With appropriate design, utilization of technologieswill enhance active participation in socioeconomic and political structures. Infact, Odasz (1994) remarked that with technologies, community members will beable to partner with experts in other fields or similar fields to expand and enrichtheir learning experiences, like e-mail mentors (Tu & McIsaac, 2001).
HighSocial Presence
Learning in an online learning community occurs as anactive social process that is defined as: "the level of social presence dependsupon social context, online communication, and interactivity (Tu & McIsaac,2002)." Online social presence (Hiltz, 1998) is required to ensure the onlineinteraction necessary to sustain community activity. Social presence is a criticalfactor that affects the online learning community. Gunawardena and Zittle (1997)found that social presence is the predictive of the satisfaction of online learnerswith their learning. Social presence, online learners‘ social relationships, tasksbeing engaged in (Tu & Corry, 2002b), communication styles and personal characteristicshave impacts on online learning (Tu & McIsaac, 2001). Therefore, researchersconcluded that to foster an ideal online learning community, one should increaseand idealize the level of social presence.
Technology asTools
Technology has been seen as a tool used by the online learningcommunity. Office of Learning Technologies (1998) argued that networking technologyhas been viewed as a revolutionary tool to build online communities, strengthenrelationships, and mobilize joint planning and community action. In the past twodecades research has shown that no significant difference exists between technology-basedinstruction and traditional instruction. However, technology can be used as atool for learning and as a means where learners can approach the learning experiencesof their choosing at their own pace.
Resources
Resourcesavailable through technology provide the greatest advantage in its use. Currenttechnology is capable of delivering many resources, particularly resources forlearning. These resources are likely to enhance learning in an online community.Technology brings participants together to generate online interaction. An idealonline learning community should be able to provide its members with multipleperspectives in their learning experiences (Tu, 2000b). These rich perspectiveswill be able to enhance the online interaction and to stimulate a higher levelof thinking and learning. A cumulative learning and knowledge experience can resultin the development of a community. Graham (1995) argued that: "communitynetworks intensively collate community knowledge and experience, leading to abottom-up ... sharing ... the pay-off for individual participation in a communitynetwork is more in the experiential learning that occurs."
BlurredBoundaries
Computer-mediated communication democratizes the online learningenvironment (DiMatteo, 1990; Rheingold, 1993; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991a). CMChas been described as a venue where participants can contribute equally in communications(DiMatteo, 1990; Hiltz & Turoff, 1981; Rheingold, 1993; Siegel et al., 1986;Sproull & Kiesler, 1991b). The democratic openness of the computer conferenceenvironment allows all learners an opportunity to contribute (Harasim, 1990).Harasim (1996) described the possibility "...for anyone to become an informationprovider for others, thereby both democratizing information access and enablingnew roles for network users. In the most successful online courses, students assumesome of the roles that traditionally belong to the instructor" (p. 208).Democratic openness, the absence of nonverbal status cues, teacher-student rolereversal, and learner-to-learner interaction within a CMC environment providean opportunity for a more equal platform for communication and more stimulus foraction than does a traditional classroom (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991a) and morepeer interactions were concluded (Edelson, 1998; Whitworth, 1998; Roberts, 1987;Sirc & Reynolds, 1990; Whitworth, 1998). This phenomenon obscures the boundarybetween learners and teachers. Odasz (1994) stated that everyone has the potentialto be simultaneously a student and a teacher in a much more flexible familialcontext than our current punitive, rigidly-structured educational system.
Learner-Centered
Becauseof the blurred roles of students and teachers, more weight is placed on the learningprocess/experience than upon roles. In other words, both students and teachers,as learners, share their responsibilities in online learning. Morrison (1995)argued that the learning process is unbounded by time (when one learns),space (where one learns), mode (how one learns), pace (therate at which one learns), level (the depth of learning) and role (withwhom one learns). Therefore, it is not merely learner-centered; in fact, an onlinelearning community is a learner-driven process. While the learning is in transitionfrom teacher-centered to learner-driven, the focus which had emphasized the needsof organization, government, and institutional is moving to a focus on community-centeredneeds. This shift has made lifelong learning more important.
