Creating a climate of engagement in a blended learning environment.

This article describes the conversational interactions of one online learning group whose task was to identify themes of human development from life histories of the group members. The data were analyzed by a research team using the hermeneutic circle, which involves continually looking at parts of the text in light of the meaning of the larger text, returning to the parts and then back again to the larger whole. A climate of engagement emerged from the data analysis as the overarching theme capturing the essence of the participants' online interactions. Four aspects were found to constitute this climate of engagement: engaging in the online environment; engaging in dialogue; engaging as a group; and engaging in the content. A dialogue pattern connected the four aspects. The authors propose a model of engagement that captures the dynamic nature of these participants' interactions and suggest implications for research and practice.

Introduction

Complex issues in our increasingly interdependent world are often addressed more effectively by groups than by individuals alone. In a higher education setting, Burdett (2003) postulates that learning groups provide opportunities for students to negotiate meaning, manipulate ideas, and create their own knowledge--skills that correspond to those needed in the wider society. The focus of this study was the exploration how one group of four graduate students interacted together online as they shared their life history narratives in a course on human development that was conducted in a blended environment. A review of the literature on learning as a social activity, the social aspects of online learning, engagement of learners online, and education in a blended environment provide background for this study.

Review of the Literature

A view of learning as a social activity occurring in a context provides theoretical support for group learning (Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1962; Wenger, 1998). Affirming the thesis that learning is a social activity, McDonald and Gibson (1998) argue that social interaction and interpersonal relationships are a necessary part of learning. Although a considerable body of literature focuses on how groups develop (Corey & Corey, 2002; Phillips 1990; Tuckman, 1965; Westberg & Jason, 1996), surprisingly little research focuses on what is happening as group members interact with one another to complete learning tasks.

Confounding this lack of research to guide groups in traditional classrooms is the burgeoning potential for expanding learning groups through the use of Internet technology. According to Graham (2002), who reviewed the literature on creating effective learning groups in face-to-face and virtual environments, "Three factors for effective group learning emerged from the literature: creating the groups, articulating the learning activities, and facilitating group interactions" (p. 316). He contends that these three factors are equally important in virtual environments, "however, there is also evidence that new skills and norms will be needed for groups to work effectively" (p. 316). To ascertain these new skills and norms, a deeper understanding is needed of how learning groups interact with one another. Without engagement in learning there will be scant opportunity, as Burdett (2003) suggests, for learners to authentically negotiate meaning, manipulate ideas, and create their own knowledge.

Engagement in learning groups, especially online, is a difficult concept to define. Early on, computer-mediated communication (CMC) researchers felt that authentic social relationships would not be possible in text-only online environments since social cues (such as gestures and facial expressions) were lacking (Rice & Love, 1987; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Rheingold (1993) and Walther (1992) argued that interpersonal relationships could be formed online, but that they would form in new ways depending on the nature of the medium. Recent research indicates that social relationships do indeed form in CMC environments. In a study of interpersonal dynamics in an educational context, McDonald and Gibson (1998) found that stages of group development were evident in the online interactions they examined. Harrington (1997) determined that students in a computer conference were able to form what she termed a "democratic community" through intense conversations in which they shared deeply held values and examined complex issues from multiple perspectives. Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, and Robins (2000) emphasize the importance of social interaction to reduce feelings of isolation and increase satisfaction with online educational experiences. Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, and Chang (2003) emphasize the importance of cognitive presence in online environments in addition to social presence. They assume an argumentation model of discourse is the ideal, claiming that overt facilitation, more structure, and attending to the argument development is the key to effective learning online.

Social interaction and cognitive presence in a blended learning environment may be a more complex phenomenon because students engage in both face-to-face and online communication. Blended environments are becoming more prevalent in higher education. In these environments, a common use of learning groups is to accomplish a specific course-related task; yet some researchers have found that when groups focus solely on accomplishing a task, they miss the important social dimension of learning that often leads to knowledge creation (Graham & Misanchuk, 2003). According to Osguthorpe and Graham (2003), the goal of using a blended approach is to "find a harmonious balance between online access to knowledge and face-to-face human interaction" (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 228). The function of interaction in the online portion of a course may be shortchanged if it is viewed solely as online access to knowledge, particularly in courses that use collaborative learning groups in the online portion of the course. In these instances, rather than access to knowledge, groups create knowledge. Stahl (2002, 2003a, 2003b), emphasizing the role of group interactions in his social theory of computer-supportive collaborative learning, positions learning not as a knowledge-transmission process but rather a knowledge-creation process, in which knowledge is created in conversation with others. Stahl (2003b) outlines how individual knowing is in essence an interpretation of the meaning that is first made while in communication with others. In this view of learning, students create meaning as they interact with one another, and these shared meanings contribute to new knowledge.

Understanding Online Social Interaction

Conceiving of learning as making meaning in communication with others provides a unique opportunity to explore the everyday experience of how this communication occurs. Analyzing interaction in its context, as Stahl (2003b) suggests, provides evidence of the learning:

  The fact that collaborative learning necessarily makes learning
  visible provides the methodological basis for empirical analysis by
  researchers. Researchers of collaborative learning are not restricted
  to indirect evidence of learning (such as pre-test and post-test
  differences) because they can analyze and interpret the making of
  meaning as it unfolds in the data at the group level and in individual
  trajectories of utterances ... (p. 35).

