sense of community in multicultural blended learning ... · among 124 students enrolled in 21...
TRANSCRIPT
Sense of Community in Multicultural Blended Learning College Courses and the
Relationship to Intercultural Sensitivity
by
Gloria Dianne McPherson
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Gloria McPherson 2014
ii
Sense of Community in Multicultural Blended Learning College Courses and the
Relationship to Intercultural Sensitivity
Doctor of Philosophy, 2014
Gloria McPherson
Curriculum Teaching and Learning
OISE/University of Toronto
Abstract
This thesis reports findings from an investigation into sense of community developed
among 124 students enrolled in 21 blended learning general education courses in one Canadian
urban college. Data from an online survey questionnaire, the Classroom Community Scale
(CCS), the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) and online discussion board contributions were
analyzed to identify a detailed demographic profile of participants, their sense of classroom
community (SoC) and their intercultural sensitivity (IS).
This study expands the use of the CCS and the ISS to a new population, multicultural
Canadians. A profile emerged which showed the multicultural mix of this population and the
intercultural nature of their daily interactions. Half the participants identified a language other
than English as their mother tongue and approximately 25% reported completing some or all of
their primary and high school studies outside of Canada. This cohort socialize frequently with
linguistically and culturally distinct (LCD) friends, have very high IS and are very confident in
their communications with LCD others.
Through correlational analyses of the survey responses and content analysis of the
discussion board postings, relationships among the demographic, course, ability and intercultural
variables and participants’ SoC were examined. Participants in this study reported a weak SoC
but overall course satisfaction, indicating that SoC may not be as important as previously
iii
purported. Discussions focus on the factors that affect SoC, the overlap in the constructs SoC
and IS, and the appropriateness of using existing scales in the Canadian context.
The findings were interpreted within a theoretical mix of sociocultural theory, situated
learning theory, sense of community and intercultural communicative competence theory.
Individual’s cultural schemas, mindfulness, sensitivity and flexibility in the interaction influence
both SoC and IS. Data analyses revealed that IS, language skills, confidence using the
discussion board and the frequency of socializing with culturally distinct others were related to
SoC. An explanation for these findings may center on the nature of the multicultural cohort.
The results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the CCS and the ISS may not be
appropriate metrics for an interculturally savvy context like urban Canada.
iv
Acknowledgements
"When you come to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Completing a dissertation is a challenge that no individual achieves alone. Faculty
advisors, family, friends and colleagues each play a vital role in the climb to reach your goal.
Dr. Clare Brett, my supervisor: Clare, you provided unwavering support throughout the
process and I truly appreciate the time you spent mentoring me, providing direction and an
empathetic ear or a confidence boost when I really needed it. I would not have completed this
dissertation if I didn’t have someone as understanding, knowledgeable, or supportive as you as
my advisor. My committee members, Dr. Alister Cumming and Dr. Jim Hewitt: I would like to
thank you for providing specific feedback and suggestions that helped refine the focus and
presentation of my paper – it is a better paper thanks to your expertise. Dr. Ruth Childs, my
internal examiner: Thank you for your focus on the statistical aspect of my dissertation and your
suggestions for future related research. Dr. Kenneth Reeder, my external reader: It was a
privilege to have you be a part of my defense. Your positive appraisal boosted my confidence
going into the defense and your questions helped me reflect on the results of my research. Your
thoughtful commentary throughout my paper was supportive and helpful.
Paula Gouveia, former Department Chair: Paula, you were the first person to actually
fully support my research at the college and your willingness to provide access to your faculty
and students as well as your endorsement of the value of potential findings enabled me to finally
gain access to courses being offered through the college after many roadblocks. Thank you
Chair Andrew Schmitz for also supporting my research. I would especially like to thank the four
professors who agreed to let me conduct the research with their classes – you were pioneers and
without your consent, this research could not have taken place. I would also like to acknowledge
the financial support I received from the college in tuition assistance and funding for a one
semester partial release to focus on my research.
Henry, my partner through life: Thank you for your ability to support and ground me
throughout this long climb – you weather my stress well. I also appreciate your help coding data
v
and helpful suggestions with my defense preparations. Martin and James, my sons and greatest
joy: Thank you for your understanding over the years. I hope both of you will also reach
whatever goals you set – whatever you dream, you can achieve. Barb, my sister, best friend,
sounding board and my biggest supporter in life: I can’t imagine getting through this without you
– thank you for being the awesome person that you are. My parents, Jack and Jean McPherson:
Thank you for your unwavering support and for raising me to have the confidence to pursue my
dreams. Marina, forever a friend: I value your opinions. Thank you for your margin notes and
editing skills – my paper is better because you took the time to read it carefully. Thank you to
my friends and colleagues for your support over the many years it took me to finish.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi TABLES ................................................................................................................................ ix
FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ x
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ x
COPYRIGHT .......................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Outline of This Chapter ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Overview of the Study ......................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Definition of terms ............................................................................................................... 9
1.7 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 10
1.8 Outline of Rest of Chapters ................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER TWO: RELEVANT THEORIES AND RESEARCH ............................................... 13
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.2 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Socio-cultural Constructivism Theory ......................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Situated Learning Theory ............................................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Sense of Community ................................................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Intercultural Communication Competence Theory .................................................... 18
2.2.5 A Theoretic Mix .......................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Blended Learning ............................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Blended Learning Research in Canada ........................................................................ 20
2.3.2 Factors Influencing Satisfaction with Blended Courses ............................................. 21
2.4 Situated Online Learning Communities ............................................................................. 22
2.4.1 Developing Online Community and Learning ............................................................. 22
2.5 Sense of Community .......................................................................................................... 24
vii
2.5.1 Constructs Similar to Connectedness .......................................................................... 25
2.5.2 Measurement of Sense of Community ........................................................................ 27
2.5.3 Measurement of Learning ........................................................................................... 28
2.5.4 Relevant Studies on Sense of Community .................................................................. 28
2.5.5 Factors Affecting Sense of Community ...................................................................... 31
2.6 Culture in Online Learning ................................................................................................ 33
2.6.1 Relevant Studies of Culture Online ............................................................................ 34
2.6.2 Communication Competence ...................................................................................... 37
2.6.3 Intercultural Communication Competence ................................................................. 38
2.7 The Need for Further Research .......................................................................................... 48
2.8 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 49
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 50 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.2 The Research Design ......................................................................................................... 50
3.3 Context for the Study ......................................................................................................... 51
3.4 The Survey ......................................................................................................................... 51
3.5 Instrument Description and Design ................................................................................... 52
3.5.1 Section One ................................................................................................................. 52
3.5.2 Section Two ................................................................................................................ 53
3.5.3 Section Three .............................................................................................................. 55
3.6 Obtaining Access ............................................................................................................... 56
3.7 Pre-testing the Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 57
3.8 Sampling Strategy and Target ........................................................................................... 57
3.8.1 Study Participants ....................................................................................................... 59
3.8.2 Final Selection Criteria ............................................................................................... 59
3.9 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................................. 60
3.9.1 Quantitative Data ........................................................................................................ 60
3.9.2 Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 71 4.1 Select Aggregate Survey Findings ..................................................................................... 72
4.1.1 Student Demographics ................................................................................................ 72
4.1.2 Characteristics of Professors and Courses .................................................................. 80
4.2 Report of Findings by Research Question ......................................................................... 81
4.2.1 Level of SoC ............................................................................................................... 81
viii
4.2.2 Question One: Sub Question A .................................................................................... 83
4.2.3 Question One: Sub Question B .................................................................................... 89
4.2.4 Question One: Sub Question C ................................................................................... 98
4.2.5 Question One: Sub Question D ................................................................................... 99
4.2.6 Question Two ............................................................................................................ 106
4.2.7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 111
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 113 5.1 A Context Rich in Diversity ............................................................................................ 113
5.1.1 Multiculturalism in Canada ....................................................................................... 114
5.1.2 Temporality of the Bounded On-line Learning Community .................................... 115
5.2 Sense of Community ........................................................................................................ 116
5.2.1 Factors affecting SoC ................................................................................................ 121
5.3 The relationship between SoC and IS .............................................................................. 140
5.4 Appropriateness of the CCS and the ISS ......................................................................... 141
5.4.1 The Revised CCS ...................................................................................................... 114
5.4.2 The Revised ISS ........................................................................................................ 115
5.5 SoC Artifacts Online ........................................................................................................ 146
5.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 151
CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 153
6.1 Summary of Main Findings ............................................................................................. 153
6.2 Implications of the Research ............................................................................................. 156
6.2.1 For the design and delivery of blended courses ......................................................... 156
6.2.2 For understanding and measuring the presence of SoC ............................................ 157
6.2.3 For theorizing about IS in a multicultural context .................................................... 158
6.2.4 For Methods .............................................................................................................. 159
6.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 159
6.3.1. Data Set .................................................................................................................... 160
6.3.2. Length of the Survey Instrument ............................................................................. 160
6.3.3. Influence of Multiculturalism Policies and Practices .............................................. 161
6.3.4. Personal Bias ............................................................................................................ 161
6.4 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 161
6.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 164
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 166
ix
TABLES
Table 1. Constructs, Indicators, Research Questions and Survey Items ..................................... 55
Table 2. Summary of all survey respondents by professor and course ....................................... 60
Table 3. Changes made to Dawson’s Content Analysis Codification Schema ........................... 67
Table 4. Sense of Classroom Community Scale with Descriptive Statistic ............................... 82
Table 5. SCC scores of students by professor ............................................................................. 84
Table 6. Summary of tests, significance, conclusion on the influence of selected variables
on SoC ........................................................................................................................... 88
Table 7. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Descriptive Statistics .................................................... 90
Table 8. Summary of tests, significance, conclusion on the influence of selected variables on
intercultural sensitivity ................................................................................................... 96
Table 9. Summary of Model Fit Statistics for Original CCS ...................................................... 99
Table 10. Comparison of eigenvalues from CCS PCA and parallel analysis ............................. 100
Table 11. Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of revised Two Factor
Solution of CCS Items ................................................................................................ 102
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for the Revised two Classroom Scale factors .......................... 102
Table 13. Summary of Model Fit Statistics for Original ISS ..................................................... 103
Table 14. Comparison of eigenvalues from ISS PCA and parallel analysis ............................... 104
Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for the Revised two Intercultural Sensitivity Factors............... 105
Table 16. Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of revisedTwo Factor
Solution of ISS Items .................................................................................................. 106
Table 17. Descriptives of students’ posts by professor ............................................................... 107
Table 18. Descriptives of number of units of analysis assigned to students’ posts per
professor ...................................................................................................................... 107
Table 19. Descriptives of number of quotations assigned to students’ posts per professor ....... 108
Table 20. Descriptives of number of social community codes assigned .................................... 110
Table 21. Descriptives of number of learning codes assigned .................................................... 110
Table 22. Classroom community scores reported in studies ....................................................... 121
Table 23. Respondent’s’ Intercultural Sensitivity ...................................................................... 130
Table 24. Mean scores on each dimension of ISS scale ............................................................. 131
Table 25. Factors for ISS, Tamam’s model and my model ........................................................ 145
x
FIGURES
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the influences that affect individual’s interactions and the
effects of those interactions on SoC in a blended learning course. ................................ 6
Figure 2. Distribution of participants by Status in Canada. ......................................................... 73
Figure 3. Distribution of participants by Mother Tongue. ........................................................... 73
Figure 4. Distribution of participants by language spoken in the home. ..................................... 74
Figure 5. Number of languages spoken and/or written in addition to English. ........................... 74
Figure 6. Fluency speaking English. ............................................................................................ 75
Figure 7. Fluency writing English. .............................................................................................. 75
Figure 8. Location of Primary School. ......................................................................................... 76
Figure 9. Primary School Language. ........................................................................................... 76
Figure 10. Location of high school. .............................................................................................. 76
Figure 11. High school language. ................................................................................................. 76
Figure 12. Number of years attended university. .......................................................................... 77
Figure 13. Country of university studies. ...................................................................................... 78
Figure 14. Language of university studies.. .................................................................................. 78
Figure 15. Fully online courses taken. .......................................................................................... 78
Figure 16. Courses taken with online component. ........................................................................ 78
Figure 17. Close friends from cultures distinct from own culture. ............................................... 79
Figure 18. Percentage of units coded with SoC indicators and content only indicators. ............ 109
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Tools to Evaluate SoC / Similar Constructs .......................................................... 184 Appendix B: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 186
Appendix C: Open Ended Questions Coding ............................................................................. 199 Appendix D: Content Analysis Codification Schema ................................................................ 203
Appendix E: Language Categories ............................................................................................. 205 Appendix F: Grouping of Courses by Delivery Pattern .............................................................. 206 Appendix G: CCS Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results ......................................................... 208
Appendix H: ISS Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results ........................................................... 212 Appendix I .................................................................................................................................. 217
COPYRIGHT
COPYRIGHT.. ............................................................................................................................ 221
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Outline of This Chapter
This chapter is organized into 6 sections: background, purpose of the research, research
questions, overview of the study, definition of terms, and significance of the study. The focus of
this chapter is on situating the research by providing some background information on the use of
blended learning in education, elements that impact interaction online and the rationale for
focusing on students’ sense of community and intercultural sensitivity in post-secondary college
courses. The research questions section states the 2 major questions that focused this research.
The overview section gives a brief summary of the approach, methodology, findings and
limitations of the study. The chapter finishes with definitions of key terms used in the study
derived from the literature followed by a summary of some of the implications of the study.
1.2 Background
The research reported in this thesis investigated postsecondary blended online learning
communities. Blended or hybrid learning refers to courses that combine face-to-face instruction
with an online learning component replacing a portion of face-to-face classroom hours. This
mixed modality has gained popularity because of the increased flexibility in delivery patterns,
access, scheduling, and potential reduction in costs it affords (Cohere Report, 2011).
In addition to the pragmatic benefits, online learning can support interactivity by
providing opportunities for engaging and meaningful learning experiences with others including
reflective discussion and debate, and unlimited access to information. The diversity of today’s
classroom with respect to nationality and culture can create an environment with divergent
ideals, values and assumptions regarding appropriate interaction. As a result of growing
domestic multiculturalism at a local/regional level, as well as the movement towards the
internationalization of education, there has been a significant increase in the diverse linguistic
and cultural backgrounds of students learning together (Otten, 2003). Consequently, the
communication skills necessary to take part in educative dialogue have also changed.
Constructivist collaborative knowledge building requires competent, purposeful
interaction. Interactivity is critical to the development of learning communities (Brown, Collins,
& Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2001) and the research tells us that community
2
plays a critical role in learning (Anderson, 2003; Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Garrison &
Kanuka, 2004, p.97). Inclusion in a community of learning both shapes and is shaped by
students as they create a shared history. Interaction exposes individuals to other perspectives and
supports the social construction of knowledge (Dewey, 1916; Jonassen, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).
Collaborative learning environments and intercultural interactions are complicated. The
situated nature of the learning context studied requires a theoretical framework combining
elements from a number of theories to better understand the attitudes, skills and behaviours of
participants involved in online interactions. Established theories from socio-cultural
constructivism that explain how interactions affect learning, the related field of situated learning
with its emphasis on the context of interactions, sense of community focusing on the
psychological aspect of interaction, and intercultural communication sensitivity and competence
focusing on both the psychological and behavioural aspects of interaction all helped inform the
design of this study.
Educational theorists indicate that online learning environments should be designed to
promote interaction, participation, and collaboration among learners (Garrison, 2000;
Gunawardena, 2005; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001). Several studies have
established a link between interaction and learner satisfaction (Anderson, 2003; Barab & Duffy,
2000; Bolliger, D & Martindale, T. 2004; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1995; Palloff and Pratt, 1999;
Rovai, 2002a; Swan, 2002). The importance of interaction to support mindful engagement and
learning has also been established by researchers (Collins & Green, 1990), yet we really do not
understand factors that may either support or hinder this interaction in detail. We do not
understand the relevant factors that influence students’ abilities to project themselves fully into
the learning experience online particularly when the cohort are multicultural community college
students.
Key performance indicators are measured annually and are used to allocate funding to
each Canadian college. Student satisfaction with their learning is one of the critical measures. In
accordance with the strategic plan of the college in this study, more courses are being offered in
a blended format in order to increase student access and expand program offerings. As more
professors are expected to deliver mixed modality classes, it is really important that research is
conducted to identify challenges and barriers to student success online that may differ from those
3
typically found in the classroom with the same cohort. Researchers have identified a limited
number of factors which affect sense of community comparing face-to-face classes with online
classes (Etzioni & Etzioni, 1999; Karatas & Simsek, 2009 Picianno, 2002; Rovai 2002b; Rovai
& Jordan, 2004) and only online (Bielman, 2000; Dawson, 2006, 2008; Drouin, 2008; Liu,
Magjuka, Bonk & Lee, 2007; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rovai 2001, 2002a, 2002d, 2003; Shea,
Li & Pickett, 2006), but of these, none have been done in the Canadian, multicultural setting.
Another field of research that has a direct impact on student interaction online is
intercultural communication competence (ICC). Because of the multicultural nature of the
student body, communicating with others who may not share common linguistic, educational and
cultural backgrounds is common. Researchers have examined intercultural communication in
higher education online settings primarily in cross-cultural collaborations between university
cohorts to identify issues in communication that might affect interaction and successful
collaborative learning (Chang, Wang & Lim, 2002; Chen, Hsu & Caropreso, 2006;
Gunawardena, Nolla, Wilson, Lopez-Islas, Ramirez-Angel & Megchu-Alpizar, 2001; Kim &
Bonk, 2002). A few studies have examined situated intercultural communication involving a
multicultural cohort (Reeder, Macfayden Roche & Chase, 2004; Shafer, 2004) but most of these
studies have been based in universities in the United States.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
A salient focus on student access, retention and success in Canadian colleges’ strategic
plans, financial constraints, the changing demographic of the typical college student and the need
to reach more learners at a distance have all significantly influenced course delivery modes. E-
learning has emerged as one of the means to address these goals and challenges. In its 2009
report on the state of e-learning in Canada, the Canadian Council on Learning listed claims made
by the educational sector regarding the value and importance of e-learning which included
“higher motivation for and satisfaction with the learning process…increases in communication
and collaboration among all participants… flexible and accessible learning environments…and
reductions in dropout rates” (p. 53). However, citing Rossiter Consulting’s report State of the
Field Review of E-Learning (2006), the report also indicated there was a lack of empirical
evidence to support these claims and that significant research gaps existed. The report identified
4
an imperative need for both empirical and longitudinal research to substantiate these claims, to
gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of current Canadian e-learning practices, and to
learn about using information and communication technologies (ICTs) effectively to
accommodate a variety of learning styles and needs, foster, support and maintain communities of
practice and learning and to facilitate peer to peer learning (p. 20).
Although benefits of blended learning have been reported, the successful implementation
of blended learning in Canadian post-secondary colleges has not been evaluated. At the time that
this research data was collected, there was a lack of training opportunities and standardized
guidelines for faculty using the modality and consequently inconsistent expectations of how the
distance portion of the course should be delivered. In addition, the multicultural nature of the
student cohort is significantly different from those studied in previous research. A large
percentage of the students in this study were either born outside of Canada or are first generation.
Additionally, the opportunities for influential exposure to or participation with distinct other
cultures is a daily occurrence in a large urban city like Toronto. The historical and ontogenetic
sociocultural backgrounds of these students differ significantly from students who have had little
exposure to culturally distinct others. Do these experiences significantly influence individuals’
sense of community (SoC) online and their intercultural sensitivity (IS)? Can one assume that
individuals that have gone through a Canadian education system that mandates inclusiveness and
actively promotes multiculturalism will automatically have high IS? I was unable to locate any
research conducted in the Canadian context that examined significant variables of either SoC or
IS. Identifying influencing factors that affect interaction and development of community online
can inform course designers and facilitators and support student success / satisfaction.
Researchers have established the link between communication skills, interactivity and
one’s ability to feel a legitimate part of a community of learners as well as the development of
social presence on-line and the link between intercultural communication competence and
successful interaction online. Furthermore, they have established that intercultural sensitivity
(IS) is an accurate predictor of ICC (Chen & Starosta, 1997). To date no literature exists that
correlates SoC directly with IS.
5
The primary goal of this research is to investigate the unique multicultural context of a
Canadian college in order to identify factors that may impact on SoC and IS, and consequently
students’ interaction in blended learning courses.
1.4 Research Questions
Researchers studying interaction and intercultural communication have typically used
case studies situated in a specific time and place with a particular set of participants (see
Macfayden, Chase, Reeder & Roche, 2003; Swigger, Alpaslan, Brazile & Monticino, 2004). A
case study design is an appropriate methodology to describe, understand or explain observations
of an online course because it is a specific, unique, bounded system (Stake, 1994 as cited in
Mertens, 1998). The class entity is complex and unique. Each individual in a class brings his or
her own sociocultural history to the group and the interplay of these distinctive personal traits is
unique to a particular class at a particular point in their studies. Extensive description and
analysis situated in a specific context is necessary to learn about a complex instance (Yin, 1994
as cited in Mertens, 1998); therefore, an intensive and detailed thick description is needed to
better understand the interplay of the constructs SoC and IS. To capture both the social context
and the dynamics of this unique online environment a case study method was used.
The diagram, Figure 1, illustrates my overall understanding of the situated nature of
blended learning communities and the influence that interactions have on the fluid constructs of
SoC and IS. The community is bounded and the stop sign shape indicates that only those in the
course are allowed to be in the community. Within the community many interactions are taking
place. Each communicative utterance is a snapshot in time of the interplay of historical,
ontogenetic, and situated factors mediated by each interactant’s IS. The resulting interaction
then directly affects how each individual thinks and behaves in an encounter with someone who
is culturally distinct in that specific context and in turn influences any future interactions by
potentially modifying the person’s worldview. Each intercultural encounter helps
individuals’ intercultural communication skills evolve and changes their social-cultural schemas
but only if they are mindful to the differences in culture and exercise agency in the interaction.
