Community Groups: A Strategy to Promote Connectedness in Online Courses Erin F. Klash, Auburn University at Montgomery

Community Groups: A Strategy to Promote Connectedness in Online Courses

Erin F. Klash Auburn University at Montgomery

Abstract

Relatedness is a key human need (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, in the online learning environment, lack of social interaction among students and instructors is a main concern (Jaggars, 2014; Willging & Johnson, 2009; O’Neill & Sai, 2014; May et al., 2009). In this pilot qualitative case study, structured “community groups” were used as a strategy by one instructor (the author) in a foundations of education course to promote connectedness among students. Qualitative data collection took place via questionnaire during the last two weeks of the fall 2019 semester and were subsequently analyzed to determine thematic patterns (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). Results indicate that the majority of students found the community groups beneficial in fostering a sense of connectedness in the online learning environment and that the groups could be beneficial in future online course sections. Some students did report feelings of isolation due to lack of communication of group members, but this was relatively minimal. This research supports and adds to literature available, demonstrating a strategy that could be used to promote connectedness in online learning environments.

Key Words: Online learning, collaboration, community, connectedness

Introduction

Online courses are popular alternatives to face-to-face courses. In fall 2017, 33.7% of all students enrolled in college-level courses in the United States took at least some online courses, where 32.9% of those students were undergraduates and 38% were post-baccalaureate students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Additionally, the Babson Survey Research Group (2018) noted student enrollment in online courses increased by 5.6% between fall 2015

and fall 2016, while exclusive face-to-face, on campus course enrollment decreased by 6.4% between 2012 and 2016. Online course opportunities are preferred by students for a variety of reasons, including flexibility in scheduling, cost effectiveness, convenience in access to education, and a preferred mode of delivery (Jaggars, 2014; Willging & Johnson, 2009). However, one of the greatest perceived impediments of online learning experiences is a lack of connectedness for students with either peers or course instructors. This concern causes some students to either avoid engaging in online learning or withdraw from online courses (Jaggers, 2014; O’Neill & Sai, 2014; Willging & Johnson, 2009; Banna, Lin, Stewart, & Fialkowski, 2015). While there are other noted concerns associated with online learning, the purpose of this study was to address the need for connection in the learning environment through strategic planning and implementation of small group interactions. A strategy called “Community Groups” was used in an undergraduate section of a foundations of education course taught completely online. A community group is defined as a small group of students (3-5) who share a similar major, can offer group members support in the content area of the course, and foster a sense of connection to others in the online learning environment. This qualitative case study examined students’ use and perceptions of community groups.

Literature Review

Given the prevalence of online learning environments researchers have spent a great deal of resources examining how to enroll students, and keep them enrolled, in online courses. The focus of the review of literature pertains to research emphasizing the connectedness aspect of the online learning community.

Self-Determination Theory of Motivation

Motivation is an important piece of the online learning environment. Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory emphasizes three main aspects of motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Chen & Jang, 2010). Relatedness is a key aspect of online learning, but the lack thereof is one of the main concerns expressed by students taking online courses. Defined by Ryan and Deci (2020), relatedness is a “sense of belonging and connection facilitated by

conveyance of respect and caring” (p. 1). Ryan and Deci (2000) also explained that intrinsic motivation is more likely to occur within “contexts characterized by a sense of security and relatedness” and that students are more likely to excel when their psychological needs are met (p. 71). Furthermore, Haslam, Cruwys, Haslam, and Jetten (2015) explained that social connectedness is “a sense of belonging and subjective psychological bond that people feel in relation to individuals and groups of others… capturing the idea that the identification with others is the basis for social connectedness” (p. 1). Relatedness and connectedness are important aspects of motivation, which directly impact engagement in online learning. For the purpose of this paper, the term “connectedness” is used to encompass the sense of belonging as describe above.

Students’ Perceptions of Connectedness in Online Learning

Engagement is a critical component of developing connectedness in online learning. According to Dixson (2010), students perceive a variety of activities as engaging (e.g. active learning assignments, discussion boards, case studies, or assignments with an authentic context). However, Dixson (2010) asserted students with high levels of engagement were more likely to use discussion forums to collaborate and connect with other students. Dixson (2010) explained that students need opportunities to engage with content and social contexts unrelated to content. Engaging in both contexts of dialogue creates opportunity to develop a sense of connectedness, thereby combatting feelings of isolation. Martin and Bolliger (2018) surveyed students to gain a broader perspective of what they deemed valuable in engaging them in the online learning environment. As pertinent to the overall course, discussions were listed as the second most valuable aspect and indicated that “instructors should form small groups for discussions, post prompts for deep reflection and deeper understanding, and require students to participate” (Martin & Bolliger, 2018, p. 213). Additionally, peer interactions were deemed valuable in promoting engagement. However, in the same study, discussions were also reported as a least valuable strategy, whereas some students noted it felt like “busywork” (Martin & Bolliger, 2018, p. 214). Social presence in an online learning environment yields higher satisfaction, according to Kushnir and Berry (2014). Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt, Tichavasky, and Thompson (2012) identified

