This case study was part of a larger ethnography, which focussed on learners’ experiences of an online Master’s module in research design. In-depth interviews were conducted via instant messaging with one mature e-learner over five months. These sought to capture her perspective in order to gain a finer appreciation of what it means to be a member of an online learning culture. The study confirms the need to structure online courses so that students can develop early in their studies appropriate online social skills. It highlights the value of having a ‘key informant’ willing to engage in reflective conversations with tutors, to understand participation patterns and help foster an online learning community.
Returning to education is challenging for many Master’s students. The paper presents a case study focusing on a mature female e-learner (‘Marina’) enrolled on an online Master’s course in Professional Communication, and captures her experiences of a year-long ‘Research Design’ (RD) module during the year it first became available online. Such modules are notoriously unpopular, so a virtual ethnography (including the case study) was set up to identify student issues and ascertain the impact of online delivery.
Marina was the first student to complete the first online instance of the module, and also kindly agreed to be a key participant. Her decision created a unique opportunity to pilot online teaching approaches and virtual ethnographic research. Skype™ instant messaging was used for in-depth interviews because it allowed real-time interaction, and yet offered time for reflection, as in asynchronous communication. These online conversations aimed to uncover the attitudes and patterns of behaviour of a ‘fluent’ e-learner studying research design online.
The challenge for the ethnography was to find a framework that helped give an account of student behaviour. Garrison and Anderson’s ‘community of inquiry’ framework (2003) was selected as a tool to reflect on the ‘social, ‘cognitive’ and ‘teaching’ dimensions of online interaction. Like other frameworks, including Salmon’s (2002) and McConnell’s (2005), the community of inquiry framework is based on a transactional view of learning, enabled by computer networks that support discussions, mostly in textual and asynchronous format. The e‑learning experience is envisaged as a means to help students construct meaning within a community. Garrison and Anderson identify three types of presence that contribute to the effectiveness of e-learning communities. These are summarised below.
Table 1: The three types of presence in a ‘community of inquiry’ (adapted from Garrison and Anderson ,2003)
|Presence||Categories||Indicators (examples only)|
|open communication||welcoming students’ questions|
|group cohesion||using inclusive pronouns|
|Cognitive||triggering event||showing a sense of puzzlement|
|Teaching||instructional design and organisation||setting curriculum|
|facilitating discourse||encouraging collaboration|
|direct instruction||summarizing discussion|
This framework recognises the benefits of textual and asynchronous communication, unlike early studies on e-learning which criticised the ‘lean’ medium of text because of its lack of immediate or visual feedback. Asynchronous communication creates conditions for more thoughtful interactions by giving time to participants to refine ideas before posting them. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000, pp. 90) emphasise that ‘it is the reflective and explicit nature of the written word that encourages discipline and rigor in our thinking and communicating’.
The framework recognises another success factor in online communication—‘sociability’ (Preece, 2000). While sociability helps people sustain online contacts, say, to discuss health issues (Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2002, 2003, 2005), the social dimension has an altogether different significance in educational contexts. It is seen as ‘crucial in precipitating and maintaining critical inquiry and the construction of meaning’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, pp. 27). It is an enabler for critical thinking, ‘a process and outcome that is frequently presented as the ostensible goal of all higher education’ (Garrison et al., 2000, pp. 89).
Garrison and Anderson’s idea of cognitive presence is very useful, but to refine what constitutes ‘quality’ in online exchanges, an additional framework privileging social practices and dialogue was selected. Bakhtin is interested in language as dynamic, socio-cultural practice; dialogue is therefore central to this view of language. Bakhtin views dialogue both as a ‘given’, stemming from the fact that any utterance ‘cannot fail to become an active participant in social dialogue’ (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 276), and also as an ‘ideal to struggle for’ and means of resisting ‘authoritative discourse’ (1981, pp. 342) that seeks to impose its meanings.
