Analysis of Blog Community

Community: What and Why

Building an interactive community offers important learning benefits.  Gamson and Chickering (1991) include cooperation among students as one of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Likewise, social constructivist models of education emphasize the value of dialogue for learning (Ravenscroft, 2011). Community increases cognitive engagement, leads students to be more active learners, and hence, builds knowledge (Crawford & Gannon Cook, 2008; Neff & Whithaus, 2008; Warnock, 2009).  This idea was pioneered by Vygotsky who believed that social engagement was necessary for learning to take place (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978).  While this dynamic applies to any classroom, within distance education, “the survival of the course depends on interactivity” (Danowski, 2006, p. 97). 

Community provides the optimal environment for learning, but, as Brent (2004) points out, the concept defies simple definition. Nevertheless, for our purposes, Garrison & Vaughn’s (2007) Community of Inquiry concept provides a workable starting point.  Here, the idea of community “recognizes the social nature of education and the role that interaction, collaboration, and discourse play in constructing knowledge” (p. 9) while inquiry brings in the notion of constructing meaning through personal engagement.  This includes an idea of social presence where open communication occurs within cohesive groups and includes affective and personal connections. Swales (1990) focuses on the linguistic nature of these connections in his notion of discourse community, a group that is united by common goals, has mechanisms for communicating, and shares genres and vocabulary.  Within a given class, community is initiated through common experiences and furthered through shared discourse in available forums, whether part of the course design or serendipitous.  Community is never automatic, but distance education adds new challenges.  At the same time, the online affordances offer new opportunities.  Indeed, Warnock (2009) sees interactive forums as a key strength of online classes, and Ravenscroft calls networked social media “a new and profound dialogue landscape” (2011, p. 140).  Not surprisingly, then, asynchronous online discussions have become a powerful tool for many distance teachers (Warnock, 2009; Neff & Whithaus, 2008; Hew, Cheung, & Ng, 2008).  The blog community created for Online Writing Instruction is an example of this type of forum.  

Creating dialogue in the blog community

The stipulations for the assignment set the stage for interaction but did not demand it.  In Swalesian terms, the blogs offered a shared genre and disciplinary membership provided a shared language, for most participants at least.  To that degree, the blogs themselves, with no further interaction, signaled an incipient community. Yet, as Hew, Cheung & Ng note, an adequate level of participation is the lowest common denominator of successful online discussion, and Ravenscroft (2011) argues that dialogue must be generated.  Simply posting blog entries, therefore, is not enough to create a dialogic community. The comment feature, however, does allow dialogic interaction, so examining the number of comments, the number of threads, the distribution of comments across the blog space, and the level of participation can help us determine to what extent the blog space became a blog community.  

At first glance, participation appears good.  I found 77 comments spread over 56 blog entries as authored by 11 students.  In other words, each blogger received an average of 7 comments.  In reality, some bloggers had many comments while others had relatively few.  The highest had 13 and the lowest had 0, though since her blog required approval for posting comments, there may be comments waiting to be posted.  There is no obvious reason why some blogs had fewer comments, but a possible factor is the position in the blog list provided by the professor.  The two blogs with the most comments were, in fact, the top two on that list.  However, four of the 12 comments in Kristina’s, the first listed, were her responses to the comments of others.  Carol, Daniel, Shantal, and Suzanne also received an above average number of comments, revealing another factor, the development of comment threads.  These come closest to genuine dialogue and probably have a pay-off in terms of generating motivation for the further conversation, and, of course, in developing community.  However, overall, few threads developed.  The longest were a chain of six comments on Kristina’s blog, five on Suzanne’s, and four on Daniel’s.  Several instances of comment-response occurred, but most comments stood alone.  Another factor related to participation is the number of students who commented.  Seven students commented on the posts of others and one additional student responded to comments on her own blog.  Three students contributed no comments.  