no significant difference in student satisfaction levels of a course taught in both face-to-face and online formats by the same instructor when the instructor was actively present in the course. Additionally, they found that students in either environment who were actively engaged held more favorable perceptions of the course experience. Some students report feelings of isolation in the online learning environment (GillettSwan, 2017). Prior knowledge of other students enrolled in the class was a determinant in perceptions of connectedness in the online learning environment. Reilly, Gallagher-Lepak, and Killion (2012) reported that some students felt isolated in their first online class because they perceived others had prior relationships, whereas they did not know other students in the class. This promoted a lack of perceived connectedness in the course because they felt excluded from interactions.

Collaborative Discussions as a Strategy to Develop Relationships in Online Learning Environments

Students appreciate face-to-face formatted coursework for the physical connections to peers, instructors, and campus activities. Research consistently demonstrates that lack of physical connectivity to peers and instructors poses a significant concern related to online learning (May, Acquaviva, Dorfman, & Posey, 2009; Jaggers, 2014). Therefore, it is imperative to meet students’ psychological need for connectedness in the online learning environment. This can help to facilitate a positive learning experience and reduce feelings of isolation. In fact, King (2002) stressed that interaction and collaboration could be the key to a successful learning experience. Given the magnitude of connectedness in the online learning environment, activities should be deliberate and meaningful (Orcutt & Dringus, 2017). Hartnett, St. George, and Dron (2011) asserted practitioners need to be cognizant of the important role they play in influencing learner motivation when designing learning activities. Most importantly, the relevance and value of the task (e.g., online discussions) need to be clearly identified and linked to learning objectives to help learners understand how the activity can aid in the realization of personal goals, aspirations, and interests, both in the short and longer term. (p. 33)

Several obstacles related to students working productively in a collaborative online learning environment include lack of perceived value of assignments, personal schedules, unresponsive group members, and a host of personality differences (Posey & Lyons, 2011). This further supports the need for purposefully planned deliberate, and meaningful strategies to promote connectedness in the online classroom.

Research suggests there are several strategies which can be incorporated to increase interactions and connectedness among students enrolled in online courses. From the onset, instructors can explicitly describe the benefits of connectedness and collaboration in coursework, including benefits in content-area learning, social aspects, and increased exposure to diverse ideas and perspectives (Roberts & McInnerney, 2007). Purposeful planning and implementation of activities are integral components of assisting students in developing meaning and perceived value of interactions.

Peer learning and collaboration are common strategies used by instructors to promote connectedness in online coursework. Results are mixed regarding effectiveness of using strategies such as discussion boards, due to personal preference of learning format (online, faceto-face, or mixed environments), experience with group members, and motivation factors (Kahn, Everington, Kelm, Reid, & Watkins, 2017; Raymond, Jacob, Jacob, & Lyons, 2016). Revere and Kovch (2011) claimed that discussion board formats can be effective in promoting supporting learning environments and even friendships. Raymond, Jacob, Jacob, and Lyons (2016) found that some students did not find online discussions beneficial, but many did because it afforded opportunity to think and reflect upon questions or tasks prior to responding. Additionally, convenience to work in a self-paced manner was perceived as important. Many students who responded in an unfavorable manner to online discussions did so due to a negative experience with a group member (e.g. conflict, lack of responsiveness, equal grades assigned versus equal role in work completion). A discussion strategy that has demonstrated promise in creating feelings of connectedness among students is that of a learning community. According to Yuan and Kim (2014), a learning community is a “group of learners who have a sense of belonging… (where) the critical element is a sense of community, which is the feeling that group members matter and that one’s needs are satisfied through the collective effort of the group” (p. 221). Literature

provides several suggestions to optimize effectiveness of learning communities. These include implementing them from the beginning of the course, active engagement from both the instructor and learners, and to use a variety of strategies to facilitate conversation in both content and social contexts (Yuan & Kim, 2014; Jan & Vlachopoulos, 2018). Britt (2015) suggested that while a strong instructor presence is necessary to optimize engagement and connectedness, they should have a minimal role in actual discussion board activities.