In the perspective of dialogue as ‘given’, Marina’s interactions may appear ‘dialogic’ because they addressed the module tasks, provided answers to questions set by the e-tutor or raised by fellow students and, more generally, were constructed to reflect the requirements of Master’s degrees in UK universities. To put it another way, Marina demonstrated a good cognitive presence. She was able to engage with ‘the authoritative word’ (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 342), as enshrined in research design textbooks which ‘we encounter with its authority already fused to it—it demands our unconditional allegiance’ (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 343). However, for some tasks, such as the ‘paradigm’ task, Marina’s approach was essentially to ‘ventriloquate’ (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 332) this language. While this signals limited engagement (i.e., partial dialogue with disciplinary and research issues), this nevertheless has value: ventrilocation formed a basis on which Marina was able to ‘re-accent’ speech genres for her own purposes. As Bakhtin puts it:
The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes ‘one’s own’ only when the speaker populates it with his [sic] own intention, his own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. (1981, pp. 293–94)
Re-accenting becomes productive and empowering when learners start using speech genres for their own meaning making. It opens the way to Bakhtin’s second view on dialogue as ‘ideal to struggle for’. At this level, meaning making can move towards ‘internally persuasive discourse’ (ibid) whereby a student can dialogically engage in new ways of meaning making by exploring and connecting ideas derived from her experience, and by reframing them using the disciplinary knowledge uncovered during the course of their studies, as Marina did in the ‘methodology’, ‘methods’ and ‘ethics’ tasks.
The enquiry used the various facets of the concept of dialogue to characterise Marina’s online interactions and interviews. Bakhtin’s ideas could also be used to critique the e-tutor’s practice and to ascertain whether a ‘partnership’ model of tutor support was achieved as defined by Dysthe (2002). Though outside the scope of the present paper, the question to address would be: to what extent did the researcher support Marina in ‘[making] dialogic contact with the authority of academic texts’ (Lillis, 2003) and in developing an internally persuasive discourse in relation to research design?
The case study was part of a larger virtual ethnography, a variant of traditional ethnography which aims to ‘understand cultural meanings and the complexity of daily social experience through dense deep readings of cybertext discourse’ (Mann and Stewart, 2000, pp. 87). This methodology is well established in the field of computer-mediated communication and is now gaining ground to examine virtual educational settings. It is a methodology in which ‘one actively engages with people in online spaces in order to write the story of their situated context, informed by social interaction’ (Crichton and Kinash, 2003). The focus is on the ‘locally situated, occasioned character of Internet use’ (Hine, 2000, pp. 5); in the case of this study, the aims were to capture student experiences and, if possible, to ascertain the impact on assessment. A key objective was to inform future module design.
Like all single-case studies, Marina’s case study has some limitations. It was not selected because it was typical or atypical. It simply arose from circumstances: Marina worked to an earlier deadline than other online students, which created a ‘natural phenomenon’ as well as an opportunity to pilot online teaching approaches and virtual ethnographic research. Focusing on a single member of a culture is legitimate in ethnographic studies (Gregory, 2005), as general behaviour patterns may be discernable. As will be shown, Marina was an exemplary e-learner; her fluency with digital communication also made it possible to use Skype™ for online interviews. In this respect, her online behaviour was similar to that of the other 20 female students enrolled on the module (out of 46 students enrolled on three cohorts). In comparison, male students worked mostly independently, only making brief and sporadic contributions to the online discussions.
The case study took a field-work approach based on the classic ethnographic techniques of observation, archival research and interviewing (Fetterman, 1998). This variety of methods is in keeping with other evaluations of e‑learning where ‘the emerging consensus…centers on the need for a variety of methods, due to the complexities and multi-faceted nature of networked learning’ (Timmis et al., 2004, pp. 4). It allowed the collection of rich data about Marina’s experiences over the five months during which she used the Virtual Learning Envrionment (VLE).
I maintained an observation log of online interactions, which I used as a basis for interviews. Reflectively using the VLE gave me an understanding of what it is like to be an e-learner, which, if critically examined, can ‘provide for insights not accessible from the analysis of archives’ (Hine, 2000, pp. 23). Observing Marina helped me gain an understanding of her behaviour; noteworthy issues included ‘sociability’ and ‘confidence’. I coded her forum interactions in an open manner to ascertain what issues emerged in relation to e-learning and research design: the issues of ‘liminality’, ‘stance’, ‘mimicry’ and ‘addressivity’ were raised. I also used Garrison and Anderson’s framework to focus on issues of e‑learning effectiveness; this showed that Marina had a high ‘social’ and ‘cognitive’ presence, with some ‘teaching’ presence.