Without intercultural sensitivity, the socio-cultural backgrounds, level of intercultural
communication competence and ability to interact with culturally distinct others remains
6
stagnant. Individuals’ agency in these interactions will determine their sense of community in a
situated, bounded learning environment.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the influences that affect individual’s interactions and the
effects of those interactions on SoC in a blended learning course.
My research identifies the level of sense of community and the intercultural sensitivity of
participants taking part in blended learning courses in a multicultural, urban context. I have tried
to fill the gap in existing research by studying courses delivered at a community college in
Canada, a little researched context in higher education, and by examining many additional
factors that may influence SoC and IS beyond the factors age, gender and ethnicity used in many
relevant research studies. Additionally, I have rooted my research in elements of several theories
in an attempt to examine overlapping constructs that influence interaction. For this study I used
two previously validated instruments: Chen and Starosta’s (2000) Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
(ISS) to determine level of intercultural sensitivity and Rovai’s (2001) Classroom Community
Situated Blended
Learning Context
Historical &
Ontogenetic
socio-cultural
background
Interactions
with
culturally
distinct
others
Evolving
Intercultural
Cognitive &
Behavioural Skills
Mindfulness
Intercultural Sensitivity
Weak Strong
Sense of Community
7
Scale (CCS). This study also serves to add to the body of research examining the suitability of
these instruments in different contexts.
The study attempts to answer the following questions:
1. What is the level of sense of community (SoC) which is composed of connectedness and
learning as measured by the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) of college students enrolled
in a blended computer mediated class in an urban multicultural setting?
1a. What course and demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of SoC and its subscales?
1b. What is the level of the variable intercultural sensitivity (composed of interaction
engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction
enjoyment and interaction attentiveness), as measured by the Intercultural
Sensitivity Scale (ISS) and what demographic variables and what intercultural
experiences and interactions are significant predictors of IS and its subscales?
1c. What is the relationship between SoC and IS?
1d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS measure the same constructs when applied in a
multicultural setting like Toronto?
2. Can indicators of connectedness and learning, the underlying dimensions of the construct
SoC, be observed within the context of a blended asynchronous online college course?
1.5 Overview of the Study
This research study was conducted at a large urban community college in Ontario. All
students enrolled in diploma programs at the college must complete a number of general
education courses. Although these courses are offered in various modalities including face-to
face, web dependent (using some key elements of a learning management system (LMS) such as
the discussion board without reducing classroom time), web supplemented (providing course
documents and resources using a LMS) mixed mode (required work using LMS replaces portion
of face-to-face learning) and fully online (no face-to-face learning/teaching), this research
examined mixed-mode (blended/hybrid) general education courses. A case study design using a
concurrent nested approach was used to determine factors such as course, demographic and
intercultural experiences that affect SoC and IS. Specifically, this study sought to determine if
8
culturally diverse learners are able to develop SoC in blended courses and if the learners’ IS is a
relevant factor in building SoC. The use of both quantitative and qualitative methods allowed
me to develop comprehensive insight into factors, including IS, that contribute to learner’s SoC
in blended online courses.
A purposive sample was drawn from multicultural learners enrolled in general education
courses that required a standardized college English course as a pre-requisite and were delivered
mainly at a distance with fewer than five face-to-face meetings. On completion of the course, an
online survey composed of two established survey scales, the Classroom Community Scale
(CCS) and the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS), additional demographic questions and several
open-ended questions were administered to participants that had agreed to take part in the
research study.
The survey responses, total number of posts and the content of discussion board postings
made by the research participants were retrieved and saved in individual Microsoft Word
documents and reviewed. Analyzing these survey responses was the first step in my research
and a major aspect of my quantitative analysis. In analyzing the CCS and ISS, I used statistical
analysis measures used by previous researchers to facilitate comparisons with previous research
findings. Additionally, I coded the open-ended responses which were designed to provide
validity for the survey scale results. These results were used to provide further insight into the
beliefs and behaviours of the participants and to flesh out the findings from the quantitative
analysis. I also conducted confirmatory factor analyses to determine the validity of using the
CCS and ISS in the Canadian context.
The second part of this doctoral research involved the coding of the discussion board
entries to identify aspects of interaction. This qualitative aspect of the research was used to
triangulate the findings from the survey and to gain further insight into the nature of dialogue
happening in the courses. I modified a framework used by a previous researcher investigating
SoC online.
This analysis used a theoretical framework based on elements from sociocultural theory,
situated learning theory, sense of community theory, and intercultural communication
competence theory. These theories support the importance of competent interaction in
developing knowledge and the role that context and communication with culturally distinct
9
others plays in the successful learning. This framework is developed in detail in the next
chapter. The identification of statistically relevant variables related to SoC helped to develop a
deeper understanding of characteristics, behaviours and skills that supported interaction in these
blended online learning courses. This research provided a better understanding of participants’
attitudes and behaviours and led to concrete recommendations for blended learning course
instructors to support learner activity and community building.
This study includes the survey responses and discussion board contributions of 124
students enrolled in General Education Courses in one Ontario college in 2007 and 2008 taught
by four professors. The sample of students was selected based on their volunteering to take part
in the research and their completion of both the CCS and ISS inventories. Since this study
employed non-probability convenience sampling for participant selection, sampling error cannot
be determined. While the results are reflective of the demographics of the cohort enrolled in the
college at that time when compared to college statistics, the results may not represent the
experiences of blended learning students taught by other professors. This sample may also not
be representative of colleges outside of large urban centres where the background of the student
populations served may be different. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to other
populations.
Another limiting factor in this research was the use of the survey and the inclusion of
psychometric instruments to measure sense of community and intercultural sensitivity. The
reasons why participants chose to complete the survey and how seriously and honestly they
responded will never be known to the researcher.
1.6 Definition of terms
The definitions in this section were gathered from the literature dealing with concepts that
are relevant to this research.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): Describes “any form of computer-networked
conversation” (Eastmond, 1995 p. 12.)
Culture: Culture has two aspects, the more visible - objective and the less visible –subjective
(Bennett,1998a). Objective culture includes the ‘institutions’ of culture – behavior that has
10
become routinized into a particular form (e.g. art, literature and music), as well as social,
economic, political and linguistic systems. Subjective culture, on the other hand, includes the
psychological features that define a group of people. It is “the learned and shared patterns of
beliefs, behaviors, and values of groups of interacting people” (Bennett, 1998, p. 3, italics in
original
Intercultural Communication (IC): Communication is considered intercultural when the
participants share few group identities in common (Singer, 1998). “People are from different
cultures whenever the degree of difference between them is sufficiently large and important that
it creates dissimilar interpretations and expectations about what are regarded as competent
communication behaviours” (Lustig & Koester, 2003, p. 51).
Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC): Wiseman (2001) states that ICC encompasses
the knowledge (cognitive), motivation (affective), and skills (behavioural) to interact effectively
and appropriately with members of different cultures. For the purpose of this research, I adopt
the definition of ICC put forward by Chen and Starosta (1999). Intercultural communication
competence is “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors that
negotiate each other’s cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment” (p.28).
Intercultural Sensitivity (IS): An individual’s “active desire to motivate themselves to
understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (Chen and Starosta, 1998, p.
231).
Sense of Community (SoC): “A feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members
matter to one another and to the group, that they have duties and obligations to each other and to
the school, and that they possess shared expectations that members’ educational needs will be
met through their commitment to shared learning goals” (Rovai, 2002d, p. 322).
1.7 Significance of the Study
In the field of hybrid or blended learning in Canada, this study fills a gap in the literature.
In the emerging body of literature related to post-secondary online learning, many of the studies
11
have focused on the effectiveness of the tools used for collaboration online and the attitudes and
preparedness of the instructors. A 2009 meta-analysis of research into hybrid courses in Canada
calls for studies to fill the gaps in research in the Canadian context. This study provides that kind
of information. There are few research studies that explore blended learning in the Canadian
context and those studies have all been done with university cohorts. There are no studies of
blended learning courses offered through a Canadian college and reflecting the typical urban
college cohort. By examining this specific learning context and focusing on the learners, this
study has educational implications in the fields of instructional design, course facilitation, faculty
professional development and post-secondary education. First, it reveals pedagogy and practices
that favour a transmission model of learning over a knowledge construction model and how these
practices impact on students’ interactions and SoC. In addition, it provides course developers
and facilitators with a comprehensive picture of the rich cultural and linguistic backgrounds of
their students. It highlights considerations that instructional designers can use to create a more
inclusive learning environment that supports interaction and collaboration through the use of
specific and consistent guidelines that support linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD)
learners. This study can inform those stakeholders interested in student satisfaction online.
Second, this study provided an opportunity to study sense of community in hybrid
courses and factors contributing to its development. The inclusion of factors not previously
studied in relation to SoC adds to the body of research into SoC online that has primarily been
done in the United States. Although SoC was moderately present, there were incongruences in
inventory scores, individual responses to related open questions and behavioural evidence in the
discussion boards. Through factor and principal components analyses, I sought to confirm the
suitability of the CCS to measure the SoC of this cohort. The original two factor model was
retained; however, a few questions were identified that may need further refinement.
Third, this study is the first to link the constructs of SoC and IS. There are clear overlaps
between the two constructs. They both involve mindfulness and sensitivity to others in the
interaction and a modifying of behaviours to fit in with the ‘culture’ of the interaction context.
In addition, creators of the ISS, the inventory used to determine IS in this study, call for further
research to be done in different contexts other than the United States to determine the validity
and reliability of the instrument to measure IS. This study revealed that almost all students
12
scored very high on the ISS which means they all have high IS, yet their responses to the open
ended question related to sensitivity to and awareness of others were inconsistent with the
inventory scores. The suitability of the ISS to measure IS of this cohort is of concern.
Quantitative evidence also suggested that some of the inventory statements garnered significantly
lower ratings than others suggesting that the wording may not be appropriate in a context like
Canada where multiculturalism is social policy. Factor and principal components analyses failed
to recreate the five factor model and an alternate two factor, 13 item inventory is proposed.
1.8 Outline of Rest of Chapters
This thesis is written in six chapters. Chapter Two reviews the literature and details
relevant research studies related to blended learning, sense of community and culture in online
learning that either shaped the development of this study or aided with the analysis. Chapter
Three provides a detailed description of the research methodology. Chapter Four presents the
findings. Chapter Five discusses the findings based on the research questions and Chapter Six
wraps up the thesis with implications and conclusions based on the findings.
13
CHAPTER TWO: RELEVANT THEORY AND RESEARCH
2.1 Introduction
There has been an increasing focus on the need to situate post-secondary education
globally resulting from financial constraints, the changing demographic of the typical college
student and the need to reach more learners at a distance. In Canada, the student population is
already diverse and that diversity will only increase as access to higher education becomes more
accessible online. This literature review begins with an explanation of the theoretical
background of the study. It outlines four separate theories that provided a theoretic base for this
study and informed the design and discussion. This is followed by establishing the need for
blended learning classes and examining influencing factors as well as the current state of
research related to blended learning in Canada. In the third section, situated online learning
communities are discussed with a focus on the development of community and learning. This
section includes a discussion of sense of community (SoC), similar constructs, and tools used to
measure SoC. Several specific studies that informed the design of this study are included. This
section ends with variables found to be relevant to SoC in the literature. The fourth section
focuses on culture in online learning. It includes a discussion on how culture influences
interactions and focuses on intercultural communication competence and its influencing factors.
Specifically, this section provides a current perspective on the construct of intercultural
sensitivity (IS). Its measurement and relevant studies indicating the significance it may play in
online interactions are discussed. The section ends with a section highlighting the need for
further research and a summary of the chapter.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
The guiding theories for this research come from four distinct but overlapping fields of
study: socio-cultural constructivism, situated learning, sense of community and intercultural
communication.
2.2.1 Socio-cultural Constructivism Theory
The theoretical framework of socio-cultural constructivism establishes the importance of
the social context of learning communities. Russian researcher and theorist Lev Vygotsky
introduced the idea of the socio-historical nature of learning. He maintained that individual
14
experience is part of what shapes a person’s understanding of a given situation. The social
environment in which we experience the world also significantly shapes our interpretation.
The North American education system emphasizes a collaborative approach to learning
where groups of individuals work together to increase their understanding and knowledge.
According to socio-cultural constructivist theorists such as Jonassen, Davidson, Collins,
Campbell and Haag (1995) “learning is a social and dialogical process in which communities of
practitioners socially negotiate the meaning of a phenomenon (p. 9)”. Interactive communication
and social context are critical aspects of the learning experience (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Learning occurs through the transformative process of the dialectic relation between an
individual’s existing knowledge and beliefs and encounters with socio-culturally shaped different
knowledge and beliefs. This learning and development is a direct result of individuals’ agency
and engagement in a specific task. Lave and Wenger (1991) stress that learning needs to be
understood in relation to the development of human identity. In learning to be part of a
community, the individual’s social identity is being developed by exposure to new knowledge
and experiences but that process itself is being shaped by the individual’s identity. Cognitive
development and functioning are strongly impacted by ‘participation in culturally organized
practices, life-long involvement in a variety of institutions, and humans’ ubiquitous use of tools
and artifacts (including language)” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 1). Because each of us is
building on unique cultural schemata, as we interact with social and cultural aspects of the
environment, we will all interpret the external world differently (Jonassen, 1991; Richardson,
1997). Through analysis of knowledge sources and dialogic processes with others, practitioners
attempt to make sense of experiences that are outside their existing schemata. Active learning
rooted in real-world situations that require individuals to question internal hypotheses is requisite
for individuals to be able to create meaning from their experience.
In a socio-cultural constructivist knowledge building environment, learners are expected
to be actively engaged in the learning process and work collaboratively to build socially
mediated knowledge. Individuals in a group share their socially constructed ideas with others
and through discussion of the contributions of the socially constructed ideas of others, ideas are
confirmed and adjusted to reflect mindful consideration of all the input. The resulting socially
constructed knowledge will likely be at a higher level than an individual could achieve and
15
through the process, individuals will enhance and adjust their own knowledge and beliefs. This
approach to learning stresses participation in a community of learners as a way of actively
seeking to clarify different perspectives. This approach to learning may be incongruent with
individuals’ historical views and attitudes towards their role in the educative process. Mindful
engagement that scaffolds on learners’ previous knowledge and experience is requisite for
knowledge construction. Consequently, constructivist pedagogy emphasizes discussion,
collaboration, cooperation, problem-solving, negotiation and creation of shared meanings
(Ernest, 1995) rather than a transmission of knowledge from expert to novice.
2.2.2 Situated Learning Theory
Situated learning theory is related to social constructivist learning theory. It stresses that
knowledge is situated in experience. Rather than just focusing on the collaborative nature of
knowledge development, situative perspectives look at the practice and specific social and
physical context in which the meaning is negotiated (Barab & Duffy, 2000). Lave and Wenger
(1991) proposed situated learning as a means of examining learning emerging as a function of
being part of a community, which they call a ‘community of practice’. In a community of
practice, group members share mutually developed practices, learn from their interactions with
other group members and have opportunities to personally develop intellectually or
professionally (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The focus is on how the individual develops an identity
within the community and how this identity both influences the learning and is shaped by
participation in the community; “Identities are shaped by and shape the experience” (Barab &
Duffy, 2000, p. 29). Participation is essential to become a full member of a community as
learning happens through the sharing of purposeful, patterned activity (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
In online learning communities, participants have shared interests and common goals.
They have chosen to take a particular course and presumably their collective goal is to learn the
content and gain a college credit. In order to achieve their goal, members of the learning
community need to jointly engage in the course by setting goals and parameters, sharing with
and supporting others, seeking and sharing information, discussing content, and taking an active
part in the community. Through these shared endeavors, members of the community develop a
shared repertoire of resources such as additional materials that support the learning, contacts with
others who can support one’s learning, shared experiences and artifacts such as the evolving
16
discourse captured through the discussion board. Members of the online community use
computers to communicate with their classmates. Feeling comfortable and confident
collaborating with others and learning through dialogic interaction is essential to being an active
part of the community and reaching the mutual goals of learning the subject content. A situated
learning approach focuses on how the specific environment (both physical and social) influences
behaviour and understanding. Individual members define and are defined by relationships within
the community and these multiple relationships are the base for learning. Learning cannot be
considered separate from the social context – it is constantly in process and constantly changing.
Membership in the community, individual identity and knowledge are mutually dependent.
To develop a good understanding of a community like the blended learning cohorts in
this study, it is important to not only look at learning outcomes such as perceived satisfaction
with the courses but to also consider contextual factors (physical and social context, culturally
shaped tools and artifacts) that contribute to learning.
2.2.3 Sense of Community
Active engagement in a community supports learning; however, not all members in a
community are able to move from the periphery of the community and be skillful and confident
taking part in collaborative interaction. The degree of feeling of belonging to a community is
one’s sense of community (SoC). McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) definition and theory of SoC
are widely used in research related to educational settings. The theory describes four elements
which form SoC: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared
emotional connection. Together, these elements create “a feeling that members have of
belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and the group, and a shared faith that
members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together” (p.9).
2.2.3.1 Membership.
According to McMillan and Chavis, membership is the feeling that one belongs in and
identifies with the group because one has invested effort to be part of the group. The group has a
common symbol system and specific boundaries delineating an exclusive community where
members feel emotionally safe. These boundaries serve to establish communities with common
expectations and goals. In the context of blended learning courses, basic aspects of membership
are in place by virtue of signing up for a course and paying the course fees. Enrolment in the
17
course predetermines who is in and who is outside the learning community. Additionally, there
are common symbols in the course such as the LMS, the course syllabus and structure, and the
expectations around communicating and completing tasks. The degree to which an individual
feels a sense of community because of this membership will be greatly influenced by the effort
put in to be part of the group and the effort of the group to include individual members.
2.2.3.2 Influence.
The second element in MacMillan and Chavis’ framework is influence. In a close
community, influence of a member on the community and influence of the community on the
member occur simultaneously. A community’s influence on its members positively correlates to
cohesiveness among members. There may be several reasons that individuals choose not to
exercise personal agency or exert their influence on the community. If students perceive that
they do not have skills or knowledge that is likely to be better than others in the course then they
may choose not to exhibit influential behaviours. Students with little previous experience online
or who lack confidence about their subject knowledge or communication ability may not exert
influence. These students, however, may be influenced by the community by imitating
behaviours they perceive to be expected in terms of language usage, how information is
disseminated, and how opinions are shared etc.
2.2.3.3 Integration and fulfillment of needs.
The third element proposed by McMillan and Chavis is integration and fulfillment of
needs. Members need to feel that their efforts are being rewarded and their needs are being met
by participation in the community. In a blended learning community, faculty feedback on
assignments may be the only validation participants receive as the short duration of many
courses might limit the opportunity to develop personal status within the course.
2.2.3.4 Shared emotional connection.
The interaction of members in shared events may help or hinder the strength of the
community. Frequency and quality of interaction promotes group cohesiveness. As group
members interact, share events, invest efforts and have their efforts rewarded, emotional
connections deepen and a community of spirit evolves. A blended learning course can consist of
a number of shared events that can promote community.
18
2.2.4 Intercultural Communication Competence Theory
The interaction that supports learning is dependent on one’s ability to communicate in a
competent manner in order to be an active and effective part of the community. In a
multicultural setting, students need to be more than just communicatively competent – they need
to have intercultural communicative competence (ICC). According to Spitzberg (2009),
“intercultural communication competence is considered very broadly as an impression that
behavior is appropriate and effective in a given context” (p. 381).
Chen (1989) proposes four dimensions of intercultural communication competence:
personality strength, communication skills, psychological adaptation and cultural awareness.
Personal attributes include self-concept (the way in which we view ourselves), self-disclosure
(willingness to openly and appropriately reveal information about self), self-awareness (the
ability to monitor and be aware of self) and social relaxation (not showing anxiety in
communication). Communication skills include message skills (knowledge of the target
language and ability to use it), behavioral flexibility (ability to select appropriate behavior for
specific contexts and situations), interaction management (ability to turn take and manage a
conversation appropriately) and social skills (the ability to be responsive, perceptive and
attentive in interaction). Psychological adaptation includes ability to fit in with a new culture
and a feeling of self-satisfaction and contentment with the new environment. This requires an
ability to deal with stress, feelings of frustration, feelings of alienation and comfort with
ambiguous situations. The final dimension, cultural awareness, includes understanding the host
culture’s social values, customs, norms and systems (Chen & Starosta, 1995, pp 239-252). The
latter two dimensions speak to the contextual nature of intercultural communication competence.
Because ICC is contextual, when examining intercultural communication, it is important
to consider the context within which the competency has been developed. Oetzel (2009)
proposes a layered approach when examining intercultural communication. Individual behavior
is nested within specific contexts and intercultural communication takes place within each layer.
The individual layer emphasizes the identity and attitudes of the individual. The interpersonal
layer represents the individual’s interactions with family, friends and others. The organizational
layer represents individuals within a coordinated activity (like an online course) working towards
a common goal and the community/societal layer includes the historical, political, economic and
19
media factors constructing cultural institutions. Each layer is nested within the other layers (p.
35). The competence of the individuals taking part in the interaction depends on their ability to
interact effectively in the given context or layer with others. Therefore, individuals acting and
communicating a certain way may be perceived as interculturally competent in one context but
the same actions and communication style may be perceived as incompetent in a different
context if the values and behaviours of that context differ and the individuals are unable to adjust
their behaviours accordingly.