Summary

In summation, a wealth of literature exists, which supports the need for connectedness in the online learning environment. Motivational factors contribute to students’ perceptions of connectedness. Students who are actively involved in online courses tend to perceive a higher level of connectedness and course satisfaction than those who are minimally involved. Research yields mixed results, in terms of effectiveness and students’ perceived value of structured interactions, but it supports that with purposeful and deliberate planning, learning groups can effectively increase connectedness in the online learning environment. Discussion boards and project-based group interactions are clearly noted in the literature as strategies to increase online course engagement. Based on the research, community groups, a sub-category of learning communities, were developed as a strategy to promote connectedness and engagement in a fully online course. This research adds to the literature by focusing on students at an individual level within the whole class group.

Methodology

This research study took place in a fully online, foundations of education course during the fall 2019 semester. A fully online course at this institution is considered a course in which instructional activities take place on an asynchronous online learning platform with zero face-toface on-campus meetings. As noted in the discussion, the purpose of this study was to facilitate connections between students in the online learning environment through strategic implementation of small group interactions. The implementation of community groups began approximately three weeks into the semester and culminated on the last day of classes, as per the University Academic Calendar.

Students were assigned by major area of study (as much as possible) to a community group during the third week of class. This university allows students to add courses for up to two weeks into the semester. By waiting until the third week of class to create groups, it was reasoned that groups would be static, in terms of students wishing to add or drop the course. Therefore, groups could be created in the initial days of class and adjusted, if needed, prior to formally grouping students. This effort was in place to minimize any confusion or disruption that could occur. Additionally, though there were many “Childhood Education” majors enrolled in the course; there were few “Secondary Education” majors. Therefore, students majoring in Secondary English Language Arts were combined with students majoring in Secondary Social Science, while students majoring in Secondary Mathematics and Secondary Science were combined. Five groups consisting of 3-5 students within respective areas of study were formed as community groups for the semester. In order to facilitate structured interactions and discussions between members of the

community groups, two mandatory discussion board posts were created. Groups were formed by the author and group members were introduced to each other via university email during the third week of the semester (see Appendix A). Students were encouraged to set up a discussion via GroupMe, text message, or other forum outside of the course, but university email was an acceptable method of communication. It was also noting that the author requested to be removed from these interactions beyond the scope of the course requirements. The purpose of this was to help students develop relationships with each other without outside interference. During the fifth week of the semester, the first structured discussion board interaction was conducted. Students were asked to complete a structured peer review of an assignment for the course and provide positively framed, specific, and relevant written feedback on the work. During the tenth week, group members were asked to do a similar task with a different work sample. Periodically, students received reminders via course announcements to interact community groups, talk about assignments, and check on each other in a social capacity. Therefore, over a period of nine weeks, students engaged in three purposefully planned, structured interactions within their community groups. Any other interactions which occurred within the group was facilitated by the group members.

Setting and Participants

This study took place in the author’s online course offered through the College of Education. Participants were recruited by proxy of being enrolled in the course. All 24 students enrolled in the course participated in the community groups; however, 19 chose to participate in this research study.

Setting

According to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2020), the urban, regional university located in the southeastern United States in which this study took place is a M1 University. The University is home to a diverse population of approximately 4,500 students, including both undergraduate and graduate students. Approximately 20% of the students are classified as “nontraditional,” based on a variety of qualities including age of student, outside responsibilities and obligations (e.g. families to care for, at least part-time employment), and pursuing of a second undergraduate degree as part of a second career (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2020).

Participants

The participants in this study were the undergraduate students enrolled in the author’s Foundations of Education course in the College of Education. Though all students were embedded within a community group, 19 of 24 enrolled students consented to participation in this study and completed the associated questionnaire. Students with a variety of majors in the field of education were represented in this study (see Table 1).

Research Questions

This research examined students’ perceptions of the value of using community groups as a strategy to promote connectedness within an online course setting. Originally, this study sought to answer two question, including the broad question of how students used their community groups. However, based on an initial read-through of the data, it became clear that this question required two sub-questions to address mode of communication and for what purpose students used the groups. Therefore, this study answers the questions:

1.

2. How are community groups used by students in the online course?

a. What modes of communication are used?

b.

For what did students use the community groups? What are students’ perceptions of connectedness as a result of using community groups?

Data Collection

Data was collected via a structured, qualitative questionnaire (see Appendix B). Nineteen students enrolled in the course offered feedback and responded to qualitative questions on experience and perceptions in using the community groups. The questionnaires were collected via the online learning management system, Blackboard.