How students interact online can be examined as an indicator of learning in this context. The dialogue that is taking place among the students in asynchronous environments can be observed in 'real-time' as it unfolds in the forums, but these conversations are also persistent--able to be read again and again long after the conversations are over. Transcripts become artifacts of the dialogic meaning-creation process that took place, documenting the process or conversation to which Stahl (2003b) refers. Rather than the traditional qualitative data of interviews, observations, reflective questionnaires, or even focus groups, analysis of the discourse itself provides a view of the meaning-making process as it is taking place. This focus on "real-time" interaction is a notable departure from other forms of qualitative research that rely on a retrospective accounting of experience by participants or observation of participants as they go about their tasks. This form of inquiry captures the experience of engaging online while it is happening.

Since online learning groups in a blended environment are a relatively new phenomenon in higher education, few studies have explored what happens when a small learning group comes together online to complete a project together while in a face-to-face class. Although the use of blended environments is increasing, practitioners can find little guidance from research on how to understand the social interaction that occurs online. This study addresses a notable gap in research and practice because it focuses on the intersection of social interaction, learning, and the online environment. The findings focus on generating a conceptual framework from the data, a framework that can be tested in quantitative studies with larger sample sizes. In addition, the findings may be a springboard for considering social, cultural, and psychological aspects of the experience (Ratner, 1989, 1991).

The goal of this study was to explore how one learning group of four graduate students interacted together online as they shared their life history narratives in a course on human development in a blended learning environment. Discovering a holistic answer to the following research question guided the study: What happens in a learning group as they dialogue online?

METHOD

Interpretivist philosophy provided the theoretical foundation for the qualitative method used to examine the discussions of this online group (Schwandt, 2000). Rather than test a hypothesis or a preconceived idea of what happens in a learning group as they correspond online, our goal was the discovery of what happens by studying the interaction of the students as they engaged one another online, data that are captured in their online dialogue. Discovering the answer to the research question was most effectively addressed by phenomenological methodology because it focuses on discovering the essence or essential meaning of lived experience and makes explicit the voices of the participants or group members (Van Manen, 1990). Creswell (1994) suggests that because phenomenological methods are inductive rather than deductive, researchers should not use preconceived theoretical frameworks. Rather, the theory or pattern emerges from the data. The rich data that are generated from this type of study reflect the participants' accounts of their actual experiences and the interpretation that emerges in the data analysis is grounded in those experiences rather than theoretical literature (Straus & Corbin, 1998; Van Manen, 1990).

Polkinghorne (1983) suggests that phenomenology "seeks to uncover the basic structures of human existence. It seeks to describe the schemata or themes that constitute experience" (p. 231). Thus, the phenomenological method was identified as most appropriate to describe the essential nature of lived experience, and in the context of this study, most suitable for discovering what happens when students correspond online. Phenomenology departs from more empirical methods because its purpose is to describe and interpret experience as it is lived rather than to explain or predict it. It departs also from qualitative methods such as ethnography or case study because phenomenology focuses solely on the subjective experience of the participants. Therefore, although the literature is used as theoretical background for the study, a specific conceptual framework is not selected prior to the collection and analysis of the data. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), "It is impossible to know prior to the investigation what the salient problems will be or what theoretical concepts will emerge" (p. 49). Rather, the description of the phenomena is linked to the relevant literature after the data have been analyzed. The remainder of this section includes information about the context of the course, participants, the context of the participants' tasks, data collection, and data analysis.

Context of the course

Data for this study is drawn from a graduate course in human development offered in a blended learning environment. The class met for 15 weeks with 11 face-to-face meetings. Use of a textbook and readings that described theory and research in human development guided the face-to-face meetings. In addition, the class met asynchronously and synchronously online using Blackboard[TM]. Blackboard is a commercial course management system supported by the university. The system provides asynchronous discussion boards, synchronous chat rooms, and an email system. Instructors can post syllabi and course materials for students. Blackboard also enables the instructor to set up private asynchronous discussion rooms for small online groups. The conversations that took place in the private discussion room of one online group are the focus of this study.

The online portion of the course was structured as four assignments, with each assignment lasting approximately three weeks. Students were assigned to one of three online groups in order to have the widest age range per group. Groups remained the same throughout the semester. The first three assignments were to identify themes of the experience of human development: a) from one's life history, b) from interviews with older adults, and c) from the literature. The final assignment was to link the themes from experience to the research in human development. The assignments addressed three major topics related to human development: identity, relationships, and work.

The discussion forum transcripts of the most active group during the period of the first assignment were selected for this study based on the following criteria: a) the group members exchanged the greatest number of posts; b) their forum exhibited the greatest thread depth; and c) the completed assignment demonstrated mastery of the subject matter.

Participants

The most active online group had four members. They are identified by pseudonyms: Ada, Millie, Pearl, and Sally. Their ages ranged from 24 to 56. All participants were Caucasian females enrolled in a four-year land grant university in the southeastern part of the United States. None of the participants had known each other prior to registering for this course. They were enrolled in various academic programs such as educational psychology, agricultural extension, counseling, and adult education. Two were involved in master's programs, one was a non-degree student seeking licensure, and one was a doctoral student.

Before selecting the group, one of the researchers, the course instructor, asked class members to volunteer to participate in the study. Protection for the participants included an informed consent that explained the purpose of the study and the methods used.