The ability to recognize cultural differences and modify one’s behaviour depends on the
degree of intercultural sensitivity one has. Individuals with low intercultural sensitivity behave
in a very ethnocentric manner while those with high sensitivity generally behave in an
ethnorelevant manner. According to Chen and Starosta (1995), IS is a dynamic and
multidimensional concept describing individual’s active desire to motivate themselves to
understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (p. 231). IS is composed of six
components: ethnorelativism, respect for cultural differences, adaptability, perspective taking,
open-mindedness, and acknowledgement of other’s needs. Ethnorelativism requires individuals
to accept cultural differences as legitimate without judging them against their own cultural
beliefs and behaviours. Respect for cultural differences requires individuals to recognize,
appreciate and accept cultural differences. Adaptability involves being able to adapt one’s
behaviour to match the situation and act in a way that is expected and accepted in a particular
context. Perspective-taking involves acknowledging other’s experience and perceptions, and not
acting in an egocentric way. Open-mindedness involves non-judgmental listening in
intercultural associations before forming an opinion. Acknowledgement of others’ needs means
being considerate and receptive of others’ needs and differences and making the other feel
validated even if agreement is not there (pp. 232-237).
Development of one’s ICC is ongoing as each new cultural encounter moves an
individual either forward or backward along a trajectory from an ethnocentric view of culture to
an ethno-relevant or worldview of culture. One’s IS will potentially impact on one’s ability to
effectively participate and consequently the degree to which one feels a part of the knowledge
building community.
20
2.2.5 A Theoretic Mix
Elements from each of the theories mentioned in this section need to be considered when
examining a situated, multicultural learning context. While this study particularly focuses on
sense of community, all of the constructs are important and overlapping factors that should be
considered when examining a multicultural context. On their own, each theory is inadequate to
capture the complexity of the influencing factors when students interact online. The concepts of
mindfulness and sensitivity overlap in both sense of community theory and intercultural
sensitivity theory. Without communicative competence, individuals cannot interact effectively
and move from the periphery to expert interaction. They cannot develop a sense of community
unless they are mindful of the customs and behaviours of the community and are able to modify
their behaviours to meet the expectations of that community and contribute to reaching mutual
goals. The socio-historical and ontogenetic influences affecting all interactants will play a
significant role and the effectiveness of the interactions that transpire will only be situated in that
context with that cohort at that specific time in their development.
2.3 Blended Learning
Blended or hybrid learning refers to courses that combine face-to-face instruction with
online learning. This mixed modality has gained in popularity because of the increased
flexibility in delivery patterns, access, scheduling, and potential reduction in costs it affords
(Cohere Report, 2011). In addition to the pragmatic benefits, blended learning provides
opportunities for engaging and meaningful learning experiences including reflective discussion and
debate and unlimited access to information (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p.97). These aspects of
blended learning support a constructivist pedagogy and help community building.
2.3.1 Blended Learning Research in Canada
A comprehensive review of Canadian e-learning studies which included all the Canadian
primary research and all scholarly reviews of the literature was conducted in 2006 by Abrami et
al.; their review of empirical research revealed some broad consensuses about blended learning
in general. The first conclusion was that “readiness” to use e-learning technologies was a
significant factor in e-learning success. The second conclusion was that the pedagogy for
teaching online was different from that of the traditional classroom. The third consensus was
21
that teachers needed specific professional development to teach optimally using CMC
technologies and the fourth conclusion was that the collaborative methods used in e-learning
facilitated the development of higher order thinking skills. In summarizing the focus of
Canadian e-learning research studies, they reported that few studies had examined learner
characteristics or school context effects. Most of the studies looked at the use of technologies in
distance education with the least amount of attention paid to hybrid/blended learning. Abrami et
al. (2006) concluded that research in e-learning had not been a priority in Canada like it had been
in the U.S. and much of what had gone on was qualitative. Additionally, there was little
empirical proof of the effectiveness of e-learning initiatives. Prior to the beginning of this
research project, little research related to blended learning had taken place in Canada and in
particular, not in community colleges.
A more recent review of e-learning in Canadian universities, the Cohere Report (2011),
focuses specifically on blended learning and details the results of surveys, interviews and
research projects conducted at eight Canadian universities. Aggregate benefits of blending
learning initiatives reported include “improved teaching and learning, greater flexibility for
learners, greater student satisfaction, improved student performance, a confluence of literacies
for the knowledge economy, and optimization of resources” (p. ii). While positive outcomes for
blended learning initiatives have been reported, studies have not been done which look at
demographic variables of the student cohort in relation to satisfaction and learning in the
Canadian context. Determining factors that influence student satisfaction may provide insight
into potential strategies to improve retention which is critical for post-secondary institutions.
2.3.2 Factors Influencing Satisfaction with Blended Courses
Abrami et al. (2006) reported that few Canadian studies had looked at factors that
supported the success of e-learning. Mount Royal University has been offering blended courses
for more than a decade. In 2000-2003, the Course Adaptation Research Project conducted an
evaluation of selected blended learning courses and surveyed students enrolled in blended
delivery courses. The students reported they had an enhanced understanding of course content in
the blended learning environment. A subsequent study of student experience in blended first
year courses at Mount Royal indicated that students who perceived a higher level of active and
22
collaborative learning in these courses also achieved the best final course grades (Vaughan,
Zimmer & Villamar, 2011, p. 4).
Researchers in other countries have examined specific factors related to e-learning. One
key factor that researchers have identified in student satisfaction with online courses is
interaction (Anderson, 2003; Barab & Duffy, 2000; Bolliger & Martindale, 2004; Palloff and
Pratt, 1999; Rovai, 2002a; Shea, Frederickson, Pickett, Peltz & Swan, 2001; Swan, 2002).
Kistow (2011) examined the experiences of post graduate students at the Graduate School of
Business, Trinidad and Tobago transitioning to a blended learning mode. The majority of the
students appreciated the increased flexibility and convenience of a blended course but felt that at
least 50% of the program should be offered face to face. The student’s age, comfort level with
the Learning Management System (LMS) and the clarity of the online materials were factors
related to student enjoyment (p. 115). Kistow (2011) reported the results of several studies into
blended learning that indicate that students enjoy blended learning classes and value the
opportunity to meet and discuss course content with their peers and instructor face to face but
also value the opportunity to use information technology as a learning tool.
2.4 Situated Online Learning Communities
The dearth of research examining online learning in Canada is significant because of the
critical role that context plays in learning communities. An online learning community is a
group of learners, connected through computer-mediated communication, who actively
participate in collaborative learning tasks to foster knowledge sharing, group values and joined
practice (Wilson, 2001). Canada is multicultural, and in a metropolitan city like Toronto,
students from many cultures and distinctly different backgrounds and educational experiences
are studying together. Additionally, the global nature of the internet facilitates participation by
members of different cultures making learning communities in Canada potentially unique.
Blended learning research has primarily been done in the United States and while the context
may be similar, it may not be possible to generalize findings to the Canadian context.
2.4.1 Developing Online Community and Learning
The significance of social relationships and interactivity in computer-mediated distance
education has been clearly established and documented in the literature (Anderson, 2003; Barab
23
& Duffy, 2000; Hiltz, 1994; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk & Lee, 2007; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Rovai,
2002a; Swan, 2002; Tsai, Kim, Goggins, Kumalasari, Laffey, 2008). Wenger (1998) posits that
we learn through participation in activities and that learning should be measured by our ability to
contribute to a community of practice. Learning communities have two features which support
sense of community (SoC) - affective aspects such as supportive behaviours, demonstrations of
respect, caring and commitment as well as opportunities for meaningful learning through
purposeful interaction (Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989; Dewey, 1938/1963; Lave & Wenger,
1991).
McLoughlin (2001) provides the following course design guidelines to support the
development of meaningful learning and to promote cultural inclusivity in global online
environments:
Provide experience of the knowledge construction process;
Provide experience in and appreciation of multiple perspectives;
Create learning tasks that are relevant and authentic;
Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process;
Embed learning in social experience;
Encourage the development of multiple modes of representation;
Encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.
The guidelines encourage active engagement, establishment of individual and group identity,
interaction with others who have different opinions, beliefs and values and learning which
emerges from a social process. These guidelines support the development of community online.
Academic online learning communities bring together participants from various cultures
and previous learning experiences with one common goal, which is to develop knowledge.
One’s ability to feel a part of this learning process will depend on one’s participation and agency
in the community. According to Rogoff’s (1995) apprenticeship metaphor, learning is the
process of becoming a member of a community. Through an individual’s involvement in
community activity, the individual becomes prepared to take part in subsequent related activities.
Rogoff calls this “participatory appropriation” which she defines as “the personal process by
which, through engagement in an activity, individuals change and handle a later situation in ways
prepared by their own participation in the previous situation” (p. 142).
24
The importance of participating in a learning community is further supported by Lave and
Wenger (1991) who posit that learning is a process of participation in communities with
movement from periphery to engagement. This trajectory acknowledges the changing
participation and identity transformation that occurs as individuals acculturate to the community
and move from peripheral observation to active central participation. Lave (1993) underscores
the importance of presence to learning; “Developing an identity as a member of a community
and becoming knowledgeably skilful are part of the same process, with the former motivating,
shaping, and giving meaning to the latter, which it subsumes” (p. 65). Wegerif (1998) suggests
individual success or failure in an online course depends upon whether students are able to cross
the threshold from feeling like outsiders to feeling like insiders. In order to achieve this, learners
must be able to communicate their individual identities and establish their presence online.
2.5 Sense of Community
Sense of community (SoC) is “the feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that
members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be
met through their commitment together” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9). Westheimer and
Kahne (1993) define sense of community as a result of interaction and deliberation by people
brought together by similar interests and goals (cited in Rovai, 2002a). What these definitions
have in common is the idea that for a community to develop, members need to share expectations
and goals; they need to feel they belong to the group, are supported by the group, trust the group,
share common histories and are able to interact competently to achieve the groups’ goals. As the
group and medium is context specific, sense of community is context specific. Based on this
concept of community, Rovai and Lucking (2000) have theorized that spirit (the feeling of
belonging and acceptance of group identity), trust (the feeling that the community can be trusted
and the feedback will be forthcoming and constructive), interaction (the feeling that closeness
and interaction result from interacting with others), and learning (the feeling that knowledge and
meaning are actively constructed within the community, pp. 34-35) are components of classroom
community.
Rovai (2002a) examined SoC within an online learning context and provided a detailed
explanation of the four dimensions that essentially define classroom community. The first
25
dimension spirit includes the recognition of membership in a community and feelings of
friendship, cohesion and bonding that learners develop as they spend time together. This leads to
a sense of connectedness, without which students can feel lonely, isolated and not be motivated
to succeed. The second dimension is trust, which is the feeling that community members can be
trusted to be credible, genuinely supportive and motivated to help each other. Feelings of trust
enable learners to expose gaps in their learning when they feel that members of the community
will support and help them move to a deeper level of understanding. The third dimension is
interaction which needs to be both socio-emotional driven supporting the development of
relations among learners and task-driven related to learning. These interactions will be
influenced by individuals’ personalities, communication styles, socio-historical backgrounds, and
sense of spirit and trust they have developed. The final dimension is learning which is the
common goal of the learning community. This reflects commitment to a common educational
purpose and the feeling that their education needs are being met through active participation in
the community (pp. 3-6). SoC is a psychological construct situated in a specific community at a
particular time.
Taking all aspects of the construct into consideration, Rovai (2002d) defines SoC as “ a
feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the
group, that they have duties and obligations to each other and to the school, and that they possess
shared expectations that members’ educational needs will be met through their commitment to
shared learning goals” (p. 322). This definition is based on the literature and is sufficiently
detailed to provide a clear understanding of the construct. Rovai (2002d) proposes that SoC
“consists of two components: the feelings of connectedness among community members and
commonality of learning expectations and goals” (p. 322).
2.5.1 Constructs Similar to Connectedness
Social presence is another term emerging from the literature which is close in concept to
connectedness (spirit, trust and interaction). A significant number of relevant studies have
examined interaction in online communities to assess social presence. In distance education,
research based on the theory of social presence reveals several different interpretations of the
concept of social presence. Originally coined by Short, Williams and Christie (1976), social
presence was defined as the “degree of salience of the other in the (mediated) interaction and the
26
consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65). Gunawardena (1995) defined
social presence as the “degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated
communication (p. 151). Wolcott (1996) defined social presence in terms of the degree that
adult learners perceive they have established some sort of rapport through their online
interactions. Another definition by Tu and McIsaac (2002) focuses more on a sense of belonging
and interaction ability. They define social presence as the “degree of feeling, perception, and
reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through a text-based
encounter” (p. 140). Picciano (2002) defines social presence as “a student’s sense of being in
and belonging in a course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor
although physical contact is not available” (p. 22). Other definitions include reference to
qualities of the medium that may impact social presence. According to Garrison, Anderson and
Archer (2000), social presence represents “the ability of participants in a community of inquiry
to project themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people (i.e. their full personality)
through the medium of the communication being used” (p. 94). Kim (2011) based his definition
of social presence on a critical review of definitions and characteristics of social presence in the
literature. He defines social presence as “the specific awareness of relations among the members
in a mediated communication environment and the degree of proximity and affiliation formed
through it” (p.4). Lowenthal (2010) place these definitions along a continuum. At one end
researchers conceptualize social presence as being there / being real and at the other end
researchers go beyond this perception to include interpersonal emotional connections. He
concludes that most definitions fall somewhere near the middle of the continuum (p. 15).
Also similar to social presence and connectedness is the construct of transactional
presence. Shin (2003) outlined the construct of Transactional Presence (TP) which he defines as
“the degree to which a distance education student senses the availability of, and connectedness
with, each party” (p. 69) to theorize about the online students’ perceptions of significant others
involved in distance learning. This places appropriate emphasis on the mediated nature of social
interactions.
The various definitions of sense of community and social or transactional presence have
several elements in common with connectedness. Participants are able to establish an identity
online and through their interactions, connect on an emotional level with others taking part in the
27
learning community. Research in these areas has advanced our understanding of learning and
community development; however, the inconsistent concept of presence and connectedness that
exists in the body of literature related to SoC makes comparisons between studies problematic.
For this reason, the definition of SoC that I am using is Rovai’s, and for the discussion portions
of the research questions related to SoC, only studies based on the same definition will be used in
comparative analyses.
2.5.2 Measurement of Sense of Community
Several tools exist to evaluate sense of community and the overlapping constructs social
presence and transactional presence (Appendix A). Each instrument measures slightly different
aspects related to the constructs and in most cases has not undergone rigorous validation
processes. While most of the instruments developed measure learners’ attitudes (Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1997; Kim, 2011; Lin, 2004; Tu, 2002), a few instruments were generated to measure
learners’ behaviours (Dueber and Misanchuk, 2001; Liu et al.,2007; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison
and Archer, 2001).
Some of these tools have been used in a limited number of other research studies;
however, the volume of tools used based on the different conceptions attest to the complexity of
the construct measured. One widely used tool in online research to measure SoC is the
classroom community scale (CCS) developed by Rovai (2002c) which distinguishes between the
dimensions of connectedness and learning, the two dimensions of his definition of SoC. This
scale is based on Rovai’s well-defined interpretation of SoC. This 20 item inventory has 10
items related to feelings of connectedness and 10 items related to learning. The CCS was
established as being reliable and valid with high content and construct validities through pilot
studies, factorial analysis, statistical measures such as Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman split half
coeffiecients (Rovai, 2002c). The CCS was originally designed and validated in a North
American context with an ethnic group composed of White (62%), African-American (24%) and
other (14%). A slightly revised version of the CCS was used in an Australian context by
Dawson (2006). He used focus groups to identify words or concepts that might lead to
misunderstanding because of the context specific terminology (eg. The term ‘course’ in Australia
is commonly understood to mean a series of linked units not one individual unit). Using
exploratory factor analysis as well as other statistical measures, Dawson reported similar validity
28
and reliability scores as those provided by Rovai. Dawson did not report the ethnic backgrounds
of the students participating in the study but the setting was a large metropolitan university. The
benefits of using a quantifiable scale such as the CCS to measure SoC is that levels of
community can be determined (Dawson, 2006). The CCS measures attitudes but because it is
based on a robust definition of the construct and is composed of statistically significant factors it
can be operationalized to also measure behaviours.
The constructs sense of community and social presence in online courses have been
studied in relation to various factors such as feelings of isolation and student retention (Carr,
2000; Rovai, 2002a; Rovai & Wighting, 2005); satisfaction and learning (Exter, Harlin &
Bichelmeyer, 2009; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Karatas &
Simsek,2009; Kim, 2011; LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2004; Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011;
Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rovai, 2002a; Russo & Benson, 2005; Swan, 2002;
Swan & Shih, 2005; Tinto, 1997; Wegerif, 1998); motivation (Wighting, Liu & Rovai, 2008) and
desire for SoC (Drouin, 2008; Drouin and Vartanian, 2010; Liu, Magjuka, Bonk & Lee., 2007;
Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011). These studies provide insight into the impact of community in
online courses.
2.5.3 Measurement of Learning
Researchers in distance learning have used various tools to study evidence of meaningful
learning in online courses in relation to participant’s SoC. In each of these studies, the
importance of social presence, trust, and active participation can be seen as requisite for a
successful collaborative experience. Some studies have used grades to measure learning
(Misanchuk, 2003, Picianno, 2002; Russo & Benson, 2005). Other studies have used students’
perceptions of learning (Rovai, 2002d; Rovai, 2003; Russo & Benson, 2005). Self-reports of
cognitive learning are considered a valid measure. Picciano (2002) posits that studies that have
relied on students’ perceptions of learning are appropriate because these perceptions may
influence students’ willingness to continue with coursework and other learning opportunities.
2.5.4 Relevant Studies on Sense of Community
Several studies played a key role in the design of my research. A very comprehensive
study that measured dimensions of connectedness in an online community was done by Rovai
(2001). The study involved 20 adult learners involved in education, studying a five week online
29
course at a distance using the Blackboard platform. Two critical variables that he identified in
relation to the feeling of community are the dimensions of connectedness (which include feelings
of trust and belonging) and learning (the extent to which a participant’s cognitive needs have
been met). Rovai posits that the condensed nature of online learning creates challenges for
development of communities online. To measure participants’ sense of community, he used the
Sense of Classroom Community Index (SCCI) which he administered at the beginning and end
of the course. Rovai compared SoC and analysis of message content between genders and found
that communication patterns and SoC differed significantly between genders. He found that
participants that had a high SoC wrote messages using a connected voice (supportive and helpful
without being assertive). These messages consisted of text that referenced self or family, made
reference to another learner's family, described personal experiences, offered praise and
encouragement, or used supporting statements of agreement such as "you're right" or "that's
true." Those with the lowest SoC tended to write messages using an independent voice
(impersonal, assertive and authoritative). These messages consisted of text that was arrogant,
argumentative, confrontational, defended or asserted self, disagreed, or contained rude or hostile
remarks. Rovai was unable to determine whether those who had a high SoC at the end of the
course were predisposed toward strong feelings of community from the start. This study was
significant because it was done using the same LMS (Blackboard) that I used for my study. It
also used a course that was only 5 weeks in duration. The courses in my study ranged in length
from 7 to 12 weeks so it was important to locate research that indicated that SoC, although very
temporal in nature, could in fact be established and measured in short courses. The notion of
connected voice and independent voice are also related to my interest in communication
competence.
Researchers have used various aspects of participant communication such as discussion
forum contributions, live chat transcripts and LMS statistics to examine presence of community
in online contexts but acknowledge that application of SoC to qualitative methods is in its
infancy (Dueber & Misanchuk, 2001). Two studies by Dawson had a significant impact on the
qualitative analysis used in my study. Dawson (2006) used features of the LMS to provide
summaries of interaction data which included numbers of new threads versus replies to existing
threads and the quantity of posts by students and faculty. Unit discussion forum contributions
30
were coded into the interaction types, learner-learner (interaction between peers), learner-content
(posts between teaching staff and students) and system (orphan posts). These statistics were then
correlated with the CCS scores to see if they were predictive of a students’ SoC. He found no
significant correlation between the number of forum contributions and SoC. However, he did
find a relationship and moderate effect size (r = 0.48) between the degree of learner-learner
interactions and SoC and its subscale Connectedness and a negative correlation between SoC and
its subscale Connectedness and the number of system posts. No correlation was found between
the type of interaction and the subscale Learning. While this type of analysis can provide insight
into the presence of SoC online, reliance on LMS statistics makes certain assumptions. Without
reading the actual discussion posts, the researcher is making the assumption that a new thread is
actually a new discussion topic and does not relate to any previous threads. This may not be the
case for students who do not use the threading aspects of the discussion forum appropriately.
Additionally, one aspect of this study to note is that 84% of the participants were female which
although consistent with the demographics of the general education student population at the
university being studied, may have had a strong influence on the data. Previous studies have
indicated that females generally feel a higher SoC in online courses and speak with a more
inclusive voice (Chou, 2004; Rovai, 2001). The population in my study was almost evenly
distributed by gender and I was interested to see if I would find a similar correlation.
A study by Dawson (2008) investigated the relationship between SoC and forum
discussion interactions. This study was the first to use Rovai’s definition of SoC to develop
related codes that aligned with the dimensions measured by the CCS. Because the coding
scheme used to measure behaviour is based on the same definition as the scale used to measure
attitude, it has both content and face validity. He used social network analysis in his study to
determine if betweenness, closeness and degrees were predictors of SoC. He found that a
moderate proportion of the variance in Community could be accounted for by the variables.
Closeness and degrees were found to be positive predictors of community and its associated
subscales and betweenness indicated a negative correlation. Through the content analysis, he
was able to identify patterns of interaction and their primary purpose. During the first 5 weeks of
the teaching period, social postings were the dominant interactions. He noted a substantial
increase in facilitator posts and subsequent learning interactions in the final 6 weeks. Dawson
31
also conducted interviews with the students receiving high and low SoC scores. He found that
students who had high SoC in the discussion forum reported having limited external contacts to
assist them with and discuss the learning content. This is an interesting finding because it
demonstrates the importance of social networks and also indicates that not all learning is
happening or can be observed within the forum discussions. The primary contribution of this
study lies in the coding scheme used to classify forum discussion contributions based on the
dimensions of SoC used in the CCS. The coding scheme is useful for investigating the
dimensions of connectedness and learning.