While the case study seeks to represent Marina’s perspective as much as possible, it is written by a teacher–researcher, which could make data gathering and analysis a selective process. To try and counterbalance this, I interviewed Marina online on five occasions between December 2006 and May 2007. Such text-based conversations are ‘the essential and most common element of virtual ethnography’ (Crichton and Kinash, 2003). Marina and I used a synchronous communication mechanism—Skype™ instant messaging—which Marina uses ‘extensively’. Skype™ was not used for module support, so using it for interviews created a separate space for reflecting on online study.
Hine identifies the benefits of personal communication alongside observation of online settings: ‘a style of ethnography that involves real-time engagement with the field site and multiple ways of interacting with informants has proved key in highlighting the processes through which online interaction becomes socially meaningful to participants’ (Hine, 2000, pp. 27).
Real-time online interactions recreated some of the immediacy of face-to-face interviews. They enabled a shift from teacher and learner roles to researcher and participant roles. We related much more ‘person-to-person’, rather than ‘role-to-role’ as in the VLE. The possible drawback was a potential for reactivity, with my role as teacher–researcher affecting what Marina said or did. Reactivity may not be entirely negative: as Robson (2002, pp. 317) points out, ‘there are situations, for example in the evaluation of an innovatory programme, where this can be of positive benefit’ if participants are led to more analytical reflections. In an enquiry examining the impact of a research design module, this was beneficial, as it gave students exposure to approaches they might use in their own research.
Because of the time it takes to type responses, Skype™ has some elements of asynchronous communication. Marina viewed this as beneficial:
[Instant messaging] might be evenbetter than the telephone because it gives me several seconds to think about an answer and gives you the possibility to track the answers and go back to them afterwards if needed.
This could be considered a possible drawback as people can tightly manage presentation of self and opinions when using asynchronous computer-mediated communication (Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2003, pp. 4). However, I do not believe that the use of Skype™ and other online communication mechanisms biased the study. The RD module is in Year 2 of a three-year course, and I had gained Marina’s trust as a tutor in prior modules; we even had a disagreement in another module. Therefore, I consider her responses in this case study as essentially truthful. Other students’ responses were also candid; for example, a student said: ‘I understand the usefulness of the discussion forums, but I have a very negative attitude towards them’.
The use of Skype™ raised an issue regarding the boundaries of virtual ethnographic work in educational settings. It may also draw attention to a possible limitation of Garrison and Anderson’s framework, which mostly focuses on interactions within VLEs. As Baym (2007) points out, ‘it is no longer clear that going to a site is an appropriate strategy for studying community on the Internet’. I argue that, by using Skype™, I was only extending the range of systems that Marina used in addition to the VLE, such as e-mail to get tutorial and administrative support, and Web-based study resources of various kinds. As Dron points out, a VLE is only ‘a micro-habitat that is connected to, or part of, other systems which form the entire learning ecology’ (2007, pp. 8).
A strong initial social and teaching presence
Marina perceived the social component of the module as a key difference with other modules: it ‘influences the coursework flow as opposed to individual learning tete-a-tete with myself’.
Marina’s entrée in the online setting
Marina was the 13th student to arrive in the VLE following my welcome message. Like the other 25 participants to the ‘social chat’ forum, she introduced herself in a brief statement (shown below):
Figure 1: Marina’s first post on the ‘social chat’ forum
This message shows a ‘social presence’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, pp. 48–72) typical of Marina’s postings in the first two forums.