Context of the task

Data for this study were captured from the first of the four tasks completed by the selected online group during the course. The first task used written life histories of the class members as a means for deepening students' understanding of human development and had two parts. First, the students created a life history graph during a face-to-face class session that depicted key transitions in their adult lives, and they shared these with members of their group. Second, the instructor provided the following instructions for the online component of the task after members of the group had posted their written life histories online:

  Building upon your life history graphs, write a paper describing the
  key transitions in your life and the next direction you think your
  life is taking. Each member of your small group will read each other's
  papers. Your group will discuss themes that are both similar and
  different in your lives in relation to your group's topic of
  relationships.

The purpose of this task was for the group to engage in conversational dialogue online about their life histories. This particular group organized and approached the task as follows. The group posted a total of 61 posts during these three weeks. The instructor's role was to design the tasks and facilitate only when necessary. In this group, the instructor sent three posts early in the discussion, all related to questions about beginning the task. The four group members participated as follows in Table 1.

The students organized the discussion forum into 12 threads. Five threads were begun by Pearl and five by Millie. The longest threads were Questions and Relationships. Questions contained 15 posts over the course of six days, September 13-18; this thread was begun by Millie. Relationships had 13 posts exchanged over the course of five days, September 10-14; this thread was also begun by Millie. Both of these threads went eight posts deep; to illustrate, the Relationships thread is recreated in Figure 1.

By the end of the three weeks, the group had completed the assignment by identifying and describing relevant themes in a summary which was then posted online for the instructor and other groups in the class.

Data Collection

Data included all 61 posts exchanged by the group during the three-week period. Data were collected by downloading the discussion transcripts from Blackboard into word processing files for analysis. Transcripts were organized in two ways for review by the researchers--chronologically and by thread.

Data Analysis

The three researchers who conducted this study worked as a team. Ziegler was the course instructor and Paulus and Woodside are colleagues in the same department. As a part of established phenomenological method, the researchers used the hermeneutic circle, which involved continually looking at parts of the text in light of the meaning of the larger text, returning to the parts and then back again to the larger whole (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 193). This iterative method results in an in-depth examination of the data that contributes to understanding the essential nature of the experience.

Based upon this hermeneutic approach to the study of these transcripts, the analysis included four steps: 1) achieving a holistic understanding of what occurred in the group; 2) identifying individual meaning units within the transcript; 3) converting the holistic understanding and the individual meaning units into aspects of the dialogue and; 4) synthesizing aspects of the dialogue into a coherent understanding of the online group's experience.

Holistic understanding. The analysis process began with the researchers reading and rereading the transcripts, first chronologically and then by thread, to gain a holistic understanding of the group's experience. Each individual researcher read the transcripts; then the research group read the transcripts together. During the multiple readings, researchers made notes of words, phrases, and events that conveyed the experience of the online group. They continually searched for the underlying meanings and ways that the group worked together. The rereading continued until the understanding of the experience could be validated with the text. This process led to a global understanding of the experience of the online group and a list of tentative aspects of the dialogue that seemed to capture the experience of the group.

Identifying meaning units. The second step in the analysis entailed marking meaning units. A meaning unit is each portion of the transcript that describes a specific action or a particular idea. Finding meaning units required careful study of both sets of transcripts, looking for times when either the individual or the group changed its focus. Each researcher identified meaning units independently, then the group came together to discuss and agree on the units.

Converting meaning units into aspects. The third step of the analysis, completed first by each researcher and then together by the team, was clustering meaning units into broad aspects that captured the essence of the dialogue. This was an iterative process during which the aspects of the dialogue were continually revised until all meaning units could be related to one of the aspects. Every meaning unit related to at least one aspect; some meaning units related to two or more aspects. Researchers continued the synthesis process until they agreed that the aspects of the dialogue represented the online group's experience.

Synthesis of aspects of the dialogue into a coherent understanding. Once the meaning units and aspects of the dialogue had been identified, development of a more coherent understanding of the online group experience emerged. Continuing to use the hermeneutic circle, researchers developed tentative models to describe the relationship between the various aspects of the dialogue, modified the models, and returned to the transcripts until agreement was reached on a final model.

Findings were emailed to each of the four participants. Participants were asked to comment on whether the findings accurately depicted their experience. This process was similar to member checking, a way to strengthen the analysis process of qualitative data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Participants agreed with the themes and offered no revisions.

FINDINGS

An overarching framework of engagement was found to capture the essence of this online group's dialogue. Four aspects of this framework emerged from the data analysis: engaging in the online environment, engaging in dialogue, engaging as a group, and engaging in the content. In this section, each aspect is explained with rich description and supported with evidence from the transcripts. Together these aspects of engagement help us to better understand the climate of engagement within which this particular online group dialogued together about their life histories.

Aspect #1: Engaging online

"Is anyone out there?"--Pearl

The first aspect of this group's engagement was its ability to navigate the online world to effectively complete the task. These participants were not experienced online learners, but enrolled in a face-to-face course which included this online element. To function they needed to, and did, establish communication norms, move effectively between the online and offline worlds, and fulfill specific task-related roles.

As the members of the group learned how to work together they established communication norms. Of the four, Pearl was the newest to the online world, and simply figuring out the technology was her first step. Pearl's first post had the subject line, "Is anyone out there?" illustrating her concern about finding her way in this environment. In this post she said, "Hey Guys, I'm at the library trying to figure this out" (#8 Pearl 09-08) (1). Ada quickly reassured Pearl that she was functioning effectively, "Yes! I got your message, Pearl ..." (#9 Ada 09-09) (2), establishing a norm of supportive and quick responses.