2.5.5 Factors Affecting Sense of Community
Psychologists have found that sense of community is greatly influenced by the length of
time one expects to remain in the community (Glynn, 1981). Based on group cohesive research,
McMillan and Chavis (1986) reported that feeling influential in a community, being influenced
by others in the community to take on the norms of that community (conformity), and receiving
validation from the community increase cohesive bonds and the resulting SoC. Palloff and Pratt
(1999) posit that a community must have elements of honesty, responsiveness, relevance,
openness and empowerment for members to feel a sense of safety and security to actively
participate and develop SoC. In order to become an insider in a community, an individual needs
to take an active part in the activities of the community. An individual’s active participation and
influence (agency), therefore, is critical to their success of moving from the periphery to inside.
He or she must be motivated to be in the community, be open to being mentored by others in the
community, and be open to sharing their personal knowledge. In addition, they must be willing
and able to modify their behaviours if they differ from what is expected and accepted in the
community and support others in the community to feel a sense of belonging.
2.5.5.1 Demographic variables.
Research on online courses has revealed some demographic variables that may have an
influence on SoC. Some studies examining factors that influenced SoC in online courses found
that gender was significant and that females had a higher SoC (Rovai, 2001) while other studies
reported that gender was not a factor (Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shea, Li & Pickett, 2006; Swan
& Shih, 2005) or that males had higher SoC (Justus, 2005; Kim, 2011). Another factor, age, was
32
not significant (Kim, 2011). Educational maturity was also found to have an effect on SoC
(Rovai, Wighting & Liu 2005; Shea et al. 2006).
2.5.5.2 Feelings, actions or activities.
Researchers have also studied the influence of feelings, actions or activities on SoC.
Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins and Shoemaker (2000) found that feelings of isolation led to a low
SoC. Dawson (2006; 2008) found that frequency of communication significantly influenced
SoC. An individual’s reason for taking the course was not statistically a significant factor (Shea
et al., 2006) but according to Pace (1990) major and length of study was a significant factor (as
cited in Rovai, 2002a).
A very interesting study by Rovai (2003) investigated the relationship between
communicator style, personality-based learning style and SoC in a group of doctoral students
taking online courses. Participants were administered the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Form
M, a 93 item forced choice questionnaire designed to identify personality type before the start of
their coursework. He administered the CCS to evaluate their SoC and the Communicator Style
Measure, a 51 item Likert type inventory, to measure the 10 communicator styles of friendly,
impression leaving, relaxed, contentious, attentive, precise, animated, dramatic, open and
dominant three weeks before the end of the course. Rovai found no correlation between
personality-based learning styles and SoC or its subscales, Connectedness and Learning, leading
him to suggest that professors can structure an online course, build community and nurture
relationships between learners regardless of their personality-based learning styles (p. 361).
Rovai reported that communicator styles of friendly and open were positively related to
Connectedness and precise was positively related to both Connectedness and Learning. He
cautioned that because the study was done with a single course it may not generalize to other
distance education contexts.
These aggregate results provide evidence that demographic and personal behavioural
variables and actions can have an influence on SoC. However, the empirical evidence is not
consistent and may be heavily influenced by context due to the temporal and situational nature of
a community. These inconsistencies indicate that further research is needed in this area
particularly in the Canadian context where little research into SoC online has been conducted.
33
2.6 Culture in Online Learning
Culture and communication have a reciprocal influence on each other (Gudykunst, 1997).
Defining culture is a complex task because culture is a complex term. Although countless
definitions have been used by theorists, at the core are several key characteristics. A definition
by L. Robert Kohls’ Survival Kit for Living Overseas as cited in Sadri and Flammia (2011) states
that
culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns that are characteristic
of the members of any given society. Culture refers to the total way of life of
particular groups of people. It includes everything that a group of people thinks,
says, does, and makes – its customs, language, material artifacts, and shared
systems of attitudes and feelings. Culture is learned and transmitted from
generation to generation. (p. 32)
The culture in which one is socialized influences how an individual communicates and will be
shaped over time by the communication that takes place. Most people study culture in a vacuum,
ignoring the reciprocal influence of communication and culture (Gundykunst, 1997, p. 327) and
fail to recognize it as being fluid and dynamic (Ess & Sudweeks, 2005).
Technology has been described as a ‘cultural amplifier’ by Cole and Engestrőm (1993).
Without the opportunity to build a sense of trust through face-to-face encounters or to take
advantage of nonverbal communication (hand gestures, facial expressions etc.), object
communication (clothes, skin colour etc.) and features of oral speech (tone, pitch etc.) that
account for a significant aspect of communication, virtual participants must rely solely on their
socio-culturally shaped perceptions and interpretations of the written word as they work
collaboratively with people who have different values, beliefs and ways of learning. Hasler
(2011) calls joint efforts where members with common goals from different cultures interact in
synchronous activities ‘intercultural collaborative learning.’ Pincas (2001) noted how language
mediated and influenced cognition and this causes many issues when people from many different
language backgrounds interact. Typically, this has resulted in frustration and a lack of
participation in online collaboration (Reeder et al., 2004; Ware, 2005). The resulting
intercultural communication can be problematic when expectations and interpretations of
34
behaviours, ideas and contextual clues are disparate – a mismatch that Wilson (2001) labeled
“cultural discontinuities.” While the absence of visual and audio signals may reduce
stereotyping and prejudice in a virtual environment, communication remains strongly influenced
by culture. When participants lack information about the cultural backgrounds of others taking
part in the group discussion, they make judgments based on their own culture’s norms and
values.
2.6.1 Relevant Studies of Culture Online
Many studies in intercultural communication online have looked at interactions taking
place between cohorts from different countries and have used classifications based on the
distinguishing values, beliefs and behaviours of the country’s national culture as established by
Hofstede (1980) and Hall (1976) (high vs. low context; power distance; uncertainty avoidance;
individualism vs. collectivism; masculinity vs. femininity, and long-term orientation) to either
frame their hypothesis or explain their results (Chang et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006;
Gunawardena et al., 2001; Kim and Bonk, 2002). Although essentialist views of culture are
helpful in explicating some of the obvious differences that participants may experience in cross-
cultural settings, they assume heterogeneity of individuals within the nation and do not
necessarily reflect individual identities that may differ from national cultural constructs. Ess and
Sudweeks (2005), in their criticism of Hall and Hofstede’s national identities, point out that these
assumptions ignore internal ethnic and linguistic diversities resulting from immigration and
globalization which may actually lead to a ‘third’ identity representing complex hybridizations of
earlier cultural patterns (para. 5).
In our global world, people often have experience in more than one culture (Chase,
Macfadyen, Reeder & Roche, 2002; Morse, 2003). Online learning often involves interaction
with participants identifying simultaneously with multiple frames of reference (Hewling, 2006).
Raybourn, King and Davies (2003) as cited in Hewling (2006) propose that a third culture
emerges resulting from co-creation of narratives in these interactions resulting in a shared
context of understanding. Hewling points out that this emergent culture is inclusive of all
members and allows validation of their multiple viewpoints which is positive; however, she
cautions that this also assumes active engagement by all members which is generally not the case
35
in online interactions. It is also false to think of the ‘third’ culture as a finished state because that
implies it will have a continuing function and validity once complete. She proposes that what is
produced is actually a series of ‘third” cultures as each class culture is unique and the
participants will not have the same experience in subsequent classes due to the different mix of
students and content (p. 341).
Two studies of note have attempted to explore situated and ontogenetic influences on
intercultural on-line communication. Reeder et al. (2004) focused on the situated nature of the
intercultural communication. They hypothesized that participants that shared the communication
culture inherent in the design and delivery of the course would have the least difficulty
communicating successfully; whereas, participants whose communicative cultures and values
differed would be less successful. They conducted a multidisciplinary study of online
participation by 24 multicultural participants (17 female and 7 male; 9 born and educated outside
North America) enrolled in a mixed-mode introductory distance education course in Intercultural
Studies. Two separate cohorts met face to face for two days at the beginning of the course and
were then blended for six weeks of facilitated online assignments and discussions. The
researchers looked at the “communicative culture” of the course itself, cultural gaps between
participants and the potential consequences for online communication, as well as participation
frequencies as a function of broad cultural groupings. Through an analysis of participation
patterns analyzed according to ethnic backgrounds, they found that participants that shared the
communication culture of the course participated more than those who did not share the culture
of the class. They also found that distinctions in participants’ perceptions of personal culture,
role and identity potentially contributed to communication challenges.
An alternate consideration of grouping factors by Shafer (2004), who considered the
ontogenetic influences on communication, resulted in observations that somewhat contradict
those reported by Reeder et al. (2004). Considering an acculturation framework, Shafer (2004)
grouped students according to the location of their K-12 education rather than their ethnic
culture; additionally, she considered previous exposure to the use of threaded discussions to
acknowledge the influence that the “culture” of the platform potentially has on an individual’s
situated participation. Her study looked at the views of American-schooled and foreign-schooled
graduate students toward online discussions. The researcher found that American schooled
36
participants were more likely to experience confusion and frustration with the threaded
discussions than the foreign-schooled immigrants whose dual culture frame helped them identify
and then adapt quicker to the threads. Those participants (from both groups) who brought a
single culture reference had a harder time adapting because they assumed the threaded
discussions would be a continuation of their familiar cultures of learning. After time, there was a
pattern of convergence but the researcher noted that the Americans were less aware of the
cultural influences of their communication, rhetorical and participation styles. Foreign trained
participants reported that they faced ongoing challenges because of linguistic and cultural
differences.
Both studies indicate that cultural identity does indeed play a significant and influential
role in CMC; however, Shafer’s (2004) research indicates that it is important to acknowledge
participants’ multicultural experiences rather than just their national cultures when looking to
explain or predict patterns and challenges of intercultural CMC. Although essentialist views of
culture are helpful in pointing out some of the obvious differences that participants experience in
intercultural settings, it is important to recognize that these descriptors are static snapshots of
national cultures that seem to imply an inability of the culture to change and evolve. What
culture is not, is static. As Hewling (2006) states, it is an “ongoing iterative process.” It evolves
over time in a continuous progression of sense-making within a particular context and from a
particular viewpoint (Gee, 2000). We carry our formative culture with us when we participate in
another cultural setting (Collis, 1999), but it is important to note that we are not an agentless
embodiment of our normative culture. Our personal experiences, schemas and beliefs shape our
behaviour and create a subjective culture (Triandis, 1972 as cited in Ting-Toomey, 1999; Wild &
Henderson, 1997) that evolves as we interact in new situations. In our global world, people often
have experience in more than one culture (Chase et al., 2002; Morse, 2003) so I felt that it was
highly likely that the participants in this study would also have had a range of experiences with
other cultures that need to be acknowledged because it would likely influence their ability to
adapt their behaviour and acculturate to the ‘culture’ established in the online community.
When cultural values, beliefs, histories and meanings of artifacts are shared by
participants, collaboration is likely to be less unsettling and challenging than when the
interaction is happening between individuals whose values, beliefs and behaviours are dissonant
37
(Suderman, 2007). The higher the degree of similarity of perception that exists among a number
of individuals, other things being equal, (a) the easier is communication among them likely to be,
(b) the more communication among them is likely to occur, and (c) the more likely it is that this
similarity of perception will be recognized – that an identity group will form (Singer, 1998, p.
99). Recognition of, and openness to, the legitimacy of differing values and beliefs, an ability to
communicate with others who have different communication styles and individual agency in the
process (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Shin, 2003) are skills necessary for successful
intercultural communication.
2.6.2 Communication Competence
Spitzberg (1988) defines competent communication as “interaction that is perceived as
effective in fulfilling certain rewarding objectives in a way that is also appropriate to the context
in which the interaction occurs (p. 68). The medium of course discussion is English, which for
some participants is their first language while for others is a dialect or second language (L2).
While all participants have a prerequisite competency in English, they may not share a common
cultural background or accustomed usage of the language. Although participants may be
linguistically competent, learners may not have developed the degree of sophistication needed to
also be sociolinguistically competent.
Students’ self-perception of their language ability and willingness to take risks impact
their online interactions. In the words of motivational speaker Jim Rohn, "effective
communication is 20% what you know and 80% how you feel about what you know." Online
communities differ in very significant ways from face-to-face communities. The text-based
nature of the internet affords some degree of anonymity and provides a means for less vocal or
introverted participants to play a more equalized role in interactions. However, L2 students’
linguistic skills may deter participation. Gunawardena et al. (2001) reported that language
became a significant barrier for the Mexican students interacting online with the American
students and detracted from equal participation (p. 89). Similarly, Kim and Bonk (2002)
reported that the paucity of cross postings between the Finnish and Koreans could potentially be
attributed to participants’ language expertise and self-confidence participating in their L2 even
though the Finnish students were training to be English teachers. Lave and Wenger (1991) posit
that in order for participants to move smoothly and quickly from the periphery of a learning
38
community to active participation, learners must master basic social communication skills such
as communicating clearly and accepting or supporting one another.
While students may have direct control over their linguistic abilities which include
syntax, morphology, phonetics, phonemics, graphemics, lexicon as well as their computer skills,
secondary influences such as uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism, collectivism,
masculinity / femininity, gender and socio-linguistic elements may be exerting unconscious
influence on their behaviour. Asynchronous discussions can both support and challenge
participants’ language skills and cultural knowledge. Research on CMC has found that
participants collaborating in a second language have time to plan their postings which can lead to
higher levels of participation (Kim & Bonk, 2002; Ortega, 1997). While some aspects of CMC
are ideal for L2 participants, other aspects may deter successful interaction. The absence of
nonverbal clues is a challenge because chances to discern meaning are reduced (Chase et al.,
2002; Gunawardena et al., 2001).
2.6.3 Intercultural Communication Competence
Intercultural communication competence is the ability to communicate with distinctly
different cultures in an effective manner for both parties. “Intercultural communication occurs
whenever a person from one culture sends a message to be processed by a person from another
culture” (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2007, p. 7) and the people creating shared meaning in the
communication process “have different cultural perspectives and values” (Sadri & Flammia,
2011, p. 10). In a multicultural online setting, an individual’s ability to both communicate and
empathize with people from other cultures is requisite. These skills represent an individual’s
intercultural communicative competence (ICC). Communication is considered intercultural
when the participants share few group identities in common and the cultural distance between
them is significant enough to effect the interaction in a noticeable way to at least one of the
groups (Lustig & Koester, 1999; Singer, 1998; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). Wiseman
(2001) states that ICC encompasses the knowledge (cognitive), motivation (affective), and skills
(behavioural) to interact effectively and appropriately with members of different cultures.
Intercultural communication competence is context driven. It involves social judgment that
people make about others so it will always be specific to the context in which the interaction
occurs (Lustig & Koester, 1999). For the purpose of this research, I adopt the definition of ICC
39
put forward by Chen and Starosta (1999). Intercultural communication competence is “the
ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors that negotiate each
other’s cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment” (p. 28).
Participants’ cultural worldviews are arguably the most influential factor in their ability
to communicate in multicultural environments. This worldview is a direct reflection of their
national culture and influencing life experiences with other cultures. It is constantly changing
with each new intercultural encounter and has a direct impact on interactions. As Rogoff (1995)
states, “the present event is different from what it would have been if the past had not occurred”
(p. 155). Intercultural communicative competence potentially changes as a result of interactions
with culturally different others. However, the learning and resulting changes to one’s own
cultural worldview only happen through reflection on the experience rather than just contact
(Otten, 2003).
Martin and Nakayama (2008) also see ICC as shifting through the effect of internalizing
experiences. Specifically they outline four distinct levels of intercultural communication
competence. The first level is unconscious incompetence where the individual is unaware of
cultural differences or the need to act in a certain way. The second level is conscious
incompetence where the individual may have an awareness that the interaction is not successful
but is unable to identify the cause. The third level is conscious competence where the individual
is conscious of difference and acts intentionally to ensure successful interaction. The fourth level
is unconscious competence which individuals reach when successful communication is no longer
reliant on a conscious process. It occurs when the analytic (conscious, rational) and holistic
(unconscious, intuitive) parts of the brain function together (p. 252).
2.6.3.1 Socio-cultural influence
Linguistic ability in the English medium is only one aspect of an individual’s ability to
communicate with others. Another significant influencing factor is participants’ socio-cultural
backgrounds. “When a person acts…his past is present. It is the underlying beliefs and values
that shape people’s thinking and behaving” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 26) that have the greatest
influence on their personal schemata and hence their interaction with others. Dupraw and Axner
(1999) outline six fundamental patterns of cultural differences: 1) different communication styles
- for example language usage; 2) different attitudes towards conflict - for example viewing
40
conflict as a positive thing or something to be avoided; 3) different approaches to completing
tasks – for example different paths to follow when moving towards completing a task; 4)
different decision making styles – for example the roles individuals play in making decisions; 5)
different attitudes toward disclosure – for example how much personal information one is
comfortable sharing; and 6) different approaches to knowing – for example differing
epistemologies about how learning takes place and is shared (p.3). One’s cultural background
and experiences fundamentally influence an individual’s communication style and ability.
Crystal and Davy (1969) state that any utterance, whether spoken or written, displays features
which simultaneously identify it from a number of different points of view including information
about the writer’s regional background or his place on a social scale of some kind, aspects of the
social situation in which he is writing, the kind of person to whom he is writing and the capacity
in which he is writing (p. 64). Thus in any communication, three aspects are at play - the
historical, the ontogenetic and the situated.
A marked variance in the socio-cultural backgrounds of individuals participating in a
situated learning experience can negatively influence interaction. Because an individual’s
culture shapes the meaning given to words, when individuals from different cultures are involved
in communication, it is less likely that the attempt to convey meaning will be successful (Rogers
& Steinfatt, 1999; Suderman, 2007). Initially, in interactions with people from cultures that
differ in their values, beliefs and cultural artifacts, there is potentially discomfort and conflict as
students grapple with constructs that are outside their cultural schemata. However, it is this
grappling with diversity in experience and opinion that is needed to construct learning and take
one’s understanding to a deeper level. Understanding that these differences exist and are equally
relevant to one’s own set of beliefs and practices is necessary to develop effective intercultural
communication competence (ICC). Students who do not share the same cultural backgrounds or
linguistic abilities may find it difficult to develop a sense of trust and take an active role in the
interactions; consequently, communication cannot be studied in isolation from culture and
historical influences cannot be considered separately from ontogenetic factors.
2.6.3.2 Mindfulness in intercultural communication.
Sadri and Flammia (2011) define mindful communication as “interactions with members
of other cultures in which an individual strives to understand the cultural values, beliefs, and
41
norms of other parties and to use that understanding to adapt his/her communication style to
achieve a meaningful exchange and a win-win result” (p. 26). Mindfulness of the differing
sociocultural backgrounds of other individuals in the online community is critical to the
development of trusting relationships (Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003). The behaviours
associated with a high SoC are similar to the behaviors of individuals that have high IS and are
ethnorelevant in their outlook, while behaviors associated with low SoC are similar to those of
individuals with low IS whose outlook is generally more ethnocentric.
2.6.3.3 Intercultural sensitivity.
Recognition of, and openness to, the legitimacy of differing values and beliefs, an ability
to communicate with others who have different communication styles and individual agency in
the process (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Shin, 2003) are skills necessary for successful ICC.
While the cognitive (cultural awareness) and behavioural ability (adroitness in intercultural
encounters) are equally important aspects of ICC, their development is influenced by individual’s
sensitivity to cultural differences (affective ability).
Hammer, Bennett and Wiseman (2003) define intercultural sensitivity as “the ability to
discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences”(p. 422) which they distinguish from
ICC which is “the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways” (p. 422). Bennett
(1993, 1998) describes the following developmental stages in an individual’s level of
intercultural sensitivity. In his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), the
first three stages are considered ethnocentric or monocultural, while the latter three fall in the
ethnorelative or intercultural realm. Individuals who are ethnocentric view their reality through
their own cultural frame of reference while individuals who are ethnorelevant view their culture
as part of a larger group of multiple cultures. Although Bennet defines IS as ‘knowing’
(affective) and ICC (observable) as ‘doing’, it should be noted that in the stages of IS in his
model, the descriptors incorporate observable behaviours associated with each affective stage.
Stage 1: denial – superficial statements of tolerance towards difference; limited /
simplistic knowledge of other cultures
Stage 2: defense – recognition and negative evaluation of cultural difference; polarization
of a denigrated ‘them’ with a superior ‘us’.
42
Stage 3: minimization– emphasizes similarities amongst human beings while recognizing
only superficial cultural differences; assumes that deep down humans are essentially all the same
Stage 4: acceptance –accepts viability of different cultural ways of thinking and
behaving; tolerates ambiguity; not able to take action on the differences
Stage 5: adaptation (cognitive) – consciously tries to take other’s perspective
Stage 6: integration (behavioral) – individual has internalized more than one cultural
worldview; view themselves as interculturalists or multiculturalists in addition to their own
national backgrounds (pp. 26-30). The DMIS is based on the premise that the ability to
understand cultural difference can become an active point of one’s worldview which results in
better understanding of one’s own and other cultures as well as increasing competence in
intercultural relations. As intercultural encounters trigger changes in worldview, individuals
move along the continuum from ethnocentric to ethnorelevant in a mostly unidirectional manner
with only occasional regressions (Hammer et al., 2003, p. 423).
Underlying this conception of the developmental nature of intercultural sensitivity
development is the role that encounters with culturally distinct others play. The DMIS model
seems to be based on the development that takes place as a result of encounters with strangers or
what is considered in most cultural research to be cross-cultural interactions. A significant body
of research into culture has equated culture with national culture and regards intercultural
communication as crossing a single cultural divide. This approach to studying intercultural
encounters fails to account for the diversity within cultures, and the multicultural nature of some
contexts. It also implies that an individual’s particular stage of IS will be relevant to all contexts
and intercultural encounters.