Table 2: Indicators of social presence in Marina’s postings
|Category > indicator||Comment|
|Affective >||Work and study details are offered in an act of ‘self-disclosure’.|
|Open communication > continuing a thread||By using a message structure similar to preceding messages, she is using a move which is equivalent to continuing a thread.|
|Cohesive >||By addressing ‘everybody’, she makes a move to develop ‘group cohesion’.|
|referring to the group and salutation|
Like eight other students in the social chat forum, Marina also responded to a student’s message. This second post also shows self-disclosure and group cohesion moves, as it was part of a discussion thread on English usage with two other non-native English speakers. It also shows Marina’s confidence in expressing disagreement online: ‘However, IMO, it’s not only the cultural differences that influence the communication’.
Teaching presence in other forum interactions
Marina initially e-mailed me about her research topics, but Iinvited her to present these in the ‘ideas for research’ forum, to benefit from peer feedback. Overcoming her initial reticence, Marina posted a second, fuller version of her topics, for which she received five messages in return. From then on, Marina contributed actively. Marina’s teaching presence is particularly clear in the ‘idea for research’ forum. Her postings include both discourse-facilitating moves and direct instruction moves (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, pp. 68–71). The most common are presented in the table below:
Table 3: Teaching presence in Marina’s ‘ideas for research’ postings
|Category > indicator||Comment|
|1. Discourse facilitation|
|acknowledging contributions||Marina thanked fellow students for their input; for example: ‘You made me think over my ideas and discover potential gaps, and I’m grateful to you for that’. She also thanked me: ‘Thank you for your encouragement’.|
|Encouraging others||Marina took care to support other students: ‘Your research idea sounds great to me… Best of luck!’|
|2. Direct instruction|
|diagnosing||Marina evaluated fellow students’ ideas; for example: ‘The last [research question] seems the most feasible to me…’|
|summarizing||In two feedback messages, Marina’s started with a brief summary of her fellow students’ ideas; for example: ‘Your idea of researching the effectiveness of intercultural communication sounds extremely interesting…’|
|knowledge||Marina offered reading suggestions.|
Cognitive presence and task difficulty
Overall, Marina valued the structured approach of the RD module:
Since the entire process of research was quite new to me, I felt that the calendar was necessary. First, because it maintained a logical outline for the portfolio, and second, because it defined the timelines that helped concentrate and keep certain things in focus at every given moment.
However, this process was not without difficulties: it had ‘peaks and troughs… interesting and sometimes extremely challenging’. These peaks and troughs are reflected in the ratings that Marina gave to the online tasks, using a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult).
Table 4: Marina’s task ratings
|Identifying a topic||4||I had the initial idea of a topic but it took me time and effort to fine-tune this idea. The issue was too broad.|
|Literature review||4||I had to identify suitable sources, find them (physically) and write a story made of pieces logically connected to each other.|
|Paradigm||5||I never heard about paradigms before the RD module.|
|Methodology||3||IMO, easier [than the paradigm task] because we discussed this during the modules where we were supposed to conduct a very small survey based on the work of McGee… not only read about methodology but actually had to explain what methodology and methods she was using.|
|Methods||2||Thinking about the topic and the accessible ways of getting information, it was not difficult to choose the methods.|
|Data analysis||2||Validity and reliability were new subjects to me but they are quite obvious. It took effort to learn what exactly was meant by each of them but in general the idea behind them was rather understandable.|
|Ethics||2||(as above) the same happened with ethics.|
|Glossary||2||It was relatively easy because I was only supposed to find a definition that would be clear enough and would come from a reliable source. Also I liked that for this task I had to read a lot while searching for a proper definition.|
|Research in the News||4||As I did just one ’research in the news’ task, it was not so clear to me what research aspects to look for. Honestly speaking, I was quite puzzled. Only after reading other student’s postings, I became more confident about what I should have done.|
These ratings reflected those given by other students, as shown in the chart below.
Figure 2: Comparison of average cohort ratings with Marina’s ratings
From these ratings, two groups of tasks can be identified: ‘easier’ tasks (rated 2 and 3) and ‘harder’ tasks (rated 4 and 5). Skype™ interviews explored the more problematic tasks. Three examples are discussed below.