The communication norms included letting each other know what was going on in their offline lives and how it would affect their online communication. For example, they disclosed when they would be available to work on the project. Here, Pearl shared her location at the moment and how that was impacting her stream of thought: "... I found access to email at this conference, but it is rather noisy, and it's hard for me to concentrate" (#3 Pearl 09-21). Ada shares: "... By the way, I am slammed with work until Friday. I will be ready and willing to dialogue with whomever wants to throughout the weekend. Does Sally know where to find us?" (#9 Ada 09-08). This post illustrated the concern expressed by the group when one person seemed to be absent from the discussion. Millie assumed responsibility for locating Sally, "I think Sally knows how to get on here, she did post her life history here. If she doesn't post anything today I'll email her" (#11 Millie 09-09). Sally did eventually appear in the dialogue.

The above quotes also illustrate how the group moved back and forth between the offline and online world. For example, they often ended their posts with "See you in class!" Many of the references to their physical class meetings took place, at the beginning of the online experience and after the paper had been submitted. For example, in the first post of the dialogue, Ada asked about the assignment and referred to class: "Hi you all. Are you ready to start discussing these life histories? I think we are supposed to be doing that before we get back together on Tuesday" (#1 Ada 09-05). The last three out of four posts in the dialogue stated, "See you on Tuesday." (#58 Sally 09-17; #59 Pearl 09-18; #60 Sally 09-19). Another example of how the group blended the two environments is Ada's mention in the online discussion of observing Sally in class.

Toward the end of the three weeks, the group focused on getting the task done. During this time they introduced a new mode of communication for immediacy--the telephone. Sally indicated that even though she would be offline she still wanted to help finish the task: "I probably can't get on the internet any more today or early tomorrow, so if you need anything else, call my Mom's house at xxx-xxx-xxxx (I'm at home for the week, no classes) or my cell at xxx-xxx-xxxx" (#47 Sally 09-13).

Each member seemed to have a role to play in completing the task. Ada acted as the discussion facilitator and Sally as the summarizer. Ada asked the group to focus on the themes that they had discussed:

Okay, so let's do a recap of our themes here. (Add to this if I missed something ...)

1. Moving and how it affected our relationships with ourselves and our parents

2. Trust issues as based on our early treatment/treatment in our relationships

3. A common thread of parental alcoholism 

4. How parents/parental treatment has affected our career choices

5. Our varying relationships with God/our spirituality as influenced by our betrayals, hurts (#35 Ada 09-11)

Sally responded in her role as the group's summary writer:

  ... absolutely, the themes you listed, i want to go with them ... and
  include how husbands have influenced us ... i'll wait to hear from
  Millie and Pearl and get their takes ... then i'll start trying to
  wrap things up and submit for our group by Monday ... (#36 Sally
  09-11)

Ada responded in a positive way, "Sounds great, Sally. I will be around all weekend, so I am all ears!" (#37 Ada 09-13).

During this three week assignment all four members participated in the online communication that took place, and even Pearl, the most novice member, conveyed her appreciation for this new way of working together, "Surprisingly, I am enjoying this type of communication (not a high tech person, as if you all had not noticed!)" (#18 Pearl 09-09).

As this group engaged in this online environment they also engaged by using a particular dialogue pattern. This aspect of their dialogue is explored next.

Aspect #2: Engaging in dialogue

"What do the rest of you think about your own situations?"--Ada

A dialogue pattern emerged as the group talked about identifying common themes in their life histories. This pattern included 1) responding to the previous post (listening), 2) extending the topic through self-disclosure, and 3) asking back. This dialogue pattern emerged early in their discussions. The first instance was triggered by Millie's suggestion that the theme of moving was a common experience for the group: "I hadn't thought about it until Mary brought it up last night, but moving could be one of our big themes ..." (#7 Millie 09-08).

Ada then responded to Millie's question above about the theme of moving: "... Millie, yes, I think that moving is a huge theme. At least it was for me." Ada then extended this topic through self-disclosure: "Everything changed, as you can see after my dad was transferred." Finally, she asked back to draw others into the conversation: "I was wondering what you thought about moving in relation to your own story. What shifts internally when we move?" (#9 Ada 09-08). While it was not possible to explicitly demonstrate listening online, Ada's response showed that she was paying attention to what was being said. Ada's initial response was a very positive one, typical of the group, and is followed by an extension of that topic which included self-disclosing personal information about her father being transferred. This self-disclosure often served to establish the common ground of the group. This post by Millie reflected the dialogue pattern which emerged time and again within the posts:

  Pearl, you brought up the careers thing [Respond]

  How do you all think the relationships with out parents have affected
  what careers we have chosen? [Ask back]

  I know that, if nothing else, watching my Mom struggle with finding
  work that paid well enough to support us (Dad was allergic to work at
  the time) was enough to convince me that college was a fact of life,
  not an option. [Self-disclose]

  How did parents expectations & lives affect you all? [Ask back] (#30
  Millie 09-10)

Millie began by connecting with Pearl, asking back, self-disclosing on the same topic, and asking back again. Then Ada responded enthusiastically to Millie, extended the topic further with disclosure of her own, and then drew others into the conversation:

  Millie--another big topic! Our parents and how they help shape
  (consciously or unconsciously) our future careers ... [Respond]

  I tend to think that the lack of attention and physical/emotional
  abuse I have experienced (for whatever reason) has led me to search
  out a career to heal my pain through learning to love others without
  bias. This, at core, is what I sense allows me to enjoy being a
  therapist who takes in complete strangers and pays undivided attention
  to them. It's really about learning how to love. I can't quite put my
  finger on it, but I think something deep within me is trying to heal
  itself. [Self-disclose]

  Kudos for Millie for bringing up this provocative question. It's a
  good one.