Including behaviours in defining IS is problematic because culture and consequently
interactions with culturally distinct others is so dependent on the bounded context within which
the interaction is taking place. Restricting IS to affective aspects better reflects an individual’s
worldview which directly influences one’s behaviour in an intercultural encounter. Chen and
Starosta (1998) define IS as an individual’s “active desire to motivate themselves to understand,
appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (p. 231). This degree of psychological ability
to deal with cultural differences reflects one’s worldview and establishes the way one
experiences or processes cultural differences (Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004).
43
Chen and Starosta (2000) propose that six affective elements are requisite for an
individual to be interculturally sensitive: self-esteem, self-monitoring, open-mindedness,
empathy, interaction involvement, and suspending judgment. Deardorff’s (2004) findings based
on consensus from a panel of individuals considered experts in the field of intercultural
communication echo these qualities. The panel identified three requisite attitudes for developing
IS – 1) respect - valuing other cultures, cultural diversity 2) openness – to intercultural learning
and to people from other cultures, withholding judgment and 3) curiosity and discovery –
tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty (p. 196). Chen and Starosta’s research found that IS was
“predictive of intercultural effectiveness and attitude towards intercultural communication” (p.
12).
IS has been conceptualized in different ways by researchers. Bennett’s IS model includes
cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects and clear stages of development moving from
ethnocentric to ethnorelevant views. Separation of these components is not possible due to the
multidimensional character of the stages defined. Chen and Starosta (1996, 1998, 2000) argue
that although intercultural sensitivity, intercultural awareness and intercultural communication
competence are closely related, they are separate concepts. They posit that intercultural
communication competence is an umbrella term which is composed of the cognitive (cultural
awareness), affective (sensitivity to cultural differences) and behavioural ability (intercultural
adroitness) of individuals taking part in intercultural communication. Their definition of IS
refers only to the affective aspect of ICC and is not directly tied to certain behaviours although
individuals with low IS would also be considered ethnocentric and those with high IS,
ethnorelevant. These differences in conceptualizing IS have led to the development of distinctly
different measurement tools. Consequently, comparisons from the results of studies using
different scales can be misleading.
2.6.3.4 Measurement of intercultural sensitivity (IS).
One widely used instrument to measure IS is the Intercultural Development Inventory
(IDI), a 50 item self-assessment using a 5 point Likert scale. Participants are asked to frame their
responses to statements such as “Our culture’s way of life should be a model for the rest of the
world,” and “Our common humanity deserves more attention than cultural difference” in terms
of comparisons between their own cultures and generalized other cultures. (Hammer et al., p.
44
434). For each statement, respondents rate their level of agreement: 1 = disagree, 2 = disagree
somewhat more than agree, 3 = disagree some and agree some, 4 = agree somewhat more than
disagree, and 5 = agree. Participants get an overall score of their Developmental Intercultural
Sensitivity and their Perceived Intercultural Sensitivity. Hammer et al. (2003) and Paige, Jacobs-
Cassuto, Yershova, and DeJaeghere (2003) have published papers reporting the validity and
reliability of the instrument. Hammer et al. (2003) outlined the process for the inventory
development which included recordings of intercultural encounters, selection of statements to
represent the six levels determined by a panel of experts, and pilot testing of the instrument twice
for further refinement. He also compared the relationship on two related scales, The
Worldmindedness Scale (Sampson a & Smith, 1957, cited in Hammer et al. 2003) and the
Intercultural Anxiety Scale (Stephen & Stephen, 1985 cited in Hammer et al. 2003) and found
the correlations to be statistically valid. Paige et al. (2003) reported reliability ranging from .74
to .91. They also conducted a factor analysis and determined that the factors mostly fit the six
stage DMIS. The IDI has been used by researchers to determine predictors of an individual’s
sensitivity (Bayles, P., 2009). It has been used as a pre and/or post test to measure effectiveness
of curriculum (Altshuler, Sussman & Kachar, 2003; Bourjolly, J., Sands, R., Solomon, P.,
Stanhope, V. Pernell-Arnold, A. & Finley, L., 2006), experiences abroad (Medina-Lopez-
Portillo, 2004; Westerick & Yuen, 2007), and suitability for overseas sojourns (Bhawuk &
Brislin, 1992).
There are several reasons that I rejected the IDI to measure the participants’ IS. The IDI
measures both affective and behavioural elements which is not the best fit for the concept of IS
that I have chosen for the study. The inventory seems better suited to measuring cross-cultural
interactions, educational opportunities and sojourns. In addition, the instrument itself is costly to
administer. Anyone using the IDI must first take the required certification (approx. $1500). In
addition to manuals and software the researcher must purchase, each instrument costs $10 which
was cost prohibitive for the scope of this study.
Another widely used instrument to measure IS is the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS),
a 24 item inventory developed by Chen and Starosta (2000). The items measure five factors:
interaction engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction
enjoyment, and interaction attentiveness. Participants score each item with a five point Likert
45
scale of responses: strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree to reflect the
descriptor that best reflects their feelings about an item. The inventory includes statements such
as: “I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally-distinct counterparts.” (Interaction
Engagement); “I don’t like to be with people from different cultures.”(Respect for Cultural
Differences); “I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from different cultures.”
(Interaction Confidence); “I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with
people from different cultures” (Interaction Attentiveness); and “I often get discouraged when I
am with people from different cultures” (Interaction Enjoyment). Higher scores on this scale are
suggestive of being more interculturally sensitive.
The ISS has been used in intercultural research to examine impact of globalization,
multiculturalism and collectivism on IS, to evaluate candidates for international assignments or
teaching positions, as well as to determine factors that can predict IS. Researchers have looked
at factors affecting IS such as education / field of study ( Penbek, Yurdakal & Cerit, 2009; Peng,
2006), international experiences / relationships (Del Villar, 2012; Nieto & Booth, 2009; Penbek,
Yurdakal & Cerit, 2009; Peng, Rangsiphat, Rhaipakdee, 2005), multiculturalism (Dong, Day &
Collaco, 2008), computer mediated interactions (Lu, Yang, Peng & Chou, 2004), communication
traits / ICC (Del Villar, 2010/2012; Graf, 2004) and gender (Nieto& Booth, 2009).
I selected the ISS because of the field testing and rigorous validation studies done in
different contexts with North American participants (Chen & Starosta, 2000) and German
participants (Fritz, Mollenberg & Chen, 2002). Other studies have reported the scale to be
reliable but have provided limited empirical support (American students – Dong et al, 2008;
Chinese students - Peng, 2006; Chinese and Thai students – Peng et al., 2005). These studies
provide support for the reliability and validity of using the inventory to determine cultural
sensitivity in various contexts. Subsequent studies in other contexts have not found all factors on
the inventory to be reliable. A study by Tamam (2010) focused on the non-western context
Malaysia which he describes as a multicultural country with harmonious intercultural relations
(p. 174), was unable to replicate the five-factor model and instead devised a three-factor structure
(interaction attentiveness and respect, interaction openness, and interaction confidence).
46
2.6.3.5 Relevant studies on intercultural sensitivity.
IS has been researched extensively as a predictor of successful face to face intercultural
encounters both in international work placements (Bhawuk & Brislin,1992; Searle & Ward,
1990) and study abroad environments (Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004).
Little research has been done linking the construct of IS to e-learning environments. One
relevant study by Chen (1998) involved collaborations between cohorts of students situated in
different countries. He studied intercultural e-mail exchanges that took place between American
students and their counterparts in Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong and Turkey. The
project involved different groups of cohorts over six semesters. In an attempt to internationalize
the university’s curriculum for business students, ten key undergraduate courses that most
students take were involved in the project. The teams of course instructors involved in the
project revised their curriculums to appreciate each other’s cultural differences. Students were
expected to use e-mail debates throughout their student years to discuss pertinent professional
issues affecting each society. One of the short term objectives of the project was for participants
to acquire IS by learning about dimensions of international business and dealing with types of
situations they would encounter doing business with people from different cultures. Teams were
assigned to debate specific culturally situated business scenarios following a strict debate
protocol. Before the beginning of the semester and after completion of the semester, Chen
measured the Americans’ IS using his ISS and open-ended questions. There was no significant
increase in participants’ IS; however, on the open-ended questions, most participants indicated
that they felt the intercultural debates had increased their cultural sensitivity. Chen felt that the
one semester duration of each course might not be long enough to develop IS but intercultural
awareness could be developed.
Another study that informed my research analysis was completed by Del Villar (2010).
She explored demographic variables such as willingness to communicate, perception of
communication competence, intercultural apprehension, length of stay in another country,
number of foreign friends, sex, and course in college, to determine if the variables had an effect
on the IS of 941 Filipino university students ranging in age from 18 to 52. Her results showed
that 72% of the respondents registered high sensitivity (ISS mean score between 89 to 120), 28%
were moderately sensitive (ISS mean score between 57 to 88) and only 2% had low sensitivity
47
(ISS mean score between 24 to 56). Overall the mean ISS score was 93.6. She hypothesized that
experience with the Philippines continued exposure to foreign cultures through colonization,
trade and travel may account for the high sensitivity. In terms of the communication traits, Del
Villar reported that participants’ willingness to communicate as measured by the Willingness to
Communicate Inventory (McCroskey and Richmond 2009, cited in Del Villar, 2010) showed a
moderately low relationship with IS scores. Perceptions of communicative competence as
measured by Communication Competence (McCruskey, 1984 cited in Del Villar, 2010) showed
a moderately significant relationship. Students who were more willing to interact were also more
interculturally sensitive. Intercultural apprehension as measured by Personal Report of
Intercultural Apprehension (PRIA) (McCroskey, 1997 cited in Del Villar, 2010) was found to
negatively correlate to IS. Individuals that had low apprehension about communicating with
people from other cultures tended to be very sensitive towards them. Del Villar reported that
several demographic variables significantly affected IS including age, gender (males were
higher), number of years at university, affiliations and length of membership, number of
countries visited, length of stays in countries, number of foreign friends and frequency of
communication with them. Socio-economic status was not a significant variable. A similar
study was conducted by Del Villar (2012) with 385 respondents from 15 large multinational
corporations. Her results mirrored the findings of the 2010 study. One major added component
of this study was that Del Villar added analysis of five cultural orientions (high context
orientation, low uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, high poser distance, and masculinity).
Scores in these five orientations were determined using the Cultural Orientation Scale, a
questionnaire using indicators provided by Hall (1976) and Hofstede (1980). All five cultural
variables matched the attributes assigned to Filipinos by Hall and Hofstede and all were
significant variables in IS. She tested all the variables and produced a model with good fit where
49% of the variability of the dependent variable IS could be explained by the independent
variables. Five variables, communication competence, intercultural apprehension, high context
cultural orientation, power distance cultural orientation and number of years as a member of an
organization were found to be significant predictors. Based on her findings, Del Villar labeled
Filipinos as being ‘interculturally savvy.’
48
These studies demonstrate that a broad spectrum of demographic and communication
related variables should be included in the study to better understand influences on IS and many
of these same variables overlap with those important to SoC. Additionally, I used her ‘arbitrary’
classification of scores into low, moderate and high in my analysis to support my discussion and
make reliable comparisons of research findings.
2.7 The Need for Further Research
I have found case studies that support the connection between SoC and interaction and IS
and interaction, but I have not been able to locate any studies that link IS to SoC. These two
constructs, while distinct, do share common influencing factors when situated in a multicultural
context. IS has been identified in the literature as being requisite for ICC and without ICC,
individuals may not be able to successfully interact and feel an active part of a bounded
community. Both IS and SoC require individuals to be mindful or sensitive to cultural
differences and willing to modify their own behaviours in order to interact more successfully in
an intercultural encounter. There are a limited number of studies that address SoC in mixed or
hybrid online classes; however, none of the studies have been done in the Canadian context. In
fact, reports examining research into blended learning indicate significant gaps in the research.
While there have been many case studies reporting problematic intercultural communications
amongst two or three homogenous groups of collaborators which are generally treated in the
study as national identities rather than individuals with unique cultural identities, I have not been
able to locate studies that reflect the experiences of a multicultural online class. The literature
presented in this chapter does support the notion that interactions with individuals from distinctly
different cultures may lead to greater SoC, to the development of IS and consequently one’s
ability to participate successfully in a multicultural learning community. I hypothesize that an
individual’s socio-cultural background and IS will affect an individual’s SoC in a multicultural
situated environment. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore factors affecting an
individual’s SoC and the relationship between an individual’s IS and his or her SoC in
multicultural blended postsecondary courses.
49
2.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the theoretical framework for the study and a review of the
literature as it relates to the constructs of SoC and IS. I have presented the findings of several
studies that influenced my research either in terms of providing background information to frame
this study, identifying research gaps to address, or methods to use in my analysis. The next
chapter presents a detailed description of the methodology and procedures used for this study.
50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
3.1 Introduction
The primary purpose of this study is to determine to what extent students develop a sense
of community (SoC) in blended learning courses situated in an urban North American college
and the demographic and social factors that influence that development. A secondary purpose is
to determine participant’s level of intercultural sensitivity (IS), influencing factors related to IS
and whether IS has a significant influence on an individual’s SoC. The study aims to develop a
robust profile of typical students enrolled in Canadian college blended courses and to identify
factors that may contribute to satisfactory learning experiences in blended computer-mediated
courses. This chapter begins with a description of the research design and instrumentation used
to gather information from students registered in blended online courses in the winter of 2007
and spring of 2008. How the participants were selected and a detailed description of the
participants follows. The chapter continues with an explanation of how the data from the surveys
were grouped and analyzed. The final section explains the method used to analyze select online
discussion board entries.
3.2 The Research Design
A concurrent nested approach (Cresswell, 2003) was used for this research. This
involved the collection of both quantitative and qualitative sets of data at the same time, with the
intention of integrating them at the point of data interpretation (Moorse, 1991). When combined,
quantitative and qualitative research can be used for triangulation in order to corroborate findings
(Bryman,2006; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,1989). The qualitative data gathered from
responses to open-ended survey questions and DB entries were used to illustrate the quantitative
findings which Bryman (2006) refers to as putting “meat on the bones” of “dry” quantitative
findings. These multiple perspectives provide a depth of insight that cannot be achieved using a
singular approach. In a concurrent nested approach, one type of research receives a greater focus
than the other (Cresswell, 2003). In this case the quantitative data was prioritized because the
ability of the qualitative data collected to demonstrate the constructs of SoC or IS was limited by
the noted lack of dialogic postings and the inability to access the entire DB which would have
enabled me to look at patterns of interaction amongst all participants.
51
3.3 Context for the Study
The study was conducted at an urban community college with a student population
embodying a diverse cultural mosaic of over 75 countries. The participants were enrolled in 23
blended learning sections of nine distinct English and Liberal Studies courses taught by four
professors in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009. A certain number of General Education
courses are a required component of the participants’ courses of study; however, for most
diplomas, specific Gen. Ed. courses are not prescribed. Twenty one of these courses were 14
weeks in duration and two were seven weeks in duration. All the courses had a college English
course (EAC 150) as a pre-requisite.
3.4 The Survey
Survey research is the most common form of research done by educational researchers
(Baxter & Babbie, 2004; Fraenkel & Wallen ,2000). A survey is an effective means of gathering
information about the beliefs, opinions and attitudes or behaviours of individuals (Gall, Gall &
Borg, 1999) which can then be correlated to determine if relationships exist between responses
and scores collected. Through structured question asking, surveys can gather data about
cognitive beliefs or perceptions about some phenomenon; affective feelings or emotional
responses to some phenomenon; reports of behaviors (past or present behaviors) and trait
orientations and demographic features (p. 167).
Web-based surveying is widely used in educational research. Although Solomon (2001)
and Shih and Fan (2008) report that several studies found that internet surveys have notably
lower response rates than comparable mailed surveys, they also indicate that using email to
contact participants with an HTML form for data collection is effective and efficient particularly
for college students from the U.S, Canada and Western Europe. Carini, Hayek, Kuh, Kennedy,
and Ouimet’s (2003) study comparing web and paper based surveys administered to 58, 288
college students found that the mode effects were very small. Sax, Gilmartin, Lee and Hagedorn
(2008) report that community college students’ response rates to an online survey were higher
than those for a paper based survey regardless of gender or race providing the researcher had
valid email contact information. Moreover, they found that data quality was higher with fewer
overall errors, fewer missing items and longer responses to open-ended questions. The use of
52
HTML coding allows the creation of attractive and accessible forms that may improve response
times. Additionally, due to checking functionality, it is possible to increase accuracy of the data
collection process (Solomon, 2001). A critical reason for using data collection methods that do
not rely on the researcher’s interpersonal communication with the participants is that in
intercultural research, face-to-face encounters with the researcher might create a host/guest
distinction where participants feel bounded by the host culture (Mann & Stewart, 2000). This
might have biased results because participants may have been intimidated by my ethnicity,
perceptions associated with my national culture or my language skills. Based on these
considerations, an online survey was determined to be the most appropriate survey mode.
3.5 Instrument Description and Design
I used Survey Monkey to create the survey instrument which I developed for this study
(See Appendix B). The basis for the design of this instrument was the body of literature in the
fields of education, intercultural communication and social psychology. These three fields
provided background information on the constructs of SoC and IS, components that enhance
both constructs, and indicators of the components. The survey was designed using a reverse
funnel format starting with closed questions and then moving to open ended questions. Baxter
and Babbie (2004) indicate that this approach is appropriate when it is helpful to have
respondents reflect on smaller aspects of a topic before reflecting on the big picture.
Additionally, Crawford , Couper, and Lamias (2001) report that using open-ended questions
early in the survey contributes to high abandonment rates.
3.5.1 Section One
The first section of the survey included an overview of the study and informed consent
followed by questions designed to elicit detailed descriptions of demographic and background
factors that may influence SoC and IS. In order to develop a thick description requisite of a case
study, the first section included variables derived from previous research and expanded the scope
by including background questions related to variables not examined in previous studies:
languages and cultures studied, language competency, mother tongue, language spoken at home,
friends from other cultures and several variables potentially related to SoC (comfort level with
DB forums and country location of primary and secondary education).
53
3.5.1.1 Discussion board communication access.
Multiple sources of data collection were included to provide a rich understanding of the
context being studied and to support validation of participants’ survey responses. For example,
when self-reporting, people are often inaccurate in their actions and assumptions (Baxter and
Babbie, 2004; Miyahara, 2004). Because learning takes place on the interpsychological plane
and the intrapsychological plane, individuals self-reports of perceptions and observations may
not match the activity happening on the social plane. If self-reports were the only source of data,
they might not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. In order to capture data from the
social plane, I asked participants for access to their discussion board communications
(behavioural artifacts) in the informed consent.
3.5.2 Section Two
The second section included previously validated scales to measure IS and SoC The
inclusion of questionnaire items that have been field tested by previous researchers supports
construct validity. For this study, psychometric data were collected using the Classroom
Community Scale (CCS) developed by Rovai (2002c) and the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
(ISS) as developed by Chen and Starosta (2000). Gunawardena and McIsaac (2004) report that
cultural research is difficult because individual variations can change outcomes. Furthermore,
psychological instruments, unless specifically intended for multicultural use, are almost certain
to be biased. Both of the field-tested instruments selected for this research were designed
specifically for multicultural purposes. Table 1 indicates how the survey questions relate to the
constructs SoC and IS and the specific research questions.
3.5.2.1 Classroom community scale (CCS).
The CCS (Rovai, 2002c) was developed to measure classroom community in post-
secondary students studying at a distance via the internet. This instrument consists of 20 self-
report items that examine connectedness and learning within the classroom setting. Sample
statements include: “I feel that the students in this course care about each other”; “I feel uneasy
exposing gaps in my understanding” (Rovai, 2002c). Participants score each item with a five
point Likert scale of responses: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree to
reflect the descriptor that best reflects their feelings about an item. Scores are computed by
adding points assigned to each of the 20 five-point items. Items are reverse-scored where
54
appropriate to ensure that the least favourable choice is always assigned a value of 0 and the
most favourable choice is assigned a value of 4. The CCS also produces two subscales:
Connectedness and Learning. The 10 items in the Connectedness subscale represent the feelings
of students regarding their cohesion, community spirit, trust and interdependence; items that
Rovai reports were identified by professional literature related to educational settings as being
characteristic of classroom community regardless of setting (p. 201). The 10 items in the
Learning subscale represent members’ feelings regarding the degree to which they share
educational goals, and experience educational benefits by interacting with other members of the
course. This subscale measures classroom specific community issues in a real or virtual
classroom setting where learning is the goal. Scores on each subscale can range from 0 to 40,
with higher scores reflecting a stronger sense of community (Rovai 2002c, Rovai & Lucking,
2004).
3.5.2.1.1 CCS reliability and validity.
The CCS was selected because it was designed specifically for on-line interactions and it
has been extensively validated and tested using frequency counts, ANOVA analysis, factor
analysis, and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Rovai, 2001, Rovai 2002c). Rovai (2002) also
established high content and face validity. Since the instrument was extensively validated, and
the Flesch-Kincaid grade level of the scale items was previously established to be 6.6, I felt that
it would be a reliable and appropriate instrument to use in my study with qualifying students who
had demonstrated English competency by passing a requisite college English course.
3.5.2.2 Intercultural sensitivity scale (ISS).
The ISS was developed by Chen and Starosta (2000) to measure intercultural sensitivity.
This instrument consists of 24 self-report items that measure interaction engagement, respect for
cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction enjoyment, and interaction attentiveness.
Sample statements include: “I often feel useless when interacting with people from different
cultures; I think my culture is better than other cultures; I enjoy interacting with people from
different cultures” (Chen & Starosta, 2000). Participants score each item with a five point Likert
scale of responses: strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree to reflect the
descriptor that best reflects their feelings about an item. Scores are computed by adding points
assigned to each of the 24 five-point items. Items are reverse-scored where appropriate to ensure
55
that the least favourable choice is always assigned a value of 1 and the most favourable choice is
assigned a value of 5. Higher scores on this scale are suggestive of being more interculturally
sensitive.