1. Idea for research task
Selecting a suitable topic proved to be a difficult task for many students. However, Marina was different: she ‘started thinking about a topic long before the [online] RD module’. To develop her topic, Marina contributed actively to the ‘research topic’ forum, where almost half her online presence was observed, as indicated in the pie chart in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Marina’s participation pattern
In terms of cognitive presence, Marina responded to the trigger set by the task instructions by posting an initial summary and a fuller presentation. In her second posting, Marina shares the results of her explorations, by offering a possible solution (‘I’m planning to measure the maturity of a company…’), and vicariously applying it to her research setting (‘As for the techniques for testing the documentation usability, some of those used for the usability testing of interfaces can be applied’). She then refined her approach (‘I will have to limit my sample…’) while developing confidence (‘You made me think over my ideas and discover potential gaps…’) and ownership (‘What I mean is to conduct a survey among technical communicators subscribed tovarious newsgroups’). She did not simply ‘address’ the terms of the task, but developed an ‘internally persuasive discourse’ (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 343) towards her topic.
2. Literature Review task
This task was the first scholarly task. Unlike the Social Chat and Research Ideas tasks, which relied on peer feedback, it required students to engage in the research relevant to their topics. Marina built on the ‘trigger’ of her research topic and ‘explored’ ideas. For Marina this process also took place online: she posted 3 versions in the discussion forum, and created 12 versions in her wiki. The ‘integration’ and ‘resolution’ phases of the task were manifest in the wiki, where Marina integrated ideas and feedback iteratively, as shown below; prior versions appear in pink and feedback in blue.
Figure 4: Marina’s iterative development of the literature review (extract)
In response to tutor feedback, Marina raised the following issue regarding her stance in the literature review:
My guess is that in this part I’m not supposed to express my feelings but rather give the descriptions of what other people have done on the topic.
Such dialogue with academic text is essentially in academic study. While developing her literature review, Marina was shaping her relationship with the appropriate speech genre. Iencouraged Marina to keep interacting with her texts and think of them as ‘exploratory texts’ (Dysthe, 2002, pp. 525).
3. Paradigm task
Like other students, Marina had difficulties understanding and working through the Paradigm task, which she described as ‘a negative surprise…that took a lot of effort to complete’. A key issue here was the lack of prior knowledge. This made the task ‘problematic because [she] didn’t have any idea about research paradigms and their meaning’.
The wiki gives evidence of ‘exploration’ (with 11 iterations), but more emphasis was placed on the ‘integration’ and ‘resolution’ aspects, with greatest reliance on tutorial advice. This suggests that the task design was not optimal, given Marina’s initial state of liminality regarding what first appeared to be ‘ritual knowledge’ (Perkins, 1999, pp. 8–10). The first version of the wiki is clearly an instance of ‘ventrilocation’. The difficulties with this task were such that Marina suggested ‘exploring the issue of paradigms prior to the paradigm task’. Nevertheless, she eventually overcame difficulties and commented: ‘I guess if you look for paradigms, you can find them in everyday situations’. Her final work in the wiki shows a more confident stance and clear engagement in the task, as shown below.
Figure 5: Version 12 of the paradigm task (extract)
Impact on assessment
What impact did the online mode of study have on formal assessment? A colleague assessed Marina’s coursework and gave it a mark of 68%. This compares favourably with the mean marks achieved before the online mode of study became available (59.5% for all genders and 65.5% for female students).
When analysed alongside online interactions, participation patterns can provide a framework for understanding e-learners. Overall, Marina responded well to online study. Like other students, Marina was keen to offer and receive peer feedback to develop ideas, exhibiting interdependence and reflecting a desire to offer support and show competence. Marina saw these early interactions as ‘the greatest asset of this form of studying…because the people bring their ideas, sometimes things that I would never think of on my own’. However, as Marina refined her research design with the Paradigm task, commenting on others’ work became difficult, because of lack of topic knowledge and deadline arrangements. To complete the Methodology, Methods, Data Analysis and Ethics tasks, she used her personal wiki rather than discussion forums. Her 26 contributions to forum discussions were therefore located in the early tasks for the module as shown in Figure 3 earlier.