Data Analysis

The data was analyzed using qualitative methods. First, data was read to determine an appropriate manner to organize, then analyze, as well as to get a sense of participant responses. Based on anecdotal observations, the data were sorted by question and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for a more practical review (Bogden & Biklen, 2007). Descriptive information was accounted for in Items 1-5; therefore, the items were grouped together. Items 6-11a-d were separated individually to allow for extensive, individual analysis. Furthermore, each item was aligned to the research questions; Item 6 aligns to RQ1a-b, whereas Items 7-10 align to RQ2. Item 11 was for feedback purposes related to construction and future use of community groups and was not used in data analysis for this study. Each student was assigned a number which is consistent throughout the data to allow for patterns which emerged from the data to be examined on an individual level within the case.

Following the data entry component, all data were uploaded to the coding and analysis software, Atlas.ti, manually coded. The unit of analysis for this study was each reflective comment made by students. Each comment was coded as a free quotation, then coded with either priori or emergent codes. Initially, open-coding was used to develop descriptive codes and themes for Items 6-10, but as patterns emerged, selective coding was employed (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A codebook was developed throughout the coding process, reflective of both

priori and emergent codes, which led to the development of themes (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). Items were coded as they align to research questions; therefore, all items related to RQ1 were coded first, then items which supported RQ2 were coded subsequently. Additionally, after coding each prompt with respect to specified RQs, an observational memo was created to help think more critically about the data. Based on the codes and codebook, themes emerged, and the following results are classified based on the emergent classification of codes.

Results

As analysis of data ensued, it became quite evident that students accessed and used the community groups in a variety of ways. Additionally, there was an overall positive perception of the community groups.

Descriptive Background Information

Descriptive information was collected in Items 1-5. All students were from an undergraduate course section and all groups had 3-5 students. Student 1 indicated they did not know how many members were in their group, while Student 5 indicated they started with 4 students, but one withdrew later, leaving 3. As referenced earlier in the “Participants” section, a variety of majors were represented in the course (see Table 1). Item 4 asked students to identify how many members in their community groups they knew prior to the onset of the course. Two students indicated they knew 0 group members prior to the onset of the course, 6 students knew 1 member, 3 people knew 2 members of their group, 4 students knew 3 members of the group, and 3 students knew 4 members of their group. Most students knew at least one or more members of their community groups. Item 5 asked students to identify approximately how often they communicated with their community group on a weekly basis. Six students indicated they communicated 0 times per week with their community group, 10 students indicated they communicated 1-2 times per week with their group, 1 person indicated communicating 3-5 times per week with their group, and 1 person expressed communicating more than 10 times per week with their community group. When compared with data from Item 6 (methods used to communicate with community groups), 3 of the students who reported no communication disclosed discussing the course with

community groups via discussion board forums, text messages, and in person conversations. Only 3 of the students who reported no communication or only communicating with community groups in two structured peer review activities consistently supported that premise through their responses. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 3 students had limited or no interactions with their community group members beyond two required discussion-based assignments.

How Were Community Groups Used by Students in the Online Course?

In order to answer this question, it was analyzed under two lenses. The physical mode of communication used by groups was examined, then the context of use of the community group was studied.

Mode of communication for community groups. Students indicated they used a variety of mediums to communicate with their groups. As expected, students used emails, text messages, social media platforms, and telephone to communicate. Text message was the most common form of communication among students; 10 reported using this as a mode of communication. In contrast, telephone was reported the least with one student using it, while email and social media were only reported twice. In both cases, the social media tool that students used was Facebook Messenger. The learning management system (LMS), Blackboard, was noted by 6 students. It was also reported that no mode of communication was used by 2 students which is in contrast to the 6 students who initially reported having no contact per week with their groups. An unanticipated, emergent mode of communication in the online community group was in person. Eight students reported communicating specifically with their community groups in person, most often on campus, in shared classes, or in shared field experiences.

Student use of community groups. The data analysis indicated that student students used the community groups for both academic and social connectedness, reflective of the original intent of the groupings.

Academic connectivity. Most students, 17/19, reported using their community group for an academic purpose during the semester. For example, clarification of assignments was a common method of using the group. Student 3 reported, “If I ever second guessed myself, I would ask for clarification from my community group first,” when referring to their assignments. Another way community groups were used was to give and receive feedback. Student 7 shared, “Yes, a few concepts I struggled with this semester and one of my group mates helped me to have a better understanding of how to properly format an essay question with a picture included,” in terms of receiving feedback, whereas Student 10 reported, “The members of my community group definitely helped me with concepts related throughout the course. We helped each other to understand how to correctly format a variety of assessments and rubrics.” Additionally, the group was an outlet for students to ask each other question. In fact, as Student 18 stated, “If I had questions that I thought might seem like dumb questions to my professor, I would ask them.” While this is obviously neither optimal nor true, it is certainly a reality for many students.