3.5.2.2.1 ISS reliability and validity.
Chen and Starosta (2000) established the reliability and validity of the ISS using
comparisons with other established scales calculating Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients and
through Pearson product-moment correlation analysis. This scale is a suitable tool to measure IS
for this study because its measures are restricted to the affective aspect of intercultural
communication (respect, openness, curiosity and discovery). Additionally, it has been validated
as being predictive of intercultural effectiveness and it has been validated in other multicultural
contexts (See Fritz, Mollenberg & Chen, 2001).
3.5.3 Section Three
The final section of the survey included eight open-ended questions. These questions
were designed to probe participants’ opinions about course interactions and to provide another
mechanism for gathering personal responses related to the constructs included in the CCS and
the ISS. The eight open ended questions asked students to describe (a) their satisfaction with
their learning in the course; (b) their participation in the course; (c) their feelings about
interacting with participant from other cultures in threaded discussions (d) their ability to express
their opinions with participants from other cultures (e) the influence of their cultural background
on their online interactions, (f) the influence of different cultural perspectives on the learning that
took place (g) who contributed most to their SoC and (h) the influence of participation in the
course on their worldview.
Table 1
Constructs, Indicators, Research Questions and Survey Items
Construct Indicators Research Questions Survey Items
Sense of
Community
-expressions that
indicate spirit
(support,
reference to other
members), trust
(self disclosure,
personal
1. What is the level of sense of
community (SoC) which is composed of
connectedness and learning as measured
by the Classroom Community Scale
(CCS) of college students enrolled in a
blended computer mediated class in an
urban multicultural setting?
Qs 20-32,37
56
reflection), and
learning (critique
/ disagreement,
explicit
interaction,
feedback seeking,
opinion)
- expressed
satisfaction with
learning
-number and type
of posts
1a. What course and demographic
variables and what intercultural
experiences and interactions are
significant predictors of SoC and its
subscales?
1c. What is the relationship between SoC
and IS?
1d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS
measure the same constructs when
applied in a multicultural setting like
Toronto?
2. Can indicators of connectedness and
learning, the underlying dimensions
of the construct SoC, be observed
within the context of a blended
asynchronous online college course?
Intercultural
Sensitivity
-sensitivity to
other cultures
-respect for
differences
-empathy with
others
-positive attitude
towards
intercultural
interactions
-social habits
-intercultural
experiences
1b. What is the level of the variable
intercultural sensitivity (composed of
interaction engagement, respect for
cultural differences, interaction
confidence, interaction enjoyment
and interaction attentiveness), as
measured by the ISS and what
demographic variables and what
intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors
of IS and its subscales?
1c. What is the relationship between SoC
and IS?
1d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS
measure the same constructs when
applied in a multicultural setting like
Toronto?
Qs. 4-19,33-
36,38
3.6 Obtaining Access
Research taking place in a federally funded institution must be approved by an
institutional review board (IRB) who has the responsibility to ensure that no risk will come to
participants and that mechanisms are in place to get informed consent from participants as well
as to debrief the participants upon completion of the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). I had to
57
obtain permission from five sources: the university, the host college, the program chair, the
professors and the students for this study. First, it was necessary to obtain permission from the
university’s Research and Ethics Department. Then, I requested permission from the host
college’s Research and Ethics Department. The role of the professor, the possibility of the
survey completion taking away from valuable course time, the possibility of students feeling
coerced to participate if they thought their professor supported the research, access to the
discussion board entries of non-participants, and the college resources required to get student
contact information were discussed and reviewed and permission was granted. I contacted two
of the college’s General Education (Gen. Ed.) Chairs and they gave permission and provided
contact information for professors with a minimum one year experience teaching blended
courses to be contacted for participation in the study. I contacted 5 professors through their
college email accounts and sent a letter of introduction to the study. Four professors agreed to
participate in the study and were then sent a consent form. Once the target classes were
identified, I contacted the newly established Office of Research and Innovation to provide class
lists of students enrolled in the 23 courses for which faculty had given consent to use. I
contacted students in those courses using their college e-mail accounts and requested their
participation in the study.
3.7 Pre-testing the Questionnaire
It is good research practice to pretest the questionnaire before administering it to a large
number of participants as there may be concerns with question clarity or instructions (Baxter &
Babbie, 2004). The survey tool was pre-tested with a small group of students representative of
the target group. Clarity of the questions, the scope of information included in the open ended
responses and required time to complete the survey were checked. One open ended question was
added to the survey to elicit what or who contributed most to students’ SoC and the time required
to complete the survey was adjusted to 15-20 minutes – a range that better reflected the time
needed to complete the open ended questions at the end of the survey.
3.8 Sampling Strategy and Target
In order to be able to make trustworthy statements about a target population, the unit of
analysis must be sufficiently defined so that membership can be determined with certainty
58
(Fraenkel & Wallen ,2000). The sampling strategy for this study was purposive and convenient
(Creswell, 2003) as participants were selected according to the following criteria: (a) enrolled in
an urban secondary institution with a student population embodying a diverse cultural mosaic of
over 75 countries; (b) enrolled in a general education blended e-learning course that has college
English (EAC 150) as a prerequisite; (c) enrolled in a course being taught by an instructor with at
least 1 year of experience teaching online courses; (d) previous experience using the Blackboard
e-learning platform and (e) a willingness to share their experiences about their interaction in the
online course. These criteria were used to reduce some of the variability that may have
influenced the study such as (a) students having limited or no previous experience in
multicultural learning environments because awareness of other cultures is requisite for
developing intercultural competency (Chen & Starosta, 2008); (b) students having limited
participation in face-to-face classes throughout the semester as regular in-class discussions could
differentially influence their perceptions and sense of responsibility to each other; students’
English writing skills (students have to be adequately competent in their written skills to pass
EAC 150); (c) the effect of teachers who have not had experience teaching online and (d) the
influence of the platform, which will be the same in each course (it still represents predominately
Western education values but the navigation and functionality is familiar because students have
used Blackboard for college communications and possibly as support for previous courses).
To achieve a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of 5%, 243 responses were
needed from the 660 students enrolled in the 23 classes (Bartlett, Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001).
Crawford et al. (2001) found that survey response rates increase when participants are told the
amount of time the survey will take and have access to the survey link in the initial email.
Follow-up e-mail reminders are also effective. To encourage a substantial response rate,
potential participants were sent an invitation email inviting them to participate that contained
both the link for the survey and the time it would take to complete. Two subsequent weekly
reminder emails were sent to increase response rate. Participants completed the survey within
three weeks of completing their courses. The names of students who completed the survey were
entered into a draw for ten $10.00 gift cards for Tim Hortons and two $50.00 gift cards for
Cadillac Fairview Malls.
59
3.8.1 Study Participants
One hundred and sixty three postsecondary students (49% women, n = 80 and 51% men,
n = 83) enrolled in 23 Gen. Ed. on-line courses agreed to take part in the study. The average
volunteer rate was 24.7 percent with an average of 7 students out of an average of 27 students in
each course agreeing to take part in the study. The sample should be representative of the
population to be considered valid. The number of participants was less than the number needed
to achieve a 95% confidence level which means that it is not possible to generalize from the
aggregate survey findings and is a limitation of this study. However, data available from other
sources indicates that these participants are demographically representative of the students
enrolled in the college. As part of the College English Project (CEP) which looked at placements
and pathways for students registered at the college between 2007 –2009, biographical data were
collected and the unpublished results were shared with me by the consultant. The results indicate
that for 2007/2008, an average of 51% of the students were male and 49% were female.
When assessing the quality of a survey sample, another consideration, the completeness
of the responses to the survey, is important. Although the survey took respondents 15-20
minutes to complete and the open ended questions were optional, 80% - chose to include
responses to the short answer questions.
3.8.2 Final Selection Criteria
From 163 students that consented to take part in the study, I used purposive sampling
methods based on the following criteria to select participants for this case study:
participants must have completed the CCS and ISS
the course students were enrolled in must have required discussion board posts and
the student must have participated in the discussion board.
As a result, participants in two course sections (n=30) were eliminated as their course did not
require use of the discussion board. Also, participants in the remaining courses that did not post
to the discussion board were eliminated (n=7). One hundred and twenty four participants
participating in 21 courses met the criteria for inclusion in the study (Table 2).
60
Table 2
Summary of respondents selected for inclusion in the study by professor and course
Professor Course ID Students Registered
Study Participants
n in
course
% of
total N
n %of
course n
% of
total N
Professor A
01 26 4.4 10 38.5 8.1
02 29 4.9 5 17.2 4.0
03 28 4.7 6 21.4 4.8
04 29 4.9 6 20.7 4.8
05 27 4.5 7 25.9 5.6
06 27 4.5 4 14.8 3.2
07 27 4.5 3 11.1 2.4
08 28 4.7 4 14.3 3.2
09 26 4.4 7 26.9 5.6
10 29 4.9 3 10.3 2.4
Professor B 11 25 4.2 6 24.0 4.8
12 25 4.2 3 12.0 2.4
13 27 4.5 4 14.8 3.2
14 27 4.5 6 22.2 4.8
15 35 5.9 12 34.3 9.7
16 34 5.7 13 38.2 10.5
Professor C 17 25 4.2 7 28.0 5.6
18 22 3.7 4 18.2 3.2
Professor D 19 34 5.7 4 11.8 3.2
20 34 5.7 3 8.8 2.4
21 33 5.5 7 21.2 5.6
Average 28.4 5.9 20.7
Total 597 100 124 100
3.9 Data Analysis Procedures
This study entailed a quantitative analysis of the survey results as well as qualitative
analysis of the participants’ discussion board posts. Both components were gathered to better
understand factors that support SoC and IS. Because the data were both quantitative and
qualitative, different analysis for each research method was conducted.
3.9.1 Quantitative Data
I exported the survey responses to MS Excel. Options for the CCS and ISS were coded
according to the scale’s instructions which required all negative questions on the survey
61
instruments to be reversed scored. To prepare the data for analysis, option responses were
converted to numeric responses where appropriate. I coded open responses manually by
categorizing the responses and assigning a numerical value. For example, for the languages of
study, the following coding was used: English (1), Other (2), English and French (3), English
and Other (4). A response such as Hindi was coded as Other and assigned the numeric value
“2”. Where participants did not respond to a question, a “missing value” was assigned. These
missing values were included in data processed through SPSS but were not included in the
Tables and Figures. Then, I imported the survey data from MS Excel into a Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22. I checked the database for errors by running
descriptive statistical analysis to ensure that recorded values were feasible and the valid and
missing cases made sense depending on the variable. For the purpose of this study, I set the
statistical significance level for the statistical analysis to be less than .05. In research where there
is a large amount of numerical data, descriptive statistics are useful to summarize the data into
simple numerical expressions (Gall, Gall & Borg, 1999).
The first stage involved checking the frequencies for each of the categorical variables. If
categories had options with few responses (for example, one student only in the option for age
bracket forty-six and above) I recoded the data to eliminate options with very small groups that
would interfere with analysis. I then inspected the raw data from the questionnaires to see if they
conformed to the assumptions of normality. For each scale (CCS and ISS), I analyzed the
normality of distribution by visually inspecting the histograms and Q-Q plots and checked for
both validity and reliability.
For the CCS, the skewness of-.42(SE .22) fell within the acceptable range of normality
(2xSE). The kurtosis of 1.54(SE .43) positively exceeded the acceptable range indicating that the
distribution was leptokurtic (too tall) and thus violated the assumption of normality. I applied
the Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test (significance at the p < .05 level). The SW results (p = .02) also
indicated a violation of normality. I then inspected the scale for outliers. Although a few
outliers were present, after investigation of the cases and consideration of the mean (47.8) and
5% trimmed mean (47.9) which were very close, I decided to retain the cases. According to
Rovai (2002c), the Classroom Community Scale has a good internal consistency, with a
Cronbach alpha coefficient of .93. In the current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .89.
62
For the ISS, the skewness of -.46(SE .22) fell just outside the acceptable range of
normality (2xSE). The kurtosis of -.25(SE .43) fell within the acceptable range of normality
(2xSE). The SW results (p = .02) also indicate a violation of normality. I then inspected the
scale for outliers. Although a few outliers were present, after investigation of the cases and
consideration of the mean (97.3) and 5% trimmed mean (97.6) which were very close, I decided
to retain the cases. According to Chen and Starosta (2000), the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale has
a good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .86. In the current study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient was .89.
Both scales had good internal consistency. Since both scales did not conform to
normality of distribution, I used non-parametric tests to explore associations between the
dependent and independent variables.
3.9.1.1 Statistical tests.
I used Microsoft Excel to calculate percentages and graphically represent the biographical
data. I calculated the mean, standard deviation, frequency and range as well as a variety of other
statistical procedures to explore the relationship between the variables and the CCS and ISS
scores and their subscales. Because normality of means distribution was not assumed, I used
non-parametric tests. The significance or alpha level was predetermined at .05. Eta squared
values were calculated to determine effect size for all tests. The magnitude of the effect 2 was
determined using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines (.01 = small, .06 = medium and .14 = large). The
Mann-Whitney U was used to compare the mean scores of two different groups on the dependent
variables. In order to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between the
demographic, course and social variables with three or more options and the CCS and ISS scores,
I conducted a series of the Kruskal-Wallis Tests (KW), a non-parametric test equivalent to the
ANOVA. This test assumes heterogeneity of variables. Therefore, before applying this analysis,
I checked each variable for heterogeneity using a non- parametric Leven F test. Where the KW
results were significant, post hoc KW and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to further explore
the differences between the means.
To examine the strength of the relationship between the two continuous variables SoC
and IS, I conducted a Spearman-Rho correlation analysis, checking that the relationship, if any,
63
appeared to be linear. Cohen’s (1988) guidelines (.10 - .29 = small, .30 - .49 = medium and .5 –
1.0 = large) were used to determine the strength of the relationship represented by r.
In order to explore the suitability of each scale in the multicultural Canadian context and
to examine the construct validity of the instruments, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to
determine the goodness of fit. Using AMOS 22, I recreated the two factor model for the CCS
and the five factor model for the ISS and used the features to test ‘goodness of fit’. Because
neither scale fitted that data well, I then used the dimension reduction feature of SPSS v22 with
an oblique rotation option to conduct a Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Prior to
performing the PCA, I visually inspected each correlation matrix to ensure that there were many
coefficients of .3 and above. I also evaluated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value to ensure there was significant variance to
support the factorability of the correlation matrix. After this preliminary investigation, I ran the
PCAs for both scales, identified the components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, inspected the
scree plots, and compared the results with a Parallel Analysis to identify significant factors.
Where appropriate, I renamed the components to better reflect the nature of the questions that
loaded on each factor and retained items that loaded above .4 with no other loading above .3 on
other factors. I went through several iterations until I produced a model for each scale that had
high discrete factor loading. The results of the statistical tests are reported in the next chapter.
3.9.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative findings can be used to validate or expand the findings from quantitative
scales. The use of mixed methods to triangulate findings is well established (Jick,1979; Morse,
1991) and can potentially generate a thick description. The first set of data came from responses
to open questions on the questionnaire and the second set came from the DB entries of the
participants.
3.9.2.1 Collection and preparation of open-ended questions.
The open ended responses were aggregated by question. I then reviewed all responses
and grouped then into common categories that emerged (See Appendix C). The categories were
discrete enabling me to easily code the responses. The numeric codes were entered into SPSS
for descriptive and correlation analysis.
64
3.9.2.2 Collection and preparation of online discussions for analysis.
Student course discussions took place within the Blackboard Course management system
(Blackboard). After completion of the course, I was given temporary access to each course. I
was not given permission by the host college to view the discussion threads as they appeared in
the course nor to view the contributions of students who had not agreed to participate in the
study.1 Therefore, I used the Performance Dashboard feature of the platform to view the
individual contributions of specific participants. Data collected in this manner is not
contextualized within a threaded discussion; however, it enables the researcher to gather targeted
course artifacts when permission to view the contributions of the entire class has not been
granted. The discussion contributions, including headings that indicated if a message was new or
a response post, were saved in a separate word document for each participating student. Student
names were removed and replaced with a number to ensure anonymity of the data. A number
was assigned rather than a random name to eliminate any potential perception of gender or
culture that could possibly be associated with a name. Files were converted to rich text format
and imported into the qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti 7.
3.9.2.3 Content analysis of discussion board posts.
Baxter and Babbie (2004) define content analysis as “a research technique for the
systematic, replicable, and quantitative description of the manifest or latent features of
communication texts.” It can be used to determine the presence or absence of certain words or
concepts. To conduct a content analysis, the text is coded into manageable units such as
sentences, meaning units, complete utterances or themes and then coded. Content analysis is
useful for communication researchers interested in determining the frequencies with which
certain message features are present (Baxter & Babbie, 2004).
Content analysis involves several steps. Rourke et al. (2001, p. 6) outline four essential
steps. 1. Identify representative samples of the communication that you would like to study and
1 On-line courses at Ontario Colleges are offered through Ontario Learn which is a partnership of 24 Ontario
colleges. There is no research protocol in place and since students may be from any college, in order to conduct
research in these distance education courses, the researcher must go through the ethical review process at each
Ontario college separately. Research protocols and practices at colleges have recently been established; however,
access to students and student artifacts is restricted. The limited access I was given to aspects of the blended courses
offered in full-time programs was dependent on the cooperation of departmental chairs and not an established
practice. This could explain why it is so difficult to find data on this population.
65
compile them into text files. 2. Determine a coding protocol for identifying and categorizing the
variables and then train coders to use the protocol. 3. Code transcripts and compare between
coders for reliability. 4. Analyze the data to describe the target variable or relationships between
the variables. The following sections will summarize how these steps were completed for this
study. Additionally, the criteria for reliability is explained. This analysis was done to identify
utterances that demonstrated participants’ SoC.
3.9.2.3.1 Selecting the sample and unit to measure for SoC content analysis.
Developing an understanding of factors that contribute to students’ SoC was a major goal
for this study. Consequently, the contributions of every participant in the study were included in
the content analysis.
The coding unit of analysis is a ‘chunk’ of text identified in a manner that is both reliable
and valid (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). In studies of CMC environments that have used content
analysis, units of analysis have ranged from sentence or syntactical level (Fahey, Crawford &
Ally, 2001), to message (forum contribution) (Gunawardena et al., 1997) to unit of meaning
(thematic unit) (Dueber & Misanchuk, 2001; Rourke et al., 1999). I based the coding protocol
on an existing study by Dawson (2008) who reported using the sentence as a coding unit based
on the work of Hara, Bonk and Angeli, 2000; however, Hara et al. (2000) clearly state that their
unit of analysis is the paragraph. They selected this unit because a posted message could contain
several ideas and it was reasonable to assume that college-level students were capable of
breaking down messages into paragraphs which represented new idea units (p. 122).
Consequently, the coding unit selected for this research was the paragraph. Rourke et al. (2001)
expressed concern with coding paragraphs in an online discussion forum, indicating that college
students did not necessarily have the ability to write in paragraphs. They stated that the unit of
analysis described was in fact a graphical block of text. Taking those concerns into
consideration, and given the style of some of the forum posts, a few guidelines were required to
ensure consistency in coding.
A paragraph represented an idea unit and could range in length from one sentence to
many sentences.
Space left between sentences indicated the end of a paragraph even if the end punctuation
of the preceding sentence was missing.
66
If a point form list was posted and illustrated one main point, it was coded as a paragraph.
A list of resources at the end of the post set aside with a header was considered a unit.
These guidelines helped ensure that the units were consistent. Unitizing should be done
in a concrete fashion that ensures coders do not have to make decisions during the coding
process. Reliability of the coding is compromised when coders are expected to unitize and code
at the same time (Neuendorf, 2009). For this study, reliability of the coding was prioritized;
consequently, I identified the units for analysis that were used by the other coder.
3.9.2.3.2 Determining the coding protocol for SoC.
Content analysis is difficult due to the lack of a reliable coding instrument (Fahey et al.,
2000; Hara et al., 2000). When doing content analysis, it is critical to ensure that the coding
scheme fits in with the theoretical framework of the research questions (Bakeman & Gottman,
1986; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). The coding system must reflect the research question
and include the categories and behaviours the researcher seeks to identify. I looked at the forums
to identify evidence of the constructs ‘social community’ and ‘learning’ identified in Rovai’s
CCS. Coding schemes for manifest content which are based on theory-based definitions of a
construct support face validity (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). A study by Dawson (2008)
used content analysis to explore SoC using Rovai’s categories from the CCS – spirit, trust and
learning. Using an existing coding scheme helps a researcher to establish construct validity;
however, because an existing coding scheme is unlikely to capture all the behaviours the
researcher would like to study, it needs to be adapted.
The dimensions ‘spirit’ and ‘trust’ which represent ‘social community’ and the dimension
‘learning’ were kept but relabeled as the behaviour categories. Dawson’s ‘themes’ associated
with each dimension were separated, expanded and a clear example was assigned. Several
themes that were not present or were considered too difficult to consistently assign were deleted
and a few new behaviours were added to capture aspects of learning (Table 3).
67
Table 3
Changes made to Dawson’s Content Analysis Codification Schema
Change/Addition Rationale
Renamed dimensions, behaviour categories This label was clearer
Separated the lists of themes associated with
each dimension and provided a clear
description. Ex. ‘support’ was expanded to
‘Expressions of support for other members;
complementing others on contents of their
messages.’
The level of detail provided clarity for the
manifest behaviour being coded.
Deleted the theme ‘belonging’ No instances of stating a feeling of belonging
to the group were made in the forums.
Eliminated the theme ‘self-reflection’ This was identified as difficult to identify
consistently between coders during initial
stage of refining the coding protocol.
Eliminated the theme ‘identity building’ This theme overlapped with ‘self-disclosure’
Eliminated the theme ‘humour’ Humour is cultural and therefore is unlikely to
be coded consistently.