Enabling students to work on their research designs benefited them individually, mostly through strong ties with the e-tutor. Marina considered tutor support ‘valuable because it included guidance rather than ideas, directions rather than instructions, and support rather than intervention’. She was able to integrate feedback ‘without any problems’. She felt that the portfolio was ‘her’ portfolio, though she ‘realized that it would not have been complete or comprehensive, had not the tutor contributed to the process of its creation’. This perception of ownership suggests that Marina understood the support model to be based on co‑operation. My aim of a ‘partnership’ approach to tutorial support—‘fostering academic self-confidence’ (Dysthe, 2002, pp. 523)—was achieved with Marina.
However, this pattern of interaction challenges views of online collaboration in educational settings, which privileges peer interaction. Admittedly, it is likely that the individual nature of the coursework (which involved producing a research design for a dissertation) limited the scope for creating a community. The module culture could best be characterised as a form of ‘networked individualism’ (Wellman, 2001, pp. 238–46) whereby individuals use sparsely knit social networks to interact, and exchanges were essentially ‘role to role, instead of person-to-person, much less person-in-group’ (Wellman, 2001, pp. 242). This is not necessarily negative for e-learning, but this is a finding not often discussed in the e-learning literature. To what extent was the student behaviour shaped by the module design or by wider online social trends, which according to Wellman favour networked individualism? To paraphrase Wellman, Quan-Haase, Boase, Chen, Hampton, Díaz and Miyata (2003, pp. 238–46), to what extent was the student, rather than the cohort, the primary unit of connectivity in the case of the online RD module?
These questions are impossible to answer through a small case study or even through the wider virtual ethnography. Nevertheless, they cannot be discarded as a possible influence on student behaviour. As Newman and Perkins (1996) emphasise, the (skilful) ways in which students use technology cannot be assumed to be a good basis for collaborative learning. Much depends on whether they see themselves as members of a community or as individual learners networked together. Rather than ‘community of inquiry’, an alternative view of online learning may be helpful here to characterise the culture of the RD module. The notion of ‘networked learning’ (Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, 2004) does not privilege close ties between participants as the ‘community’ metaphor implies. Instead the ‘network’ metaphor ‘serves to encompass all kinds of links and relationships, including those based on ‘weak ties’ (Jones and Esnault, 2004). Weak ties do have value: they are ‘easy to maintain, can be important for obtaining information, making new contacts, raising awareness of new ideas’ (Preece, 2000, pp. 178). They may arise ‘when the learning community is composed of…mature and professional learners who have their primary commitment to their work and their professional communities rather than to a community of learners’ (Jones, Ferreday and Hodgson, 2008, pp. 92), as is the case in the present study.
By capturing the perspective of a single e-learner, it was possible to gain a finer appreciation of what it meant to be a member of a specific online learning culture, what initially motivated online participation, and what eventually prompted a more individual study pattern reminiscent of social trends in online communication usage.
Overall, Marina had a positive experience. The vignettes presented in this paper build a profile of Marina as a ‘competent e‑learner [who had] developed communicative and interpretive ability using electronic media’ (Macdonald, 2004, pp. 217). Not only was Marina fluent in her online self-presentation, she valued her interactions with others and contributed to the overall sociability of the VLE: ‘it is very good to post the task to a forum where students can discuss each other’s thoughts and point out issues that other students might miss otherwise’. Marina’s switch to individual tutor support can be seen as an example of her adaptability. As tasks required students to focus on their personal research designs, Marina was able to work autonomously when other students could no longer offer comments. Her interaction pattern can be considered a result of the module design, rather than an issue of competence as an e-learner. A ‘partnership’ model of tutor support enabled Marina to develop a very personal answer to assessment task, and a ‘fluent and “personal” understanding of concepts and language’. The case study highlighted student difficulties in developing research skills online. As a result, the module has been redesigned to extend opportunities for collaborative learning.
The case study highlighted the benefit of the virtual ethnographic approach, with its combination of online participation and observation, online textual conversations, and archival work. Though rewarding, conducting a virtual ethnography is unfortunately very time-consuming. In contrast, Skype™ offers the possibility of engaging with a ‘key informant’ in reflective online conversations, away from the VLE. This is important when e-learners have no face-to-face contact and are scattered around the globe, as in the present study. Such conversations may be partial, but can offer useful insight into online usage patterns both within and beyond the e-learning context, and into the influence of such patterns on student behaviour and expectations.