Social connectedness. Developing relationships beyond academic means as a method to promote connectedness was demonstrated, but with mixed results. Twelve students out of the 19 students who participated in the study reported developing new relationships, or friendships, as a result of having a community group. Student 17 conveyed, “I feel that in being in community groups, I have developed stronger relationships with other students who share the similar major as me. If I was not in community groups or groups at all I would not communicate with others because I am not a big social person.” Student 19 had the best commentary related to the social connectedness as pertinent to the community group: “We did not talk much outside of the class, and now I am invited to an engagement party of a classmate.” The comments embody the social connectivity and relationship development that can occur as a result of the group. Four of 19 students reported that they already had prior relationships with some members of the group and were not sure if the community group served to strengthen the bond. For example, Student 11 stated, “I don’t know if it was my community group that strengthened the bond. I think it was the fact that we had several classes together.” Three of nineteen students reported that the community groups did not help with social connectivity and relationship development at all because there was a lack of communication among group members. For example, Student 5

reported, “… my community group didn’t really do anything together,” in response to Prompt 8, regarding the development of relationships as a result to the community groups. Data overwhelmingly supported that students used the community groups for both academic and social purposes. Though the data reflected a much more prevalent use of the community group for connectedness related to academic support, students also used them to varying degrees for social relationships and connectivity.

Perceptions of Connectedness through Use of Community Groups

Data analysis revealed several findings related to students’ perceptions of connectedness within the online course setting as a result of using community groups. As a whole group, students found their community group beneficial, or felt that it could be beneficial in a variety of aspects; 18/19 students reported it being so beneficial that it should continue to be offered as an option for connectivity in future courses and even additional courses. Three major themes emerged from the data as it was coded and analyzed: benefits, or lack thereof, associated with the use of community groups, feelings of connectedness versus isolation, and student buy-in. The first two were priori, whereas the third was emergent.

Benefits, or lack thereof, associated with the use of community groups. Students reported, essentially, two perceptions as related to the use of the community groups. They either felt the group was beneficial or they did not. The information reported was polarized, even among most students who didn’t use their community groups as a resource. In fact, in a quantitative sense, the code “Beneficial” was used 46 times in coding the data, while the code “Not Beneficial” was used 14 times.

Benefits.

Several benefits were noted in association with community group, including knowledge of who was enrolled in the course, including those with similar majors, ease of communication, having a defined place in the course, and to obtain assistance and feedback with academic work.

Knowledge of who was enrolled in the course. From a basic perspective, this was an important finding. Students need to know who is in the course to begin to make connections with others. Comments were made with respect to benefits of community groups on a foundational level of how groups created an awareness of peers enrolled in the course. For example, Student 2 said, “…at times, you feel like online it’s just you and the teacher, but … you see there are actually multiple others that you know or have seen around, so it’s pretty neat and helps with being connected...” Additionally, Student 18 emphasized, “Most of the online classes I have taken before this one, I did not know who all was taking the class with me, so I felt completely isolated.” Both comments indicate a need that was satisfied through the groups.

An identified role in the course. Perhaps another finding that was more emergent in nature was the notion of having a clear role, a place, in the classroom community. Student 1 noted this on two separate occasions in the data. With respect for recommendations for continued use, the student reported, “…it serves your intended purpose of giving students the sense of community like a real classroom does.” Additionally, when asked for suggestions for improvement on the use of the groups within the course, the student stated, “It’s always hard to decide whose discussion board post to comment on and with the community groups, I knew exactly whose post I was commenting on.” Both comments reflect a sense of purpose and the role they played within the group.

Content assistance and feedback. The most noted benefit of the community group pertained to academic support. Students repeatedly referred to obtaining feedback, guidance, and clarification of coursework within their community groups, even among students who didn’t engage to a great extent with their group members. Some examples of commentary from the data are: Student 13, “We communicated when we were unsure of specifics for assignments (for clarification purposes when needed),” Student 17, “I feel that my community group was able to help and guide me through concepts through this class by being there to help explain a(n) assignment. Also, they were there to help sharing examples of the assessments we would have to make,” and Student 10, “I would recommend continuing to use community groups in the future

sections. These group provided every student with personal references who could assist in times of need.” There were many more comments similar in style to the noted ones.