Eliminated the theme ‘debate’ This theme overlapped with ‘critique’
Added ‘expressing agreement’ This is a form of acknowledging fellow
classmates and acknowledging their posts.
Added ‘explicit interaction’ I wanted to differentiate between monologue
type posts and posts that actually referred to
another person’s post in some concrete way.
Added ‘feedback seeking’ I wanted to identify behavioural elements that
sought explicit interaction from classmates
In order to make valid inferences from text, the classification system must be reliable and
consistent. Coding the manifest content which is the visible, surface content requires no
interpretation from the coder and usually results in higher coder reliability (Baxter & Babbie,
2004). Methodologists also recommend that classification categories should be mutually
exclusive and well-defined so that different people are able to code the data in the same way. In
this study, many units displayed evidence of multiple behaviours and were coded accordingly.
Only the codes ‘LDC’ – Discussion of content and ‘LEI’ – Explicit interaction are mutually
exclusive. The resulting coding scheme had three behavioural categories and nine associated
codes (See Appendix D).
68
3.9.2.3.3 Refining the coding protocol for SoC and training the coder.
A family member of the principal investigator who had experience both teaching and
taking online courses was trained to use the coding system. The DB entries of participants who
were not included in the study were used for coder training. I explained the coding protocol and
then demonstrated the coding process. We then each coded the same units. Codes that required
interpretation such as humour and belonging were eliminated (See Table 3). The coding scheme
was reduced to 9 observable behaviours. More units were coded using the revised coding
scheme. Any differences in coding were discussed and a final coding was agreed on. When the
coding was consistently in agreement between the researcher and the coder, the second coder
coded the identified units from the discussion forum supplied by the researcher.
3.9.2.3.4 Establishing reliability.
The coding of the data needs to be validated as being reliable. Having a pair of coders
analyze the same subset and then comparing their judgments is a typical way to establish inter-
coder reliability in content analysis methodology (Graham, Millanowski, & Miller, 2012).
Typically this subset is 10-20% of the full sample (Neuendorf, 2009). For coding that involves
personal judgment, more coders are needed to establish reliability; however, when coding
manifest content, two coders, one of whom is an expert is sufficient (Potter & Levine-
Donnerstein, 1999, p. 274).
In order to establish trustworthiness of the coding, I randomly selected one set of DB
posts from each course in the study (n = 21) which represented 17% of the study participants. I
entered these posts and the coding criteria into ATLASti, identified and coded the units (n =
772). The second coder independently coded the same units. To establish reliability of the
coding, the independently coded hermeneutic units were merged and saved as a .txt file. This
file was then entered into a Coding Analysis Toolkit (CAT) to calculate a percentage agreement.
For nominal data, the contemporary required standard is to report agreement controlling for
chance agreement. Research methodologists recommend using Krippendorff’s alpha controls for
chance and/or chance agreement between coders (Neuendorf, 2009). Krippendorf (2004) states
that the recognized standard for high agreement is .80, and .667 is considered to be the lowest
acceptable standard for alpha. The agreement level between the two coders was found to be .89
which represents a high percentage of agreement. When coding manifest content, a high
69
percentage agreement is expected if the coding scheme is appropriate and clearly understood by
both coders. Potter and Levine-Donnerstein (1999) posit that ‘coder fatigue’ poses the greatest
threat to the reliability because when little or no interpretation or intuition is involved, which is
the case with codes for manifest content, the process can become uninteresting and lead to
coding inconsistencies. Not all the codes in the coding scheme captured manifest content.
Statements of support (SS), statements of disagreement /critique (LC) and statements of opinion
(LPO) required interpretation from the coder. Inclusion of these codes required careful reading
of the units. At almost all indicator levels (codes) of the categories, high levels of agreement
were found (.89 - .95) with 6 codes receiving a high level of agreement, and the remaining 3
codes receiving an acceptable level of agreement (.699 - .797).
When coding manifest content, reliability is considered as a necessary but not sufficient
condition for validity (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Rourke et al. (2001) include three
additional criteria, objectivity, replicability, and systemic cohesion, to determine if descriptions
or relationships from the content analysis are valid. Objectivity is achieved when the coding of
units is objective and not open to subjectivity and interpretive bias in the coding decisions (p. 6).
Because the codes capture mainly manifest content, objectivity is not an issue. Replicability is
part of a continuum which starts with coder stability, then inter-rater reliability and finally the
ability of distinct groups to apply the coding scheme reliably (p.7). For this study, I re-coded a
percentage of the previously identified units one month after completing the initial coding.
Using the method described above for establishing reliability between two coded passages, the
reliability alpha was .93, thus demonstrating coder stability. Inter-rater reliability was
established in the previous section. As for the ability of a distinct party to replicate this research
study, the detailed steps and coding protocol have been provided and could be used if a
researcher wanted to investigate the exact same question. The final criterion, systemic cohesion,
requires a researcher’s codes to fit the theoretical perspective from which the research questions
were derived. This research is grounded on the construct of SoC composed of connectedness
and learning. This theory indicates that spirit and trust and shared common learning goals need
to be present for individuals to feel a part of a community. The coding system was designed to
capture these constructs.
70
3.9.2.3.5 Coding the discussion forums.
The discussion forums were imported into a new hermeneutic unit in ATLASti7. The
coding scheme developed with the training units was entered into ATLASti. I first unitized the
data set and then coded all of the units. Multiple codes were applied to units when necessary.
The following is an example of a unit and the codes assigned:
Just to comment about religion, [This indicates that the message is in response to
a previous comment (explicit interaction) – LEI] as a Christian I can say that I am
not waiting for catastrophe's to happen to prove that God is real, I already believe
he is real. [This reveals personal information (self-disclosure)– TSD] The things
that are going to happen in the time of the end, I do expect to happen, but I'm not
waiting for them to happen. The fact that global warming is being predicted by
scientists doesn't stop me from believing that it could be a serious problem in the
future. I personally don't see religion as the factor that confuses people on
scientific research, since it comes down to the individual, and their own beliefs.
In the case of global warming, I think people don't want to belive [sic] in it and
make drastic changes, because that would cost a whole lot of money. for many
people.[This includes personal opinion – LPO]
The sample unit would be coded with three codes: LEI, TSD and LPO.
3.9.2.3.6 Analysing the results.
Descriptive statistics (total and mean) of the assigned coding schemes per professor were
generated using ATLASti. Numerical summaries of the transcript codes were exported into
SPSS. Analysis using SPSS statistical features were conducted to correlate total community and
learning scores with the Connectedness and Learning Scores from the CCS using the Spearman-
rho correlation coefficient.
71
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This study examined the construct of sense of community, including factors that might
influence students’ ability to achieve it. Specifically, this study examined two key questions:
1. What is the level of sense of community (SoC) which is composed of connectedness and
learning as measured by the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) of college students
enrolled in a blended computer mediated class in an urban multicultural setting?
a. What course and demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of SoC and its subscales?
b. What is the level of the variable intercultural sensitivity (composed of interaction
engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction
enjoyment and interaction attentiveness), as measured by the Intercultural Sensitivity
Scale (ISS) and what demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of IS and its subscales?
c. What is the relationship between SoC and IS?
d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS measure the same constructs when applied in a
multicultural setting like Toronto?
2. Can indicators of connectedness and learning, the underlying dimensions of the construct
SoC, be observed within the context of a blended asynchronous online college course?
The data in this chapter offer insights into the above research questions and include the
results from the responses to the survey questionnaire as well as the results of the content
analysis of the discussion board forum posts. The purpose of the survey questionnaire was to
examine the perceptions, opinions, attitudes and beliefs of students about their experiences in a
blended course composed of linguistically and culturally diverse learners. The data were used to
describe aspects of students’ sociocultural background in order to develop a better understanding
of the typical student enrolled in these types of courses. Its purpose was to answer such
questions as: Who are these students? Where have they completed their previous studies? Are
they used to the Canadian education system? Are they confident communicators? Are they
comfortable with expressing themselves and learning online in a multicultural environment? Are
they happy with their learning?
72
The survey included demographic questions, Rovai’s CCS, Chen and Starosta’s ISS and
eight open-ended questions. The data are presented in three sections. The first section provides
relevant categorical demographics to help convey the rich linguistic and sociocultural
backgrounds of the participants. The second section reports findings related to participants’ SoC
and IS, the relationship between the two constructs, and the construct validity of the two scales to
measure SoC and IS. The final section details evidence of SoC manifested in students’ DB
contributions.
4.1 Select Aggregate Survey Findings
4.1.1 Student Demographics
The data are reported in percentages or frequencies. The questionnaire was completed by
163 students with a response rate of 24.5%. As previously explained (3.8.2), of the survey
respondents, 124 students enrolled in 21 different classes met the criteria for inclusion in this
study.
This cohort is representative of the millennial generation. They are culturally fluid, easily
moving between multiple distinct cultural and linguistic frameworks and communicating
confidently. Demographic statistics describing the cohort follow.
4.1.1.1 Gender, age and status.
An almost equal number of males (52%, n = 64) and females (48%, n = 60) took part in
the study. The majority of the participants were in the 25 and under year range (83%, n = 103),
and the remainder were almost all in the 26 to 35 range (14%, n = 17). Approximately two thirds
of the participants were born in Canada (68%, n = 83) and one third came to Canada as
immigrants, Visa students or refugees (32%, n = 39) (Figure 2).
73
Figure 2. Distribution of participants by status in Canada.
4.1.1.2 Language characteristics of the students.
Participants in the study had diverse linguistic profiles indicating the multicultural nature
of this cohort. Participants` mother tongues were categorized according to language categories
utilized by statistics Canada (See Appendix E). Half the participants reported English as their
mother tongue (50.8%, n = 63). The other half identified twenty two languages categorized into
ten language groups with a significant number identifying a Romance language (6.5%, n = 8), a
Slavic language (8%, n = 10), an Indo-Iranian Language (10.5%, n = 13) and a Sino-Tibetan
Language (8.1%, n = 10) as their mother tongue (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Distribution of participants by mother tongue.
39, 32%
58, 48%
25, 20%
Landed, Visa, Refugee 1st Generation Canadian
2nd Generation Canadian
English 51%
French 1%
Indo-Iranian Language
11%
Finno-Ugric Language
1%
Slavic Language 8%
Korean 2%
Sino-Tibetan Language
8%
Romance Language 6%
Maleyo Polonesian Language
3%
Afro-Asiatic Language
5%
Austro-Asiatic Language
4%
74
Participants identified the language primarily spoken in their home. Languages were
categorized according to the categories used by Statistics Canada: English, French, English and
French, Non-official language and English, and Non-official language (Figure 4). Fifty-one
percent (n = 63) identified English as the primary language spoken in the home, 32% (n = 40)
indicated a non-official language and 17% (n = 21) indicated English and a non-official language
as the primary language spoken in the home. No participants identified French or English and
French as the primary language(s) spoken in their home.
Figure 4. Distribution of participants by language spoken in the home.
Students were asked to identify all the languages that they spoke and/or wrote, excluding English
(Figure 5). Seventeen percent (n = 21) reported speaking or writing no other language than
English; 35% (n = 43) reported one other language; 31% (n = 38) reported two other languages;
11% (n = 14) reported 3 languages; 4% (n = 5) reported 4 languages and 3% reported 5
languages (See Figure 5).
Figure 5. Number of languages spoken and/or written in addition to English.
63, 51%
40, 32%
21, 17%
English Non-official language English & Non-official language
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1 2 3 4 5Nu
mb
er
of
Par
tici
pan
ts
Number of languages spoken/written in addition to English
75
4.1.1.3 English competency.
The 21 courses analyzed in this study were blended General Education English and
Liberal Studies courses with a first year college English prerequisite. Consequently, all students
in the study had previously demonstrated a standard competency in writing. When asked to
identify their level of spoken English competency (Figure 6), 75% (n = 93) reported that their
spoken English was extremely fluent (language ability never interferes with communication);
23% (n = 28) reported their spoken English was mostly fluent (able to use language in
educational and business situations) and 2% (n = 3) reported somewhat fluent (able to use
language in everyday interactions).
Figure 6. Fluency speaking English.
Figure 7. Fluency writing English.
When asked to self-report on their written English competency (Figure 7), 72% (n = 89) reported
that their written English was extremely fluent (language ability never interferes with
communication); 17% (n = 21) reported their written English was mostly fluent (able to use
language in educational and business situations) and 11% (n = 14) reported somewhat fluent
(able to use language in everyday interactions)
4.1.1.4 Education.
Participants were asked to identify the number of years, location and language of study
for primary school, high school, college, and university. This information provides insight into
previous educational contexts in which students have been immersed.
93, 75%
28, 23% 3, 2%
Extremely Mostly Somewhat
89, 72%
21, 17%
14, 11%
Extremely Mostly Somewhat
76
4.1.1.4.1 Primary school studies.
Almost three quarters of the students (72%, n = 88) attended primary school in Canada.
Twenty percent (n = 25) reported completing primary school in another country and 8% (n = 10)
completed primary school in Canada and another country (Figure 8). Seventy percent (n = 86)
studied in English, 12% (n = 15) studied in another language, 7% (n = 9) studied in English and
French and 10% (n = 13) studied in English and another language (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Location of Primary School. Figure 9. Primary School Language.
4.1.1.4.2 High school studies.
Most of the respondents had completed all of high school in Canada (84%, n = 104)
while 14% (n = 17) reported completing high school in another country (Figure 10). Eighty two
percent (n = 101) completed their high school studies in English, 7% (n = 9) in another language,
7% (n = 8) in English and French and 5% (n = 6) in English and another language (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Location of high school. Figure 11. High school language.
77
4.1.1.4.3 College studies.
College diploma programs in Canada are generally four to six semesters in length and
take two to three years to complete. General education credits are required for all college
diplomas. Of those who responded (N = 115), most students (90%, n = 104) reported having
attended one to three years of college; 8% (n = 9) reported attending four or more years. Ninety
seven percent (n = 113) of those who responded attended college in Canada. Only one student
reported studying at college in a language other than English.
4.1.1.4.4 University studies.
A significant number of the students (23%, n = 29) reported completing between one and
seven years of university; almost two thirds (n = 19) of those reporting having attended
university had completed one or two years of study at the university level (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Number of years attended university.
Twenty of the 29 students (69%) studied at a university in Canada and the other 9 students (31%)
studied in another country (Figure 13). Of those studying in another country, 6 reported studying
in a language other than English and 1 reported studying in English and another language (Figure
14).
78
4.1.1.5 Computer based learning.
There were four questions on the survey related to students’ past experiences with fully
online and blended courses, the software used, their comfort level using threaded discussions for
learning and the availability of a computer in their home. Of the students who responded (N =
113) all reported having completed a course that was fully online. Most students (89%, n = 101)
reported completing one or two courses fully online (Figure 15). Twenty seven percent (n = 33)
reported that they did not attend a face-to-face class and 24% (n = 30) attended only one class. A
smaller number of students completed the question related to the number of courses taken that
had a required online component (N = 93, Figure 16). All respondents reported having
completed courses that required an online component. Thirty two percent (n = 30) had taken one
course; 16% (n = 15) had taken two courses; 12% (n = 11) had taken three courses and the
remaining 40% (n = 37) reported taking between four and ten courses requiring an online
component.
Figure 15. Fully online courses taken online Figure 16. Courses with online component.
Figure 13. Country of university studies.
Figure 14. Language of university studies
79
All students (N = 124) reported having used Blackboard for their previous courses. Only one of
the 124 students reported not having access to a computer at home. The majority of the students
(92%, n = 113) reported an average or high comfort level using threaded discussions to share and
develop ideas; 7% (n = 9) reported a low comfort level and 1% (n = 1) reported no comfort level
with online discussions.
4.1.1.6 Social habits.
Students were asked to consider their circle of close friends and report how many were
from cultures distinct from their own. Sixty two percent (n = 77) reported having four or more
close friends from a distinctly different culture (Figure 17); 7% (n = 8) reported having three
close friends; 17% (n = 21) reported having two close friends; 7% (n = 8) reported having one
close friend and 8% (n = 10) reported having no close friends from distinct cultures.
Figure 17 Close friends from cultures distinct from own culture.
Participants were asked how often they socialized with people from other cultures.
Eighty one percent (n = 101) reported that they socialized with people from other cultures on a
daily basis; 14% (n = 17) reported socializing weekly and 5% (n = 6) reported socializing
monthly.
80
4.1.2 Characteristics of Professors and Courses
The courses were taught by four full-time professors, each with at least one year of
experience teaching online courses. Professor A taught five online courses (multiple sections of
three different courses) in the fall of 2007 and again in the spring of 2008. These courses all had
a similar course design with clear expectations for student participation and grading, a robust
course design containing numerous course artifacts and active engagement by the professor in
the class discussion boards. Students posted self-introductions at the beginning of the course and
consistently posted throughout the semester. Professor B taught four courses online in the fall of
2007 and two courses in the winter of 2008. These 7 courses were similar in design to each other
but were very different than those offered by Professor A. The course discussions were used
primarily for posting individual responses to set questions or assignments. There was very
limited participation by the professor online beyond an initial individual response greeting to
each student’s self-introduction. Communication with students was generally individual and
outside of the discussion board forum. The professor did not make artifacts such as course
expectations and the course outline available within the Blackboard platform. Although no
specific grading criteria or expectations for discussion board participation were posted, an initial
post by the professor indicated that students were expected to respond to the posting of other
classmates. Professor C taught two sections of the same course in the winter of 2008 which were
similar in design to those taught by Professor B. The expectations in these two courses were
clearly stated and available in Blackboard. The discussion board was graded. Students were
given clear guidelines for expected participation including posting etiquette, a requirement to
take part in discussions around two readings with possible topics suggested, a requirement to
respond to two classmates with specific comments and the rubric the professor was using to
grade the discussion board. Professor C also did not take part in the students’ discussions,
choosing to communicate individually with students via e-mail. Students in these courses did not
post introductions. Professor D taught three sections of the same course in the winter of 2008.
The professor did not post in the discussion board, nor include any guidelines or course artifacts.
Communication between the instructor and students took place outside the discussion board.
Students in these classes did not post introductions. Not all students used the discussion boards
and posts were very limited in number and content.
81
Because of the small sample size of the student population, no attempt is made to use
formal statistical significance or sample size techniques to infer that the results of this study
represented larger populations. Instead basic descriptive analyses using means and correlations
are used.
4.2 Report of Findings by Research Question
Q1. What is the level of sense of community (SoC) which is composed of connectedness and
learning as measured by the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) of college students enrolled in a
blended computer mediated class in an urban multicultural setting?
4.2.1 Level of SoC
Information related to students’ SoC was collected through the responses to the 20-item
CCS which measured overall Classroom Community, composed of Connectedness and Learning
as well as responding to one open-ended question on the survey related to students’ satisfaction
with their learning. Students’ responses to the ten items related to the subscale Connectedness
were mostly close to the median mark 2.0 (Table 4). Responses to Q7, “I feel that this course is
like a family” and Q9, “I feel that members of this course depend on me” were noticeably lower
than other scale items. Overall, students reported an average sense of connectedness (M = 20.5,
SD = 6.3). The responses to the ten items related to Learning were fairly consistent and
significantly higher than those of Connectedness (M = 27.2, SD = 5.9). The pooled mean for
SoC was 47.8. While this falls above the median scale score of 40, it shows only moderate SoC.
Correlation coefficients were computed among the Connectedness and Learning
subscales using a Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation. The Spearman’s rho revealed a
statistically significant relationship between the Connectedness and Learning (rs [124] = .36, p <
.001). The effect size of this relationship was medium (Cohen, 1988), with medium levels of
Connectedness associated with higher levels of Learning.
82
Table 4
Sense of Classroom Community Scale with Descriptive Statistics
Item Text M Mdn SD
1. I feel that students in this course care about each other. 2.0 2.0 .9
3. I feel connected to others in this course. 2.0 2.0 1.0
5. *I do not feel a spirit of community. 2.2 2.0 1.0
7. I feel that this course is like a family. 1.6 2.0 1.1
9. *I feel isolated in this course. 2.8 3.0 1.0
11. I trust others in this course. 2.2 2.0 .9
13. I feel that I can rely on others in this course. 1.9 2.0 .9
15. I feel that members of this course depend on me. 1.4 1.0 1.0
17. *I feel uncertain about others in this course. 2.2 2.0 .9
19. I feel confident that others will support me. 2.2 2.0 .9
TTL Connectedness 20.5 20 6.3
2. I feel that I am encouraged to ask questions. 2.7 3.0 .8
4. *I feel that it is hard to get help when I have a question. 2.8 3.0 .9
6. I feel that I receive timely feedback. 2.9 3.0 .9
8. *I feel uneasy exposing gaps in my understanding. 2.6 3.0 1.0
10. *I feel reluctant to speak openly. 2.8 3.0 1.0
12. *I feel that this course results in only modest learning. 2.2 2.0 .9
14. *I feel that other students do not help me learn. 2.5 3.0 1.0
16. I feel that I am given ample opportunities to learn. 2.9 3.0 .8
18. *I feel that my educational needs are not being met. 3.0 3.0 .9
20. *I feel that this course does not promote a desire to learn. 2.9 3.0 1.0
TTL TTL Learning 27.2 28.0 5.9
TTL Sense of Community 47.7 49.0 10.3
Rovai, A.P (2002c); *Items were reverse coded. N=124.
83
4.2.1.1 Learning and course satisfaction.
The open-ended question (Q31), “How did the course match your learning expectations?
Are you satisfied with your learning in this course?” was included in the survey to determine if
students felt their learning needs had been met in the course. The results were generally positive.
The responses were easily coded into three categories: 1) yes 2) no 3) partially. Aggregate
results indicate that ninety percent (90%) were satisfied with their learning. Three percent (3%)
were partially satisfied with their learning and seven percent (7%) were dissatisfied with their
learning.