Anne-Florence Dujardin worked as training and communication consultant in the software industry until she joined Sheffield Hallam University in 1996. She now teaches on a Master’s programme in Professional Communication. Her research focusses on e-learning and information design; her Master’s in Education involved a virtual ethnography of a research design module. She held a University Teaching Fellowship and an Associateship with the CETL for Promoting Learner Autonomy, and also managed a number of TQEF-supported projects.
Anne-Florence Dujardin, Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus – City Campus, Furnival 9212, Sheffield S1 2NU
Phone No.: 0114 225 5280
Bakhtin, M. (1981), ‘Discourse in the novel’, In: Holquist, M. (Ed.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 259–422.
Baym, N. K. (2007), ‘The new shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent music fandom’, First Monday, vol. 12, no. 8. Retrieved 16 December 2007 from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/baym/index.html.
Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology (2004), Networked Learning. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Retrieved November 2007 from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/definition.htm.
Crichton, S. and Kinash, S. (2003), ‘Virtual ethnography: Interactive interviewing online as method’, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. vol. 29, no. 2. Retrieved July 2006 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol29.2/cjlt29-2_art-5.html.
Dron, J. (2007), Control and Constraint in E-Learning: Choosing When to Choose Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Dysthe, O. (2002), ‘Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: An interview study with advisors and Master’s degree students in three disciplines in a Norwegian university’, Written Communication, vol. 19, no. 4, 493–544.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998), Ethnography: Step by step. London: Sage.
Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003), E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000), ‘Critical enquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in Higher Education’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 2, no. 2/3, pp. 87–105.
Gregory, E. (2005), ‘Introduction: tracing the steps’, In: Conteh, J., Gregory, E., Kearney, C. and Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (Eds.), On writing educational ethnographies: The art of collusion. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. ix–xxiv
Hine, C. (2000), Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.
Jones, C. and Esnault, L. (2004), ‘The metaphor of networks in learning: communities, collaboration and practice’, Paper presented at Fourth International Conference on Networked Learning Sheffield, 5–7 April 2004
Jones, C. R., Ferreday, D. and Hodgson, V. (2008), ‘Networked learning a relational approach: weak and strong ties’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 90–102.
Lillis, T. (2003), ‘Student writing as “academic literacies”: Drawing on Bakhtin to move critique to design’, Language and Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 192–207.
Macdonald, J. (2004), ‘Developing competent e-learners: the role of assessment’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 215–26.
Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2002), ‘The meaning of an online health community in the lives of its members: roles, relationships and group dynamics social implications of information and communication technology’, Paper presented at International Symposium on Technology and Society ISTAS’02, Retrieved 16 December 2008 from http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/17%20The%20meaning%20of%20an%20online%20health%20communityfinalv.pdf.
Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2003). An ethnographic study of an online health support community’. 15th Annual Conference on Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Duquesne University, Pittsburg, PA, June. Retrieved December from2006http://www.education.duq.edu/institutes/PDF/papers2003/Maloney-Krichmar.pdf
Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2005), ‘A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 12, no. 2, 201–32.
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000), Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. London: Sage.
McConnell, D. (2005), ‘Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communities’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 1, 25–42.
Newman, K. and Perkins, J. (1996), Two archetypes in e-discourse: lurkers and virtuosos’, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 155–70.
Perkins, D. (1999), ‘The many faces of constructivism’, Educational Leadership, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 6–11.
Preece, J. (2000), Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York, NY: Wiley.
Robson, C. (2002), Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Salmon, G. (2002), E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Timmis, S., O’Leary, R., Weedon, E., Harrison, C. and Martin, K. (2004), ‘Different shoes, same footprints? A cross-disciplinary evaluation of students’ online learning experiences: Preliminary findings from the SOLE project’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, vol. 13, pp. 1–19.
Wellman, B. (2001), ‘Physical place and cyber-place: The rise of networked individualism’, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, vol. 25, 227–52.
Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I. and Miyata, K. (2003), ‘The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 8, no. 3.