LifelongLearning
Since the learning paradigm is shifting to community-centeredlearning, lifelong learning is gaining in importance. Lifelong learning is whatindividuals learn over the course of their lifetimes and in a multitude of contexts.Galbraith (1995) defined it more precisely as: "those changes in consciousnessthat take place throughout the life span which result in an active and progressiveprocess to comprehend the intellectual, societal, and personal changes that confronteach individual human being." Clearly, this definition has given weight tocommunity-centered learning. Therefore, the online learning community becomesa new way to examine human learning.
Research
Elementsof OLC
Four elements (community, network, learning and technology) areproposed by Office of Learning Technologies (1998) for examining online learningcommunity. These basic elements should be identified when one is conducting researchin Office of Learning Technologies. According to Office of Learning Technologies(1998), community considers geographical communities and communities of interest.Network is either physical or virtual, determined by the use of technologies.Learning should be a combination of formal, informal and non-formal. Finally,technologies must consider the level of intensity, nature and focus, network-specificor learning-specific.
Grounded in Social Learning
Effectivelearning occurs in active approaches that present learning as a social processthat takes place through communication with others (Hiltz, 1998; Mead, 1934).This concept leads the research of online learning community to social learning.Based online social presence, Tu (2000b) identified the relationship between anonline learning community and Vygotsky‘s social learning (Vygotsky, 1978) (seeTable 1).
Table 1: The relationship of social learning and online learningcommunity
Social Learning Theory
Online Learning Community/Social Presence
Personal Factors (Tenor)
·
Social Context
Behavior (Mode)
·
Online Communication
Environment (Field)
·
Interactivity
Social interaction isa key component in social learning according to Vygotsky‘s theory. CMC is devotedprimarily to social interaction (Reid, 1991), because its users perceive a higherdegree of social presence (Walther, 1995). In OLC, participants agreed that therewere many social and personal messages; because of the high degree of social presencecreated by the teacher/moderator, social interaction was enhanced and social learningwas increased (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997).
Freire (1994) summarizedVygotsky‘s social learning theory into three elements: tenor, mode, and fields.The tenor represents learners‘ relationships/impersonal metafunctions; mode refersto language/textual metafunctions; and fields are explained as nature of socialactivity and ideational metafunctions. These three elements were reinterpretedby Tu (2000b) as personal factors, behaviors, and environment, that fit in thethree dimensions of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002) in an online learningenvironment. Based on Tu and McIsaac‘s findings, they suggest that in buildingan online learning community, one must: (a) foster and gain a better understandingof online learners‘ social learning context (social relationship, personal characteristics,and personal perceptions on online technology); conduct appropriate use of CMCtechnologies (understand the characteristics of each CMC medium, use paralanguageand emoticons to compensate for the lack of non-verbal cues); and (c) engage learnersin the design of interactive activities (to be responsive, to use appropriatecommunication style, to apply collaborative activities, and to adopt appropriategroup size).
Current Research Weakness
Three currentresearch weaknesses in online learning environment were identified through comprehensiveliterature review (Tu & Corry, 2002a): (a). Differences between online andtraditional communities are not clearly addressed, (b). Focus is usually directedat end products, not the level of self; and (c). Most data are derived from short-termstudies.
They argued that current research fails to differentiate clearlybetween online and traditional communities and, further, fails to address thebehavior of participants in an online community. Most studies have transferredthe traditional community model to an online environment (McIsaac & Gunawardena,1996), which clouds the meaning of an online community. Traditional communitymodels do not necessarily apply to online communities and lead to the elaborationof critical questions in the examination of online communities. To amelioratethis weakness, it is suggested that one must gain a comprehensive understandingof online communities by identifying the online definitions of situations; and,under these definitions of situations, which scripts the online participants apply.
Secondly, current studies examined messages (the end-product of communitycommunications) and are not concerned with how and why individuals became onlineparticipants or the scripts that participants have followed to produce these messages.In other words, most studies have ignored the development of the online self andthe formation of the online community. Simple discourse analysis is not adequateto capture the social life of an online community. They suggested that the "onlineself" must be understood before one can begin to compile a comprehensiveunderstanding of an online community.