  What do the rest of you think about your own situations? [Ask back]

  (#31 Ada 09-10)

As illustrated in the above example, self-disclosure often included intimate details of the writer's life. Sometimes self-disclosure alone, without specifically asking back, served to draw others into the conversation.

In addition to engaging in the online environment and adopting a particular dialogue pattern, the group also demonstrated a strong sense of identity.

Aspect #3: Engaging as a group

"You all/all of us together made it happen ... without the group effort
I would not have had anything to summarize ..."--Sally

As these four group members engaged in dialogue online, they demonstrated a sense of group identity. They did this by using inclusive language, including everyone in each step of the task, and expressing a belief that destiny had brought them together.

The group used inclusive language at the very start of their discussion. When Sally had not yet shown up in the forum, Ada stated, "All four of us need to be one here" (#9 Ada 09-08). This statement explicitly confirmed that the group did include all of its members. The group identity emerged in more subtle ways through their use of language. The subject line of the very first post by Ada, "Let's start talking," referred to the group using the plural "us." In this same post, she referred to her perceptions of the assignment for the group, "I think that we are supposed ...", using the term "we" (#1 Ada 09-05). Members of this group used a wide variety of inclusive terms to refer to the group such as "we," "everyone," "you guys," "you all," and "everyone." Inclusive greetings such as, "hi you all," (#1 Ada 09-05), "Good afternoon & I hope everyone is off to a good start for the day!" (#7 Millie 09-07), and "Hey, Guys," (#8 Pearl 09-08) were common.

At times a particular individual was addressed first. For example, "Dear Pearl, thanks for the complement" (#60 Sally 09-19). Typically, though, they included small individual posts to each person within one larger post. The following illustration was an excerpt from a posting from Pearl discussing relationships with God.

  ... For me, this is the most important one--even more so than
  motherhood--because I think it would be the only thing that would
  enable me to survive the loss of one of my daughters ... Sally, I was
  thinking about the faith that you said your sons have been developing
  to cope with the loss of their sister. Who knows what strength that
  faith will bring them later in life. And, Ada, what you have endured
  due to clinical depression and the suicide attempts! Yes, we do need
  to forgive ourselves ... Ada, I loved your dream--"We all have to help
  each other." ... Finally, Millie--I think what a remarkable young
  woman you are to have formed such a relationship with God at such a
  young age.... (#45 Pearl 09-12)

"Finally" indicates the intentionality of including a response to everyone in the group.

The previously described asking back component of the dialogue pattern was another way of affirming group identity. Asking back indicated that the writer wanted to hear from everyone in the group. Ada, in asking about relationships with parents, questioned, "What about everyone else?" This type of phrase was common throughout the conversations, inviting further participation.

Group identity was articulated in the way that the members included everyone in each step of completing the task itself. When one of the group members suggested a possible theme, it consistently came from within the context of the group experience, rather than from just one individual's experience. For example, Millie, when she suggested, "... could moving be one of our big themes?" (#7 Millie 09-08) used the pronoun "our" to suggest that the theme must be relevant to each member of the group. The group members included everyone in the discussion by noting that one of the members had not had a similar experience. Ada noted that Millie was left out of the theme about the effects of husbands and asked, "Should we discuss relationships with husbands (sorry, Millie, I don't mean to leave you out, but this seemed like a common thread with the rest of us) and how they could have reflected some deficits we experienced as children" (#35 Ada 09-11).

The strong sense of the group carried through in the process of writing up the themes and completing the assignment. Sally, while writing the paper, sent an email that engaged everyone in the process. Her statement began to focus the group on finishing up the practical task together. The members continued to function as a group after the summary was written. The group members articulated the contributions that each made to the process, thanked each other for participation and contributions, and affirmed that the project was a group effort. All four of them indicated that the group effort fostered a better outcome. Ada talked about "our ideas" and "our journey together" (#54 Ada 09-14), stating that "we have collaborated." (#54 Ada 09-14). There was also a confirmation of cohesion of the group. Sally made statements about how well the group came together (#55 Sally 09-15), Millie applauded the range of the issues discussed (#57 Millie 09-16). Finally, Sally concluded with the praise "You all/all of us together made it happen!" (#58 Sally 09-17).

The group members went so far as to express a belief that they were meant to be together. For example, after a particularly empathic exchange about personal issues, Sally thanked Ada for providing her such "support and compassion." She followed this statement with an affirmation for this group: "... I think our group is together for a bigger reason than our class assignments ... you all have influenced my life in a positive way ... all of you are blessings.... I am so grateful ..."(#27 Sally 09-11). A follow-up response from Millie and Pearl confirmed this interpretation of the group and destiny, reiterating the idea that being in the group was a blessing and did not happen by chance (#28 Millie 09-11; #29 Pearl 09-12).

Thus far the analysis has revealed how this group engaged in an online environment, engaged in a particular dialogue pattern, and engaged as a group. The final aspect illustrates that the group engaged in the life history content of the task.

Aspect #4: Engaging in the life history content

"Ada, my heart just broke."--Pearl

Engagement in the actual content of the task (finding themes in the life histories of each member) emerged as an important aspect of the dialogue because of the seriousness of the issues discussed and the emotional responses of care and concern for the group. Using their life histories as a starting point, participants expanded upon the challenges they had faced or now face. In response to sharing their difficulties and sufferings, the group members demonstrated they had heard and felt for the others.