Ease of communication. Some students spoke to the relative ease with which they were able to access and communicate with peers within their groups. For example, Student 19 reported, “If there were any misunderstandings, we could easily contact each other for help.” Student 1 indicated, “I talked with (a specific member) the most and we texted and called each other at least once a day, but usually more,” and Student 14 stated, “…they are usually quicker to get in touch with than teachers…” All of the commentary above, retrieved from the data, supported strong benefits associated with the use of groups from the perspective of students. However, though the majority of students reported having found the groups beneficial, some students did report the opposite.

Lack of benefits.

Some students reported a lack of benefit from the community group. After analyzing the data, the responses could be reduced to a lack of communication among group members. This is exemplified in a comment by Student 12, “I don’t feel that my community group helped. We didn’t communicate or collaborate at all in this course.” This was reported by Student 6, as well. A minimal amount of communication was reported among some students, too, such as with Student 4: “Some of their feedback was helpful through peer review. Other than that, we never talked much.” Throughout the data, Student 6, 8, and 12 reported little or no communication, consistently. Student 9, 15, and 16 initially reported zero communication with their group members, but inconsistently referenced various forms and benefits from communication. For three students in the class, the community groups were not beneficial. However, only 1 member of the class, Student 16, did not recommend continued use of the groups; the other students who reported varied degrees of communication and/or lack of benefits for them personally saw value in the groups if used consistently.

Feelings of connectedness versus isolation. The creation of community groups was rooted in developing a sense of connectedness in an online learning environment. Though there

were a few students who reported feelings of isolation, overwhelmingly, students reported perceptions of feeling connected to peers in the online course as a result of using the community

groups.

Connections. Students reported feeling more connected with classmates as a direct result of using community groups. For example, Student 17 said, “I feel like this made me feel more connected in an online environment instead of just doing assignments and turning them in. I was able to see others’ work and get feedback from people in my community group.” Additionally, Student 10 indicated, “Being in a community group helped develop stronger relationships with other students. At times, we all had questions or misconceptions throughout this course; however, being a part of a community group provided additional support from other students with similar majors. Both comments indicate a sense of connectedness.

Prior knowledge of students in group. On several occasions throughout the data, it is worth nothing that some students reported knowing at least one group member prior to enrolling in the course. In some cases, students felt that the group served to deepen relationships and connectedness; in other cases, the students were unsure if the community group facilitated connectedness or if it was due to the prior knowledge and connections.

Isolation.

Feelings of isolation were also reported among students, though at a much less frequent rate than that of connectedness. In each instance, the reason cited was lack of communication. Student 12 summarized this feeling by stating, “I don’t feel that my community group helped. We didn’t communicate or collaborate at all in this course.” However, associated with the feeling of isolation, two interesting concepts emerged: a sense of regret and a sense of blame.

A sense of regret. On two occasions in the data, a sense of regret was manifested by students for not using the community groups more. For example, Student 4 said, “I think the Blackboard discussion group and peer review is helpful. However, we didn’t communicate and take advantage (of) one another.” This comment indicates that the student recognized this could

have been a resource as portrayed in their phrasing “take advantage of.” Also, Student 9 reflected, “I feel like if we would have actually reached out to each other more, it would have been great.” Both comments reflect the sense that this group was an opportunity to connect with others.

Blame? Perhaps one of the most interesting findings in this study was the one comment by a student that, in a sense, placed blame on group members for lack of communication. Student 12 stated, “No, nobody in my group reached out. It felt like a typical online course.” Though this was only found once, this comment is important because it begs the question of responsibility in communication amongst group members.

Student buy-in relative to engaging with community group. An emergent theme that evolved from the data was the concept of student buy-in. On two occasions, comments were made that spoke to the value of student buy-in. Student 11 reported that “I don’t really care for online classes because you can’t connect with people,” while Student 5 stated, “I don’t really take online courses to feel connected.” The comments indicated lack of student buy-in which is, arguably, essential for the successful function of community groups.

Discussion

In this pilot study, community groups proved to be a beneficial strategy to promote connectedness in one online course. Clear patterns in the data exist and connect to previous research. Students responded favorably to discussions within their community group (e.g. structured and unstructured), supporting Roberts and McInnerney’s (2007) research that there are benefits in both content areas and social aspects through collaboration. Though the community groups presented in this study could be categorized as a subgroup of Yuan and Kim’s (2014) learning communities. Many students in this study reported a feeling of connectedness, which speaks to the self-determination theory of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Several students reported prior knowledge of classmates in their community group which supports Gillet-Swan’s (2017) perspective that knowledge of other classmates is a determinant of feelings of

connectedness in an online course. Finally, perceptions of isolation did manifest in the data, specially, due to a lack of communication between members (Posey & Lyons, 2011). The themes, “Benefits/Lack of Benefits” and “Connectedness vs. Isolation” were priori and supported by the literature. Overwhelmingly, students expressed the viewpoint that community groups as a strategy to promote connectedness was either beneficial for them or that it had the potential to be beneficial. Eighteen of the 19 students who participated in the study recommended the further use of community groups in future sections of the course, and even other classes. Additionally, though feelings of connectedness and isolation were both reported, many more students reported various perspectives of feeling connected to their classmates as a result of the groups. However, the theme “Student Buy-in” is an emergent theme and worth further exploration in future research. Student buy-in was, essentially, assumed in this study, but the data revealed that this did not hold true for all students, given two students made statements that revealed their lack of desire or belief that connections could occur in online courses.