Thirdly, the fundamentals of a communityrequire more time to develop in online social environments than in FTF socialenvironments (Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Walther, 1992) therefore, short-term observationscannot adequately describe the formation and development of a community; and,are totally inadequate to evaluate the dynamics of a community. They suggestedthat research must be conducted in a long-term fashion to allow community andparticipants to develop more mature social information processes.
TheoreticalConstruct
Based on previous analysis, a theoretical construct for OLCis proposed in this study (See Figure 1). OLC is necessarily grounded in the sociallearning process. The Office of Learning Technologies‘ (1998) four elements (community,network, learning, and technology) of OLC are related to Tu and Corry‘s (Tu &Corry, 2002a) four constructs of OLC: Community of Practice (CoP), Social Presence,Collaborative Learning, and Knowledge Construction Technology.
Figure1: The theoretical Framework for Online Learning Community

CoP(Community)
Communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) have the potentialto be conducive to mastery of new knowledge (Lieberman, 1996) in an online learningcommunity (McMaster, 1999; Renyi, 1996). CoPs are groups who share similar goalsand interests; and, in doing so, employ common practices, work with the same toolsand express themselves in a common language. Through such common activity, theycome to hold similar beliefs and value systems (Collaborative Visualization (CoVis)Project, 2000; Wenger, 1998). These groups of professionals are bound informallyto one another through exposure to a common class of problems, a common pursuitof solutions, and embody a store of knowledge.
Tu and McIsaac (2002) suggestedthat several factors identified in their study should serve as a model for buildinga CoP for education reform: determine knowledge; build important topics/issues;gain members‘ background context; and design pull technology. One must determinewhich connections to make between learners, to understand what kind of knowledgeto share; what kind of community it is inclined to be; and how tightly sharingknowledge needs to link with work. To enhance learning, one does not need to createand build them from the ground up because CoPs arise spontaneously in most organizations.However, one needs to identify and nurture them with the resources, structure,and systems they need to flourish. Developing CoPs is closer to husbandry thanarchitecture.
When building communities on natural networks, coordinatorsmust be generated to organize and maintain the community activities, such as buildingimportant topics, initiating simple knowledge sharing activities and arrangingsocial activities. The coordinators also need to provide the members with thetime and encouragement to reflect, share ideas with others, and think throughthe implications of other ideas. Because communities are organized and supporteddifferently, community development requires a different set of tools and approaches.CoPs often require time to develop. Because they are organic, CoPs need time tofind the right kind of information to share, the right level of detail, the rightparticipants and the right forums. Individuals must support the community in makingthese discoveries quickly; but, since information, level of detail, participants,and right forums will be different for different communities, each community willneed to discover their own appropriate forum.
CollaborativeLearning (Learning)
Collaborative learning enhances the active exchangeof ideas within small groups and increases interest among the participants whilealso promoting critical thinking (Garrison, 1999; Hiltz, 1998). The communityof collaborative learning, that is,the grouping and pairing of students for thepurpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely examined and is advocatedthroughout the professional literature. The "collaborative learning"refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levelswork together in small groups toward a common goal. The learners are responsiblefor another‘s learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one studenthelps other students to be successful.
Hiltz and Turoff (1993) and Hiltz(1998) purposed a few strategies to enhance collaborative learning. Some examplesof collaborative learning activities are seminar-style presentations and discussions,debates, group projects, simulation and role-playing exercises, and collaborativecomposition of essays, exam questions, stories or research plans. However, moreeffective factors should be identified in future research.
SocialPresence (Network)
Social presence is one of most critical factors inthe online learning environment (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996; Tu & McIsaac,2002). "The level of social presence depends upon social context, onlinecommunication, and interactivity. When the level of social presence is high, thereis a potential that online learners will engage more interactively in online activities(Tu & McIsaac, 2002).
Research should focus on the relationships ofonline interaction and three dimensions of social presence: social context, onlinecommunity, and interactivity. Issues in each dimension deserve further examinations(See Table 2).