The group members described quite difficult times in their lives, such as family struggles, abuse, chemical dependency, divorce, and the death of a child. Early in the dialogue, in response to Sally's description of her relationship with her own mother, Millie praised Sally's resilience, then described her difficult relationship with her mother. "I am so impressed with you! I've been through periods when my mother has not expressed emotion where I was concerned, and they were awful ..." (#6 Millie 09-07).

Another example of a problem faced by members of the online group was spousal abuse. Pearl shared her experience:

  ... I developed the clinical depression and was no longer the
  "perfect" wife and mother I had been. I was far less productive--
  almost incapacitated--so the abuse increased dramatically (#22 Pearl
  09-10).

Use of such strong and emotionally charged words and phrases such as "awful," "betrayal," "incapacitated," "abuse increased dramatically," "despise," and "drinking to excess" suggested the serious hurt experienced by this group.

The four group members created a sense of shared experiences, especially related to relationships with parents and spouses. Their responses to each other took the form of sympathy, care and concern, empathy, and praise. Sympathy represented a feeling of affinity, and at times, being under similar types of influence or temperament. Care and concern began with statements about self and followed with a description of how the personal experience related to at least one other group member's experience. In the following example, Pearl stated that her own search for recognition from her parents was similar to the experiences of Sally and Ada:

  Sally, your efforts to win your parents' love by working toward
  teaching and nursing was so poignant. That was the one way I got
  recognition from my father--by my grades but interesting enough, he
  did not want me to attend college. Ada, that must have been tough with
  your mom not being there emotionally, and your dad having an alcohol
  problem. My dad also had an alcohol problem, but drank to excess only
  at home (#18 Pearl 09-09).

Group members also responded to each other empathetically, expressing an appreciation of the problems and feelings of the other. Indications of empathy generally include mirroring another's emotions or situations, renaming a feeling or a mood, or stating that the situation must be difficult. The key to empathy is to let the other person know they are understood or that one is trying to understand the difficulty, problem, or hardship. In face-to-face conversation, non-verbal responses are a primary way of expressing empathy, but these are not possible online. In this first example, Pearl was responding to Sally's description of her husband's request for a divorce. She stated, "The betrayal you and your daughters suffered was unbelievable. I cannot help but wonder what happens to these men in middle age?" (#22 Pearl 09-10). Pearl was able to respond to the difficulty and validate Sally's suffering even in this online context. She also broadened her perspective, hoping that Sally would not feel alone and completely responsible.

Phrases like "my heart just broke" or "my heart went out to you" were used to express empathy, as in a comment made by Pearl: "Ada, my heart just broke when you wrote that you tried to commit suicide at age 13--how do these things happen?" (#18 Pearl 09-09). The group members also used emotive text, such as italics, capitalization, and exclamation points, to demonstrate their empathy in absence of face-to-face nonverbal cues. Millie even noted the way in which Sally conveyed emotion with her online text. "One thing that struck my though. When you were talking about the past few years, you capitalized the word Struggle. Did you mean to?" (#6 Millie 09-07). With this question, Millie demonstrated that she had carefully considered the written text.

Praise for each other's resilience, insight, energy, resolution, and growth was a consistent part of the dialogue. For example, here Ada combined praise, sympathy, and emotion:

  Moving--Pearl, it really sounds like your moves were a blessing. It's
  lovely that you can see the beauty in them and truly appreciate the
  areas you have experienced. Millie--you really rebounded remarkably
  from the early move that damaged the relationship with your mom only
  to progress into a deep appreciation for the next big move for you--
  well, a mini-move, really, overseas. It sounds like you have made your
  life independent enough to welcome these 'chance' cards. I respect
  that (#16 Ada 09-10).

The group members also commended each other for their contributions, with phrases such as "right on," "an extremely astute perception," and "insightful remarks" that "are right on target."

Although group members expressed sympathy, care and concern, empathy, and praise in their online dialogue, expressions of support were even extended beyond the classroom at times. One such instance occurred when Ada expressed her concern for Sally, who had lost a child:

  Sally ... I glanced at you in class the other night wondering how you
  were doing ... I hardly know you, you have touched something deep
  within me ... You have been in my thoughts so much lately. I just
  wanted you to know how I feel and hope I haven't taken too much
  liberty in expressing it (#26 Ada 09-10).

It is the only entry of its kind when there was a strong statement about an experience in class. One other passage extended beyond the classroom to an offer of help by Pearl to Sally:

  Sally, I cannot find words to express my sorrow and sympathy for the
  loss of your child (as well as your best friend). Call anytime--day or
  night--if you need to talk (#43 Pearl 09-12).

DISCUSSION

The focus of this study was an exploration of the way one group of four graduate students interacted together online as they shared their life history narratives in a course on human development that was conducted in a blended environment. Use of phenomenological method enabled us to answer the question of what happens in a group as the members corresponded online by developing a rich, thick description of the participants' experiences. The essential structure of the experience of dialoging online emerged from the data (Van Manen, 1990). The overarching theme that captured the essence of the experience of this active online group was engagement, and its four aspects. These four aspects seemed to form a core, which together created a climate of engagement in this group (See Figure 2).