Limitations and Future Considerations

Given the novelty of this strategy and the context of the pilot study, there were limitations. First, a small sample size comprised the case of study and it took place in one course. For future studies, perhaps a larger sample size could be available and the research could be expanded to additional online courses either taught by the author or additional instructors. Another limitation is that this was a pilot study. Based on feedback from Item 11, changes to the structure and deliberately planned discussions will be made to determine if students feel more connected. This information is beyond the scope of research questions and was included on the questionnaire to collect information for future planning. For example, students repeatedly asked for more structured interactions within the community group by way of discussion board prompts. Also, students requested to start community group interactions from the onset of the semester. Another avenue worth pursing is to examine student engagement in the online course to determine if there is any link between feelings of isolation or lack of benefits provided by community groups and course engagement and participation. Finally, additional questioning of students who report feelings of isolation or lack of benefit in using community groups should

take place to determine underlying reasons for this. This could include a focus group interview or through additional questioning via questionnaire. For practical application in courses, consideration should be given to when the community groups are constructed. To create groups at the onset of the semester immediately introduces students to others with similar interests or majors. However, students regularly add or drop courses up to weeks into the semester, changing group dynamics. If the groups are created two-to-three weeks into the semester, valuable time is lost in relationship development. It is recommended that groups be created immediately prior to the start of the class. Students can be introduced to community group members on the first day of class, but course instructors can exercise flexibility to revise groups, if needed. Careful planning for structured interactions should be considered, particularly when constructing prompts for discussion. Prompts should be specific to the course and afford opportunities for deep thought, reflection, and conversation among students in the groups. Social interactions should be included in prompts, as well. For future facilitation, weekly or biweekly structured prompts aligned to course content could be constructed with at least three structured social check-ins throughout the semester. Social check-ins require no content discussion, but foster a sense of human connection within the community groups. Finally, encourage “social” interactions outside of the discussion board interactions. Ask students to check on each other as “human

beings,” not merely students enrolled in the same online course who have similar major areas of study. This creates social and academic connections between students within community groups. The implications of this research are significant. If students sense that they are connected with others, they could be more likely to engage in online courses. Successful use of the community groups strategy could decrease drop-out rates in online courses, thereby increasing course completion rates. Additionally, students can potentially create networks of peers within their field and develop long-term professional relationships.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there was a positive response to the use of community groups to promote connectedness in the online learning environment for this course. The community groups strategy has great potential to fulfill students’ psychological need for connectedness within the

online learning environment. As noted in the literature, this could be a strategy to retain students enrolled in online courses, moving them one step closer to graduation. Connectedness is a key component of motivation; community groups have the capacity to connect small groups of students in the online learning environment.

Author Biography

Dr. Erin Klash is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Auburn University Montgomery. Research interests related to this topic include instructional strategies teachers use to facilitate effective learning environments in the elementary and higher education classroom setting.

References

Banna, J., Lin, M., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249-261. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Pearson Education, Inc. Britt, M. (2015). How to better engage online students with online strategies. College Student Journal, 49(3), 399-404. Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of selfdetermination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741-752. Dixson, M. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13. Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an

online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331.

Gillett-Swan, J., (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20-30. Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online c environments: Complex, multifaceted, and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 20-38. Haslam, C., Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jetten, J. (2015). Social connectedness and health. Encyclopedia of Geropsychology. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-080-3_46-1 Jaggars, S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27-38. Jan, S., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2018). Influence of learning design of the formation of online communities of learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 16. Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: The role of reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 203-218. King, F. (2002). A virtual student: Not an ordinary Joe. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 157166.

Kushnir, L.P. & Berry, K.C. (2014). Inside, Outside, Upside Down: New Directions in Online Teaching and Learning. Presented at International Conference e-Learning 2014. Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems 2014. Retrieved October 19, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/157763/ Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.