Before drawing conclusions about how successful commenting was in creating a blog community, let’s look at some additional features of the comments.  Most comments developed a complete idea using a paragraph or more.  Showing interest in a topic raised by an article was the most common type of response. Stating agreement was also common and disagreement, rare, although interrogating aspects of the article or its findings was not uncommon.  There were six instances of intertextuality across the blog community, where a commenter referred to other blog entries or comments, and four make reference to course discussions or readings, thus alluding to shared experience.  Twenty-six make reference to the commenter’s own experience with the topic.  One comment does all three: “From our readings this week, as well as in some of my own research for my paper, I’m seeing more of the ‘connectivity’ discussions. As I mentioned in another of your blog articles, I’ve been inspired to try videos and audio posts this term to try it in my own classrooms…” (Carol commenting on Sarah’s first blog entry) 

The commenting function can develop dialogue and foster community in two ways, first, by creating intellectual dialogue, and second, by strengthening social bonds between group members.  While it is difficult to disentangle one from the other, certain behaviors foster each.  For example, offering extended responses with reasoning, interrogating the article on points of concern or disagreement, asking questions, and making intertextual connections to the class or across the blog community are all ways of creating intellectual dialogue.  All of these strategies were evinced in this blog community.  Showing interest in the topic of an article or affirming an author’s critique both further the dialogue while also performing a social role.  Making connections to one’s own experience provides evidence for an argument, but it also fleshes out the character of the commenter, adding to the social cohesion.  Finally, addressing the author or responder by name can play a strong role in strengthening social bonds.  This occurred frequently.  In one example, Suzanne opens a response to her blog entry with “Hi Laurie,” and, in another, Margie inserts Shantal’s name in her response: “Further, I’m also in agreement with you, Shantal, in that Yang’s essay...” These commenting behaviors fostered dialogic community but were limited by the level of participation. 

From good to better

Some adjustment of the assignment might have increased its effectiveness.  Hew, Cheung & Ng (2008) note that when an instructor requires a certain number of posts, participation does increase, but that this can reduce the quality of the discussion.  Here establishing requirements for comment posting would probably have increased comment density and generated more threads, probably without too much cost in quality.  After all, with no requirements of any kind, those who did comment took the time to provide a thoughtful response and make useful connections.  It is likely that adding some additional accountability, whether in terms of number of postings, time spent, or other strategies, would have increased the opportunity for engagement. Dividing up the class into two groups probably would also have generated denser clusters of comments and more threads. I started eager to do my part to build community, so at first, I commented on nearly everyone’s contributions.  But even in a class with just ten other students, I found myself daunted by the number of posts to read.  By the second post, I became more selective in both reading and commenting.  After the third round of postings, I neglected to return. If the class had been divided into two groups, it is likely that I would have found it easier to keep up with the postings and become a more active participant as a result.   By posting on articles connected to our research interests, the blogs gave a sense of what people were interested in, and in fact, this is the first of my PhD classes where I have had a developing sense of my classmates’ research interests.  Yet, it is possible that posting on shared rather than individual readings would have created more dialogue.  Some circumstantial evidence for this comes from a few cases where students happened to review the same article.  A good example is Jenny’s comment on Kelly’s fourth blog post: “You bring to light issues that didn't occur to me in my own summary of the article… I was particularly focused on... I really appreciate that you shed some light on...” Clearly, the shared reading deepened the engagement for Jenny and created a point of departure for discussion.

The blog contributed to creating community in the course, but other features have gone further towards developing an interactive community.  WebEx offers learners the ability to see and hear each other in synchronous discussion.  The synchronous chat on WebEx also offers a way to make connections as well as generating additional intellectual dialogue beyond the oral discussion and blog discussions.  The most effective tool for building community, though, has probably been Facebook.  The Facebook group has provided an asynchronous space for sharing resources and venting frustrations.  The synchronous chat during class time has been very effective for creating social bonds.  While this does offer an additional space for continuing intellectual dialogue, it is more often used in a personal and playful way.  It has also enjoyed a high level of participation.  No doubt the absence of the instructor imparts a particular freedom, but since WebEx chat can also be lively, I believe the short and synchronous nature of chat makes it ideal for strengthening social bonds.  However, all the forms of interaction together have built a community that offers both social cohesion and intellectual dialogue.

References

Brent, J. (2004). The desire for community: Illusion, confusion and paradox. Community Development Journal, 39(3), 213-223.  doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsh017

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

Crawford, C. M., & Gannon Cook, R. (2008). Building autonomous and dynamic communities of learning within distance learning environments: Focusing upon making connections, knowledge creation and practice communities. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 4(4), 47–58.

Danowski, D. (2006). Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Leading discussions in cyberspace. In J. Alexander & M. Dickson (Eds.), Role play: distance learning and the teaching of writing, (97-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.  

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.   

Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ng, C. S. L. (2010). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Science: an International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(6), 571-606.  doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9087-0  

Neff, J. M., & Whithaus, C. (2008). Writing across distances & disciplines: Research and pedagogy in distributed learning. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.   

Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12(3), 139-160.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.