Two aspects of the climate of engagement are fairly common in online groups; navigating the online environment and completing the task (Graham & Misanchuk, 2004; Paulus, 2004). Research also indicates that many online groups do develop a sense of the group or group identity (Rheingold, 1993; Walther, 1992). Scribner and Donaldson (2001) found in their study of group learning that cohesiveness may be a necessary but insufficient ingredient to achieve the full learning potential. However, this group's particular dialogue pattern and its strong engagement with the life history content may be relatively unique.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

This group used a dialogue pattern, represented by the sides of the triangle, which demonstrated how each member was able to participate fully in the interactions, to respect the experiences of others, to encourage others to grow in their thinking, and to commend each other on their work. Whether responding (which demonstrated listening), self-disclosing, or asking back, each member of the group participated in an intense give and take. They used this dialogue pattern early in their discussions and continued it throughout the three week period. The dialogue pattern, responding (listening), self disclosure, and asking back, represents a model of effective communication, whether online or offline (Bohm, 1996; Ellinor, 1998). Each component of the pattern encourages further engagement with the content.

The dialogue pattern relates to the other three aspects of engagement. For instance, the group responded, self-disclosed, and asked back even while negotiating how to complete the task in the online environment. They ensured that the others knew of their accessibility and time frames for work. They also used the dialogue pattern to develop their sense of group identity and to express the serious emotions that fostered ongoing engagement. As they concluded their task, the dialogue pattern persisted, providing members of the group a way to contribute, acknowledge the contributions of others, and ask for further feedback. In one of the final posts, Ada stated, "I would add a sentence or two that briefly summarizes our paths together and adds a notion of where we seem to stand now as women facing our lives in the world" (#54 Ada 9-14). This statement reflected the strong sense of engagement that the group members felt while sharing the content of their life histories with each other.

According to Graham (2002), groups in blended environments should be carefully formed, tasks clearly articulated, and interactions facilitated. In the context of this course, the instructor did form groups and articulate the task, but she only posted three times during the discussion, each time to clarify the task. The dialogue pattern used by this online group may represent the new skills or group norms that Graham (2002) suggested may be needed to foster effective communication in the blended environment. The pattern of this norm was implicit, never explicitly acknowledged by any of the group members. Although both explicit and implicit norms influence group development, implicit norms more strongly direct interpersonal behavior in groups (Keyton, 1999). This implicit norm of a dialogue pattern reinforced the group's cohesion and enabled them to operate effectively as a group.

Thus, the dialogue pattern seems to be an important factor in the climate of engagement created by the group. The pattern is similar to the aligned structure identified in email exchanges by Herring (1996). She identified two structures of email posts on a listserv--the opposed and the aligned. The opposed structure is similar to the models of challenge, in which the writer begins by disagreeing with a previous post, then presents his/her own view as a challenge or criticism of the addressee, and finally ends with an appeal to stop the discussion altogether. In the aligned structure the writer begins by agreeing with or appreciating a previous post, followed by either a non-critical expression of the writer's own view, a response to a question or a suggestion. This is then followed by an appeal to continue the conversation. The aligned structure is similar to what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986) identified as a connected way of knowing. Connected knowing reflects an orientation toward relationship, revealing a "need to understand the opinions of other people, opinions that seemed at first obscure, alien, even threatening ..." (p. 101). This online group connected with each other through listening and responding to each other, self-disclosing and then asking back. In the dialogue pattern, the group demonstrated what Stahl (2002, 2003a, 2003b) described as a knowledge-creation process, in which knowledge is created in conversation with others.

Two facets of the context may explain the aspects of this group's dialogue. First, the group was operating in a blended environment, with an opportunity to see and interact with others face-to-face each week. Yet they were not sitting or working together during the face-to-face class time. A recent study suggests that once people meet each other face-to-face, relationships online may actually develop faster than they would during continued face-to-face meetings (Hian, Chuan, Trevor & Detenber, 2004).

The nature of the task also may have impacted the nature of the engagement. The focus of this group's task was the critical developmental points in their lives. The life histories being shared with each other included serious and intimate details. They first read each others' histories and then began their online dialogue. This task allowed members of the group to know each other well beyond what is traditionally shared in a traditional face-to-face classroom (Scribner & Donaldson, 2001; Walther, 1996). Scribner and Donaldson (2001) noted that when groups establish such task oriented norms they become highly productive but miss out on what they might have gained from relationships. For Ada, Pearl, Millie, and Sally, however, social interaction and interpersonal relationships were a necessary part of being in a learning group (McDonald & Gibson, 1998).

Illuminating the aspects of the climate of engagement makes a contribution to the existing literature on blended learning environments. Without engagement, learning is unlikely, especially learning that is the result of a knowledge creation process as conceived by Stahl (2002). Rather than narrowly conceiving of online learning groups as accomplishing specific instructor-defined tasks, focusing on the potential that their interaction has for creating a climate of engagement where knowledge creation can take place greatly expands the possibilities of blended learning environments (Graham & Misanchuk, 2003).

Limitations

Findings of this study have two primary limitations. First, the aspects of engagement can only be generalized in the naturalistic sense; that is, to similar contexts of practice. Focusing on the exchanges of a group of four participants enabled us to perform an in-depth analysis of the data, yet the small number of participants limits the applicability of the findings. Second, the study focused on how the group interacted with one another in an online environment and did not explicitly examine the learning that might have resulted from this interaction. The climate of engagement describes how they interacted but does not specifically address whether the climate of engagement leads to learning. A focus on the interplay between engagement and learning is a promising area for future research.