Table 2: Critical issues in three dimensions of socialpresence
Issues that affect social presence
DIMENSIONS
I. Social Context
II. Online Communication
III. Interactivity
1
Familiarity with recipients
Keyboarding & accuracy skills
Timely response
2
Assertive/acquiescent
Use of emoticons & paralanguage
Communication styles
3
Informal/formal relationship
Characteristics of real time discussion
Length of messages
4
Trust relationships
Characteristics of discussion boards
Formal/informal
5
Social relationships (Love & Information)
Language skills: Reading, Writing
Type of tasks (Planning, creativity, social tasks)
6
Psychological attitude toward technology
Size of groups
7
Access & Location
Communication strategies
8
User‘s characteristics
Knowledge Construction (Technology)
Ina knowledge construction community, one should have the opportunity to make contributionsthat will enhance the total learning value of the community. Learners contributeand quickly find the best resources that are key to knowledge mining and knowledgeconstruction. This type of knowledge construction community will enhance onlinelearning positively and will lead to the development of more personalized, self-adaptivelearning systems.
Managing knowledge represents the primary opportunityfor achieving substantial significant improvements in learner performance andcompetitive advantage, because knowledge and information have become the mediumin which learning occurs. A community of knowledge management is able to treatthe knowledge component of learning activities as an explicit concern of learningreflected in strategy, policy, and practice at all levels of the learning environment.Tu and McIsaac (2001) argued the importance of knowledge management tools foronline learning. Making a direct connection between both explicit (recorded) andtacit (personal know-how) intellectual assets. Discovering the important factorsthat have impact on this knowledge construction process should occur in futureresearch. In practice, knowledge management often encompasses identifying andmapping intellectual assets within the learning environment, generating new knowledgefor competitive advantage within the learning environment, making vast amountsof information accessible, sharing the best practices, and technology that enablesall of the above, including groupware, database, intranets, etc.
Conclusion
Onlinelearning community is becoming an important concept in current technology-basedlearning. The research and literature are still in their infancy. Identifyingimportant concepts and factors that have impacts on online learning communityis critical at the current stage. This paper examined online learning communityfrom a social learning process aspect to discuss the important theoretical constructsthat are identified in current research and literature. This step will challengeand assist researchers who are interested in online learning community to thinkcritically regarding the issues of online learning community. With a better understandingabout online learning communities, how they work, and how they develop/evolve,online learning community, this new learning paradigm, will open other avenuesto enhance human learning with the integration of technology.
References
Brooks,J. M. (1997). Beyond teaching and learning paradigms: Trekking into the virtualuniversity. Teaching Sociology, 27, 1-14.
Collaborative Visualization(CoVis) Project. (2000) Communities of practice [Web Page]. URL http://www.covis.nwu.edu/info/philosophy/communities-of-practice.html[2000, July 11].
DiMatteo, A. (1990). Under erasure: a theory for interactivewriting in real time. Computers and Composition, 7, 71-84.
Doctor,R. D. (1992). Social equity and information technologies: moving toward informationdemocracy. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 27, 43-96.
Edelson,P. J. (1998). The organization of courses via the Internet, academic aspects,interaction, evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented at the NationalAutonomous University of Mexico (Mexico City, Mexico, February 17, 1998).
Freire, M. M. (1994). A social-cultural/semiotic interpretation of intercommunicationmediated by computers. International Conference L.S.Vygotsky and the ContemporaryHuman Sciences 1994.
Galbraith, M. (1995). Community-based organizationand the delivery of lifelong learning opportunities. Paper presented at theNational Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries and Lifelong Learning,Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Garrison,D. R. (1999). Will Distance Disappear in Distance Studies? A Reaction. Journalof Distance Education, 14(2).
Graham, G. (1995). A domain where thoughtis free to roam: The social purpose of community networks. Paper presentedfor Telecommunities Canada at the CRTC public hearings on information highwayconvergence.
Graham, G. (1997). Community, virtual community and communitynetworks: the telecommunities Canada position on "Public Lanes," universalaccess and electronic public space. Paper presented at Universal Access Workshop,Information Policy Research Program.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle,F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediatedconferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3),8-26.
Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaborationand intellectual amplification. L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectiveson a new environment (pp. 38-66). New York: Praeger.
Harrison, T. M.,& Stephen, T. (1996). Computer networking, communication, and scholarship.T. M. Harrison, & T. Stephen (Editors), Computer Networking and ScholarlyCommunication in the Twenty-First-Century University (pp. 3-38). New York:State University of New York Press.
Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learningin asynchronous learning networks: Building learning. In WebNet 98‘ World Conferenceof the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceeding .
Hiltz, S. R., &Turoff, M. (1981). The evolution of user behavior in a computerized conferencingsystem. Communications of the ACM, 24(11), 739-751.
Hiltz, S. R.,& Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer(Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins,M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediatedcommunication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,9(2), 7-26.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Creating intentional learning communities.Educational Leadership, 54(3), 51-55.
MacNeil, T. (1997). Assessingthe gap between community development practice and regional development policy.B. Wharf, & M. Clague (eds.), Community Organizing; Canadian Experiences(pp. 149-163). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena,C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D.Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for researchon educational communications and technology (pp. 403-437). New York: ScholasticPress.
McMaster, M. (1999) Communities of practice: An introduction[Web Page]. URL http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/mmintro.shtml[2000, July 11].
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From thestandpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: The University of ChicagoPress.
Moreland, R., & Lovett, T. (1997). Lifelong learning and communitydevelopment. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 16(3), 201-216.
Morrison,T. R. (1995). Global Transformation and the Search for a New Educational Design.International Journal of Lifelong Education, 14(3), 188-213.
Neuman,D. (1990). Beyond the chip: A model for fostering equity "B" . SchoolLibrary Media Quarterly, 18(3), 158-164.
Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum,G. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration:Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation,8, 427-440.
OECD. (1996). Adult learning and technology in OECD countries.Proceedings of a Roundtable sponsored jointly by the OECD Centre for EducationalResearch and Innovation and the National Center on Adult Literacy .
Officeof Learning Technologies. (1998). Models of Community Learning Networks inCanada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Office of Learning Technologies by New EconomyDevelopment Group Inc..
Ozasz, F. (1994). Issues in the development of communitycooperative networks. Paper presented at the Rural Datafication Conference.
Reid,E. M. (1991) Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet relay chat[Web Page]. URL http://people.we.mediaone.net/elizrs/electropolis.html [2000,May 31].
Renyi, J. (1996) Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning: TransformingProfessional Development for Student Success [Web Page]. URL http://www.nfie.org/takechar.htm[2000, July 29].
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. NewYork: Addison-Wesley.
Roberts, L. (1987). The electronic seminar: distanceeducation by computer conferencing. Paper presented at the Annual Conferenceon Non-Traditional and Interdisciplinary Programs (5th, Fairfax, VA, May 1987).
Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2000). Evolution of an on-lineeducation community of practice. Paper presented at the Annual Conference ofAmerican Educational Research Association.
Schuler, D. (1996). Newcommunity networks: Wired for change. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Computerand Engineering Publishing Group.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S.,& McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication.Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
Sirc,J., & Reynolds, T. (1990). The face of collaboration in the networked writingclassroom. 7, 53-70.
Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. (1991a). Computers,networks, and work. Scientific American, 265(3), 116-123.
Sproull,L. S., & Kiesler, S. (1991b). Connections: New ways of working in the networkedorganization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tu, C. H. (2000a). Criticalexamination of factors affecting interaction on CMC. Journal of Network andComputer Applications, 23(1), 39-58.
Tu, C. H. (2000b). On-line learningmigration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment.Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27-37.
Tu, C.,& Corry, M. (2002a). A paradigm shift for online community research. DistanceEducation: An International Journal, 22(2).
Tu, C., & Corry,M. (2002b). The Relationships of Social Presence, Tasks, and Social Relationshipsin Online Learning Environment. Paper to be presented at the Annual Conferenceof American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Tu, C. H., &McIsaac, M. S. (2001). Community of Practice for Mentoring. Paper presentedat the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Tu,C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increaseinteraction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education,16(3).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effectsin computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research,19(1), 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediatedcommunication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2),186-203.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wharf, B., &Clague, M. (1997). Community Organizing; Canadian Experiences. Toronto:Oxford University Press.
Whitworth, J. M. (1998). Looking at distance learningthrough both ends of the camera. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Association for Research in Science Teaching (71st, San Diego, CA, April19-22, 1998).