May, L., Acquaviva, K., Dorfman, A., & Posey, L. (2009). Medical student perceptions of selfpaced, web-based electives: A descriptive study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 212-223.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). SAGE Publications, Inc.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020). Definitions and data: Who is nontraditional? Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2016 and Fall 2017 (Table 311.15). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_311.15.asp?current=yes O’Neill D., & Sai, T. (2014). Why not? Examining college students’ reasons for avoiding an online course. Higher Education, 68, 1-14. Orcutt, J., & Dringus, L. (2017). Beyond being there: Practices that establish presence, engage students and influence curiosity in a structured online learning environment. Online Learning, 21(3), 15-35. Posey, L., & Lyons, L. (2011). The instructional design of online collaborative learning. Journal of Education Research, 5(3/4), 361-380. Raymond, A., Jacob, E., Jacob, D., & Lyons, J. (2016). Peer learning a pedagogical approach to enhance online learning: A qualitative exploration. Nurse Education Today, 44, 169-169. Reilly, J., Gallagher-Lepak, S., & Killion, C. (2012). “Me and my computer”: Emotional factors in online learning. Nursing Education Perspectives, 22(2), 100-105. Revere, L., & Kovach, J. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113-124. Roberts, T., & McInnerney, J. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257-268. Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1-11.

Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Retrieved from Babson Survey Research Group website: http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d). About Carnegie classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ Willging, P., & Johnson, S. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2013). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 220-232.

Table 1

Demographics of Participating Students Enrolled in the Course; Fall, 2019

Major Total Students

in Major African

American

Female African

American

Male White

Female White

Male Trad.

Student Nontrad.

Student

Childhood 14 1 0 13 0 9 5

Education

Secondary ELA 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 Secondary Math 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Secondary 2 0 0 1 1 1 1

Science

Note. This table represents demographic information of teacher candidates (study participants) enrolled in “Measurement and Assessment in Classroom Teaching” course and provided consent to participate in this study.

Appendix A: Email Template Inviting Students to Join Community Groups

Greetings!

I hope this message finds you well. I have found that in online classes, there are several ways to foster community and collaboration within the setting. One such way is through something I like to call “Community Groups.” There are several majors represented in the class, so I created small groups of students with, mostly, similar majors.

The Community Group serves several purposes. First, it’s a group of like-major people who are sharing a similar experience: this class. You can ask each other questions, clarify content, ask for feedback, etc. to enhance your positive experience with the class. Second, we will do a couple of structured peer reviews this semester and this group will help you greatly with that discussion board forum (stay tuned for more info!). Finally, I have found that it just helps students in an online setting to connect with others and have received very positive feedback about the experience.

Your group consists of

I also wanted to mention that I used your University email to connect you with and introduce you to the members of your group (if you don’t already know them). You should be able to see group members’ University user name, if not email, on this message. If you don’t see the email, just add “@aum.edu” to the user name. You do not need to keep me on your group messages. Many students have used the GroupMe app and/or text messages to communicate. Though it’s not necessary, you are welcome to communicate in whatever manner works best for your group.

As always, if you need me, please feel free to email, come by my office during office hours, or set up a Zoom meeting during available times listed in the syllabus.

Appendix B: Community Groups Reflective Questionnaire

Community Groups Reflective Survey

Background: In your course this semester, FNDS 4800 or FNDS 6800, you were assigned to a “community group” of students with similar major areas of study as a strategy to help you with coursework and to help provide connections with other students in the online setting. The reflective survey below if for me to gain more information about how this community group was used, if it proved beneficial to you, and to reflect on future changes that might benefit students in future sections of the courses, as well as the broader teaching community (other courses, colleges, and universities).

Directions: Please respond to the following items.

1. In what course section are you currently enrolled? FNDS 4800 or FNDS6800

2. What is your major area of study? ________________________________________

3. How many members were in your community group? _________________________

4. Prior to being introduced to your community group, did you know any members of the group? If so, how many? __________________________________________________________________

5. How often did you collaborate with your community group per week?

0 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times more than 10 times

6. What method or methods did you use to communicate with your community group?

7. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Do you feel that your community group was able to help and guide you through concepts related to course content? Please explain your answer. ________________________________________________________________________

8. 9. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ As a result of being in a community group, do you feel that you developed stronger relationships with other students in who share a similar major? Explain your response? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________ Do you feel being a part of the community group helped you to feel “more connected” in an online learning environment? Explain your response? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

10. Do you recommend continuing the use of community groups in future sections of FNDS 4/6800? Why or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 11. What additional comments or suggestions do you have about the:

a.

b.

c.

d. Construction of community groups __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Introduction of students within the community groups __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Use of community groups within the course __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Anything else you want to share! __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your participation in this survey!