Directions for further research

The researchers, all experienced instructors, have found that face-to-face discussion groups rarely demonstrate the depth of engagement observed in this online group. More investigation into the interplay between dialogue, participants and tasks in blended environments may help practitioners foster similar levels of engagement and, ultimately, learning in a variety of learning contexts. There are several specific areas for further research which can be derived from these findings. First, the dialogue pattern revealed by the group presents an alternative model to that proposed by Pawan, et al., (2003). Although this type of pattern facilitates group interaction, it is not clear whether it can be explicitly taught or whether it is effective for learning. It is unclear what led these four members to have such high levels of engagement. The fact that they were female, the nature of the learning task (life histories), or the interplay between the face-to-face and online dialogue are all possible factors which could have contributed to this climate of engagement. Each of these factors invites further inquiry.

Second, the dialogue pattern used by the group seemed to be such a strong communication norm that it may have prevented the members from challenging each other or questioning assumptions. Norms, even ostensibly positive ones, can promote or inhibit certain types of communication. For example, group norms that reinforce cohesion and agreement may suppress critical inquiry (Hirokawa & Salazar, 1999). Explicitly teaching groups about group dynamics and development at the outset of their engagement online may provide tools that they need to hasten the development of positive norms (Graham, 2002; Scribner & Donaldson, 2001). However, if group dynamics and development had been explicitly taught to the group in this study, it is unknown whether the norms explicitly selected by the group would have been as effective as the norms they implicitly established through the dialogue pattern. This provides an additional area for further inquiry.

CONCLUSION

When learning is seen as a dialogic process of creating knowledge together, a climate of engagement should be the goal of not only online environments, but face-to-face ones as well. Practitioners and researchers alike may find it beneficial to focus more directly on what is being said when group members converse with one another online, and even offline. Fostering group identity and articulating a clear task that is relevant to the students' lives may be a useful first step toward creating a climate of engagement. Another step is providing students with guidelines on identifying barriers to group effort. Explicit teaching of ways to build group cohesion through inclusive language and involvement of all group members might contribute to the establishment of group norms. The dialogue pattern identified in this study may be useful for engaging learners whenever they come together to learn from each other's experiences.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York: Routledge.

Burdett, J. (2003). Making groups work: University students' perceptions. International Education Journal, 4(3), 177-191.

Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2002). Groups: Process and practice (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Corey/Thompson.

Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellinor, L. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Graham, C. R. (2002). Factors for effective learning groups in face-to-face and virtual environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 307-319.

Graham, C. R., & Misanchuk, M. (2004). Computer-mediated teamwork: Benefits and challenges of using teamwork in online learning environments. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 181-202). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Harrington, H. L. (1997). Technology's second-level effects: Fostering democratic communities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2/3), 203-222.

Hupp, T. (1995). Designing work groups: Jobs and work flow. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., & Robins, J. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved February 26, 2005 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html.

Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hian, L. B. Chuan, S. L., Trevor, T. M., & Detenber, B. H. (2004). Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(3). Retrieved February 26, 2005 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol9/issue3/detenber.html.

Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-making performance. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 167-191).

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Fey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McDonald, J., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics and group development in computer conferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 7-25.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.

Paulus, T.M. (2004). Collaboration or cooperation? Small group interactions in a synchronous educational environment. In T.S. Roberts (Ed.) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education (pp. 100-124). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Pawan, F., Paulus, T., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among inservice teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.

Phillips, G. M. (1990). Teaching how to work in groups. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Ratner, C. (1989). A social constructionist critique of naturalistic theories of emotion. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 10(21), 1-230.

Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky's sociohistorical psychology and its contemporary applications. New York: Plenum.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Rice, R., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scribner, J. P., & Donaldson, J. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 605-636.

Sproull, L. S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stahl, G. (2003a). Meaning and interpretation in collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL '03) (pp. 523-532). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer Publishers. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch20.pdf.

Stahl, G. (2003b). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of learning. In J. W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher education. Amsterdam: Kluwer Publishers. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://orgwis.gmd.de/~gerry/publications/journals/oun/oun_outline.pdf.

Stahl, G. (2002). Contributions to a theoretical framework for CSCL. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2002) (pp. 62-71). Boulder, CO. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://orgwis.gmd.de/~gerry/publications/conferences/2002/cscl2002/cscl2002.pdf

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Manen, M. (1990) Researching lived experience: Human science for action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Westberg, J., & Jason, H. (1996). Fostering learning in small groups: A practical guide. New York, NY: Springer.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.

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

Notes

(1) This reference identifies the post number, name of the person who posted the message, and the date of the post.

(2) All quotes represent the exact wording of the post, including grammatical and spelling errors.

MARY ZIEGLER, TRENA PAULUS, AND MARIANNE WOODSIDE

University of Tennessee, USA

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Table 1 Number of Discussion Postings per Participant

Participant Name  Number of Postings

Instructor         3
Sally             16
Millie            15
Ada               15
Pearl             12
Total             61

Relationships                    Millie  09-10 14:10
  Re: Relationships              Ada     09-10 18:47
    Re: Relationships            Sally   09-11 09:33
      Re: Relationships          Pearl   09-12 16:43
        Re: Relationships        Sally   09-11 09:54
  Re: Relationships              Ada     09-11 15:12
    Re: Relationships            Sally   09-11 18:37
      Re: Relationships          Ada     09-11 19:30
        Re: Relationships        Millie  09-11 21:43
          Re: Relationships      Ada     09-12 08:53
            Re: Relationships    Ada     09-12 14:40
            Re: Relationships    Sally   09-14 13:41
              Re: Relationships  Ada     09-14 15:50

Figure 1. Structure of "Relationships" thread