4.2.2 Question One: Sub Question A
Q1a What course and demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of SoC and its subscales?
A number of variables were examined to determine their relationship to SoC and its subscales
Connectedness and Learning. Specifically I examined the following variables:
Course variables: length of course and number of face to face meetings, professor
Demographic variables: age, gender, status, comfort level with discussion boards, mother
tongue , English writing competency, and country of completion of high school
Intercultural experiences and interactions: studying other languages/cultures, language
spoken in the home, having close friends from other cultures, and socializing with people
from other cultures
4.2.2.1. Course variables and SoC.
Two course variables were explored to determine if they had a significant impact on SoC:
length of course and number of face to face meetings, and professor. The 21 courses were
grouped into three categories: Group 1 consisted of 17 blended courses taught over 14 weeks that
met two or fewer times face to face. Group 2 consisted of two blended courses taught over seven
weeks that met two or fewer times face to face. Group 3 consisted of two blended courses taught
over 14 weeks that met five or more times face to face. Since there was no statistically
significant difference at the p < .05 for total Classroom Community (SoC)(p = .21, n2 = .03),
Connectedness (p = .35, n2 = .02)or Learning (p = .09, n
2 = .04), the three groups were
combined for subsequent analysis.
84
4.2.2.1.1 Professor.
Table 5 indicates the mean scores for the variables Connectedness and Learning of the
students categorized by professor. The Connectedness mean scores were very close to the
median possible score of 20, with the scores for Professors A and D falling just below the
median and the scores for Professors B and C falling just above the median; all scores represent a
weak sense of connectedness. The scores were somewhat higher for the subscale Learning. The
scores ranged from 24.5 to 29.2 out of a possible score of 40. Professor D had the lowest mean
scores for both variables.
Table 5.
SCC scores of students by professor
Variable Professor A, N=56
M (SD)
Professor B, N=43
M (SD)
Professor C, N=11
M (SD)
Professor D, N=14
M (SD)
Connectedness 19.8 (6.1) 21.4 (6.8) 23.0 (6.1) 18.9 (5.4)
Learning 26.5 (5.8) 29.2 (6.0) 27.0 (5.1) 24.5 (5.0)
Total Classroom
Community
46.2 (9.8) 50.5 (11.2) 50.5 (20.5) 42.4 (10.7)
Note: Scores can range from 0 to 40 for Connectedness and Learning and 0 to 80 for Community with higher scores
reflecting a stronger sense of classroom community.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to evaluate differences among the four professors
(Professor A, B, C and D) on SoC and its subscales. The test, which was corrected for tied ranks
was significant with a medium to large effect size at the p < .05 for Classroom Community χ2(3,
n = 124) = 9.44, p = .02, 2 = .08. Professor B (Mdn = 51.0) and Professor C (Mdn = 50.0) had
higher median scores than Professor A (Mdn = 47.5) and Professor D (Mdn = 43.5). Follow-up
tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the groups and SoC. The results of
these tests indicated a significant difference and small effect between Professor A and B (U =
863, z = -2.29, p = .02), r = .2, and a significant difference and medium effect between Professor
B and D (U = 159, z = -2.64, p = .01), r = .3.
A Kruskal-Wallis test, which was corrected for tied ranks was significant with a medium
to large effect size at the p < .05 for the subscale Learning [χ2(3, n = 124) = 10.16, p = .02], 2
=
.08. Professor B (Mdn = 30.0, n = 43) and Professor C (Mdn = 29.0, n = 10) had higher median
scores than Professor A (Mdn = 27.5, n = 55) and Professor D (Mdn = 25.0, n = 14). Follow-up
85
tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the groups and Learning. The
results of these tests indicated a significant difference and small effect size between Professor A
and B (U = 844.5, z = -2.43, p = .01), r = .2, and a significant difference and small effect size
between Professor B and D (U = 153, z = -2.75, p = .01), r = .2.
Taken together, these results suggest that professor does have a small to large effect on
SoC and Learning. This result could be due to course design or pedagogy.
4.2.2.2 Demographic variables and SoC.
The demographic variables, age, gender, status, comfort level with discussion boards,
mother tongue, English writing competency, and country of completion of high school were
explored to determine if there was a significant relationship with SoC. Results are recorded in
Table 6. Descriptions of results are included if the results were statistically significant. The
following factors were not found to be statistically significant at the p < .05 level for total
Classroom Community and the subscales Connectedness and Learning: age, gender, status,
country of completion of high school.
4.2.2.2.1 Comfort with discussion forums.
Participants were divided into three groups (Group 1: No or low comfort; Group 2:
Average comfort; Group 3: High comfort). There was a significant statistical relationship and a
large effect size at the p < .05 level in the scores for the three groupings related to comfort with
discussion forums and Total Classroom Community [χ2(2, n = 122) = 14.38, p = .02], 2
= .12.
Group 1 (Mdn = 41.0, n = 8) had lower SoC scores than Group 2 (Mdn = 46.0, n = 62) and
Group 3 (Mdn = 51.0, n = 52). Post hoc comparisons of the groupings related to comfort with
the discussion board indicated that the median score for total Classroom Community was
significantly different and had a medium effect size for Group 1 and Group 3 (U = 68.5, z = -
3.04, p = .00), r = .4, and a significant difference and a medium effect size for Group 2 and
Group 3 (U = 1074, z = -2.95, p = .00), r = .3.
There was a significant statistical relationship and a medium to large effect size at the p <
.05 level in the scores for the three groupings related to comfort with discussion forums and
Connectedness [χ2(2, n = 122) = 8.47, p = .23], 2
= .07. Group 1 (Mdn = 18.5) had lower
Connectedness scores than Group 2 (Mdn = 20.0) and Group 3 (Mdn = 23.0). Post hoc
comparisons of total Connectedness indicated that there was a statistically significant difference
86
and a medium effect size in the median score between Group 2 and Group 3 (U = 1100.5, z = -
2.8, p = .00), r = .3
There was a significant statistical relationship and a medium to large effect size at the p <
.05 level in the scores for the three groupings related to comfort with discussion forums and
Learning [ χ2(2, n = 122) = 11.67, p = .02],2
= .10. Group 1 (Mdn = 21.5) had lower Learning
scores than Group 2 (Mdn = 27.0) and Group 3 (Mdn = 29.0). Post hoc comparisons of total
Learning indicated that there was a statistically significant difference and a small effect size in
the median score between Group 2 and Group 3 (U = 1175.5, z = -2.37, p = .02), r = .2, and a
significant difference and a medium effect between Group 1 and Group 3 (U = 78.5, z = -2.82, p
= .00), r = .4.
Taken together, these results suggest that comfort level with the discussion board does
have an effect on Classroom Community and its subscales. Specifically, my results suggest that
when students have low comfort with using the discussion board, they score lower on the CCS.
4.2.2.2.2 Mother tongue.
There was no statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level for the median mother
tongue scores for English native speakers (Mdn = 47, n = 64) and other language speakers (Mdn
= 49.5, n = 58) and total Classroom Community. A Mann-Whitney U test for the equality of
means for Connectedness for English native speakers (Mdn = 19, n = 64) and other language
speakers (Mdn = 22, n = 58) was significant (U =1344.5.5, z = -2.63, p = .01), r = .24, and a
small effect size. There was no significant difference for English native speakers (Mdn = 28.5, n
= 64) and non-native speakers (Mdn = 28, n = 58) for the subscale Learning.
4.2.2.2.3 English writing competency.
Participants were divided into 3 groups according to their self-evaluation of their English
competency (Group 1: able to use language in everyday interactions; Group 2: able to use
language in educational and business situations; Group 3: language ability never interferes with
communication.) The Kruskal-Wallis test did not show a statistical difference at the p < .05 level
in scores for the three groups for the total classroom community [χ2(2, n = 124) = 5.18, p = .07],
2 = .04 or the connectedness subscale [χ
2(2, n = 124) = 4.42, p = .11], 2
= .04; however, for the
subscale of Learning [χ2(2, n = 124) = 8.30, p = .02],2
= .07, there was a statistically significant
87
relationship with a medium to large effect size. Group 1 (Mdn = 46.5, n = 14) had lower median
Learning scores than Group 2 (Mdn = 51.0, n = 22) and Group 3 (Mdn = 48.0, n = 87). Post hoc
comparisons of total Learning indicated that there was a statistically significant difference and a
large effect size in the median score between Group 1 and Group 2 (U = 64.5, z = -2.78, p = .00),
r = .5, and a significant difference and a small effect between Group 1 and Group 3 (U = 350.5, z
= -2.58, p = .01), r = .2.
Students who reported high levels of English writing competency had higher levels of
Learning.
4.2.2.3. Intercultural experiences / interactions and SOC.
Four variables related to intercultural experiences and interactions were explored to
determine if they had a significant impact on SoC: studying other languages/cultures, language
spoken in the home, having close friends from other cultures, and frequency of socializing with
people from other cultures.
The number of languages spoken, languages spoken in the home and the number of close
friends from other cultures were not statistically significant at the p < .05 level.
4.2.2.3.1 Frequency of socializing with people from other cultures.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to assess the impact of socializing with people from
other cultures on total levels of SoC and the subscales. Participants were divided into 3 groups
according to the frequency of socializing (Group 1: daily; Group 2: weekly; Group 3: monthly).
There was a significant difference and small to medium effect size at the p < .05 level in
Classroom Community scores for the three groups [χ2(2, n = 124) = 6.72, p = .03], 2
= .05.
Group 3 (Mdn = 53.5, n = 6) had higher median Classroom Community scores than Group 1
(Mdn = 49.0, n = 101) and Group 2 (Mdn = 44.0, n = 17). Post hoc comparisons of total
Classroom Community indicated that there was a statistically significant difference and a large
effect size between Group 2 and Group 3 (U = 15.5, z = -2.88, p = .01), r = .6.
There was a statistically significant difference and a medium to large effect size at the p <
.05 level in subscale Learning [χ2(2, n = 124) = 10.66, p = .01],2
= .09. Group 3 (Mdn = 34.0, n
= 6) had higher median Learning scores than Group 2 (Mdn = 23.0, n = 17) and Group 1 (Mdn =
28.0, n = 101). Post hoc comparisons of Learning indicated that there was a significant
difference and a small effect size between Group 1 and Group 2 (U = 542, z = -2.38, p = .02), r =
88
.2, a statistically significant difference, and a large effect size in the median score between Group
2 and Group 3 (U = 11.5, z = -2.77, p = .01), r = .6
There was no statistically significant difference in the subscale Connectedness [χ2(2, n =
124) = 1.33, p = .51], 2 = .01.
Participants socializing with culturally distinct others monthly had higher SoC and
Learning scores than those socializing with culturally distinct others on a daily or weekly basis
but the Connectedness scores were not related significantly which was an unexpected result.
Table 6
Summary of tests and conclusions on the relationship of selected variables and SoC
Course
Variables
Test (Significance), 2 Conclusions
Course
length/meetings
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 124) = 3.15, p = .21], 2
= .03
C [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.11, p = .35], 2
= .02
L [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.80, p = .09],2
= .04
No statistically
significant correlation
Professor Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(3, n = 124) = 9.4, p = .02], 2
= .08
C [χ2(3, n = 124) = 4.3, p = .23], 2
= .01
L [χ2(3, n = 124) = 10.2, p = .02],2
= .08
Statistically significant
results for SoC and
Learning, and medium to
large effect sizes. No
statistically significant
correlation with
Connectedness
Demographic
Variables
Test (Significance), 2 Conclusions
Age
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 121) = 1.03, p = .57], 2
= .01
C [χ2(2, n = 121) = 1.37, p = .47], 2
= .02
L [χ2(2, n = 121) = .63, p = .71],2
= .00
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
gender
M=male
F=female
Mann-
Whitney U
Test
CC (U =1871.5, z = -.24, p = .81), r = .02
M: (Mdn = 49, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 48, n = 60)
C (U =1689.5, z = -1.15, p = .25), r = .02
M: (Mdn = 21, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 20, n = 60)
L (U =1801, z = -.60, p = .55) , r = .05
M:(Mdn = 28, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 27.5, n = 60)
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
status Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 122, p = .94], 2
= .00
C [χ2(2, n = 122, p = .07], 2
= .04
L [χ2(2, n = 122, p = .25],2
= .02
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
comfort with
discussion
boards
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 122) = 14.38, p = .02], 2
= .12
C [χ2(2, n = 122) = 8.47, p = .23], 2
= .07
L [χ2(2, n = 122) = 11.67, p = .02],2
= .10
Statistically significant
results for SoC and
Learning, and large
effect sizes
mother tongue
E=English
NN=non-native
Mann-
Whitney U
Test
CC (U =1589.5, z = -.1.37, p = .17) , r = .12
E: (Mdn = 47, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 49.5, n = 58)
Statistically significant
results for
Connectedness and small
89
language C (U =1344.5.5, z = -2.63, p = .01) , r = .24
E: (Mdn = 19, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 22, n = 58)
L (U =1831.5, z = -.13, p = .90) , r = .01
E: (Mdn = 28.5, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 28, n = 58)
effect size.
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC and Learning;
English writing
competency
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 124) = 5.18, p = .07], 2
= .04
C [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.42, p = .11], 2
= .04
L [χ2(2, n = 124) = 8.30, p = .02],2
= .07
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC and
Connectedness;
statistically significant
results for Learning and
medium effect size.
Country of
completion of
high school
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 124) = .10, p = .95], 2
= .00
C [χ2(2, n = 124) = .88, p = .64], 2
= .01
L [χ2(2, n = 124) = 1.17, p = .56],2
= .01
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
Intercultural Experiences and Interactions
Number of
languages and
cultures studied
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 121) = 3.12, p = .53], 2
= .03
C [χ2(2, n = 121) = 4.22, p = .49], 2
= .03
L [χ2(2, n = 121) = 2.54, p = .67], 2
= .02
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
Language
spoken in the
home
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 124) = 3.01, p = .22], 2
= .02
C [χ2(2, n = 124) = 5.11, p = .08], 2
= .04
L [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.48, p = .29],2
= .02
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
Close friends
from other
cultures
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(4, n = 124) = 4.18, p = .38], 2
= .03
C [χ2(4, n = 124) = 2.73, p = .60], 2
= .02
L [χ2(4, n = 124) = 4.93, p = .29], 2
= .04
No statistically
significant correlation
with SoC or subscales
Socializing with
people from
other cultures
Kruskal-
Wallis Test CC [χ
2(2, n = 124) = 6.72, p = .03], 2
= .05
C [χ2(2, n = 124) = 1.33, p = .51], 2
= .01
L [χ2(2, n = 124) = 10.66, p = .01],2
= .09
Statistically significant
results for SoC and
Learning, and small to
large effect size
No statistically
significant correlation
with Connectedness
CC = Classroom Community (SoC), C = Connectedness, L = Learning; Significant results are
bolded
4.2.3 Question One: Sub Question B
Q1b What is the level of the variable intercultural sensitivity (composed of interaction
engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction enjoyment and
interaction attentiveness), as measured by the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) and what
demographic variables and intercultural experiences and interactions are significant predictors
of IS and its subscales?
90
4.2.3.1 Level of IS.
Students completed the ISS. Responses were assigned a value of between 1 and 5 with
certain items reverse coded to ensure that the least favourable response was assigned a value of
1. Students’ responses to the questions were mostly close to the median mark 4.0 (Table 7).
Responses to Q11, “I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally-distinct
counterparts.” and Q19, “I am sensitive to my culturally-distinct counterpart’s subtle meanings
during our interaction.” were marginally lower than other scale items.
Table 7
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Descriptive Statistics
Item Text M Mdn SD
1. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. 4.5 5.0 .0
11. I tend to wait before forming an impression of culturally-distinct
counterparts. 3.4 3.5 .1
13. I am open-minded to people from different cultures. 4.4 5.0 .1
21. I often give positive responses to my culturally different counterpart during
our interaction. 3.9 4.0 .1
22. *I avoid those situations where I will have to deal with culturally-distinct
persons. 3.8 4.0 .1
23 I often show my culturally-distinct counterpart my understanding through
verbal or nonverbal cues. 3.6 4.0 .1
24 I have a feeling of enjoyment towards differences between my culturally-
distinct counterpart and me. 3.9 4.0 .1
Interaction Engagement (possible score range: 7-35) 27.5 27.0 .3
2. *I think people from other cultures are narrow-minded. 4.0 4.0 .1
7. *I don’t like to be with people from different cultures. 4.4 5.0 .1
8. I respect the values of people from different cultures. 4.3 4.5 .1
16. I respect the ways people from different cultures behave. 4.2 4.0 .1
18. *I would not accept the opinions of people from different cultures. 4.4 5.0 .1
20. *I think my culture is better than other cultures. 3.8 4.0 .1
Respect for Cultural Differences (possible range: 6-30) 25.1 26.0 .3
3. I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from different
cultures. 4.3 4.0 .1
4. *I find it very hard to talk in front of people from different cultures. 4.3 4.0 .1
5. I always know what to say when interacting with people from different
cultures. 3.6 4.0 .1
6. I can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with people from
different cultures. 4.2 4.0 .1
91
10. I feel confident when interacting with people from different cultures. 4.2 4.0 .1
Interaction Confidence (possible score range: 5-25) 20.5 20 .2
14. I am very observant when interacting with people from different cultures. 4.0 4.0 .1
17. I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with people
from different cultures. 3.8 4.0 .1
19. I am sensitive to my culturally-distinct counterpart’s subtle meanings
during our interaction. 3.3 3.0 .8
Interaction Attentiveness (possible score range: 3-15) 11.1 11.0 .2
9. *I get upset easily when interacting with people from different cultures. 4.5 5.0 .1
12. *I often get discouraged when I am with people from different cultures. 4.2 4.0 .1
15. *I often feel useless when interacting with people from different cultures. 4.2 4.0 .1
Interaction Enjoyment (possible score range: 3-15) 13.0 13.0 .2
Chen, G. & Starosta, W. (2000); *Items were reverse coded. N=124.
The pooled mean for IS was 97.23, out of a possible score of 120 (SD = 11.1). Overall, students
reported high scores on each of the subscales: Interaction Engagement (M = 27.5) out of a
possible 35; Respect for Cultural Differences (M = 25.1) out of a possible 30; Interaction
Confidence (M = 20.5) out of a possible 25; Interaction Attentiveness (M = 11.1) out of a
possible 15; and Interaction Enjoyment (M = 11.1).
4.2.3.2 Descriptives of self-reported attitudes toward other cultures related to IS.
The open-ended question (Q33), “Describe how you felt interacting with participants
from other cultures in threaded discussions” was included in the survey to capture participants’
feelings about intercultural interactions. The responses were coded into six categories: 1)
Positive – useful, fine, comfortable, interesting; 2) Off-target response; 3) Culture not relevant.
4) Not comfortable / language challenge; 4) No interaction. Of the responses (N = 111), (46%, n
= 57) were positive. Approximately 5 % (n = 6) were off topic. Twenty one percent (n = 26)
reported no influence of culture in the interactions. Four percent (n = 5) were neutral and almost
14 % (n = 17) reported they were not comfortable interacting with other cultures online.
A second open-ended question (Q34), “How well were you able to express your opinions
and interact with people from other cultures online?” was meant to capture participants’
interaction confidence. Responses (N = 110) were coded into five categories. Fifty two percent
(n = 57) felt that they were able to express their opinions and interact with other cultures online
92
easily; 23% (n = 25) reported they were able to express themselves well but that culture wasn’t a
factor, 6% (n = 6) felt they could express themselves well but were aware of other cultures when
interacting; and 6% (n = 6) reported that they were not able to express themselves as well online
when communicating with other cultures.
Another open ended question (Q35) asked students to describe how their cultural
backgrounds either helped or hindered their online interactions. This question was meant to
reveal awareness of participant’s own culture and the influence it has on their interactions. The
answers (N = 102) were coded into five categories. Fifty percent (n = 51) reported that their
cultural background had no influence, 27% (n = 28) indicated that it was helpful / they were used
to multicultural interactions, 17.6% (n = 18) reported that they spoke through the lens of their
culture, 5% (n = 5) felt that their lack of exposure to other cultures hindered them.
A similar question (Q36) asked students to describe how having different cultural
perspectives influenced the learning that took place. The responses were coded into five
categories. Ten percent (n = 9) felt that they were able to learn about different aspects of other
cultures. Forty eight percent (n = 44) reported that the different cultural perspectives enriched
the learning; 2% didn’t know, 34% (n = 31) felt it had no influence and 6.5% (n = 6) felt it had a
challenging or negative influence.
A fifth open ended question (Q38) asked students to describe how participating in the
course with participants from other cultures influenced their world view. The question was
meant to gather evidence of openness to other cultural views. The responses (N = 86) were
coded into two categories. Fifty three percent (n = 46) reported no change and 47% (n = 40)
reported that it expanded their knowledge/ understanding.
4.2.3.3 Demographic variables related to IS.
To better understand the factors that influence IS as measured by the Intercultural
Sensitivity Scale (ISS) and its subscales Interaction Engagement, Respect for Cultural
Differences, Interaction Confidence, Interaction Attentiveness, and Interaction Enjoyment and to
validate and expand on the findings of previous studies that examined the relationship of certain
variables I examined the demographic variables age, gender, status, mother tongue, comfort with
discussion boards, English writing competency and country of completion of high school. The
significance or alpha level was predetermined at .05. Results are summarized in Table 8. There
93
was no significant correlation with age, status, gender, discussion board comfort, mother tongue
and country of completion of high school.
4.2.3.3.1 English writing competency.
A Kruskall-Wallis Test was conducted to explore the relationship between English
writing competency and the level of IS, and the 5 subscales of the ISS. The Kruskal-Wallis Test
showed a statistically significant relationship with a medium to large effect size at the p < .05
level in the three groups (Group 1: somewhat fluent- able to use language in everyday
interactions; Group 2: mostly fluent - able to use language in educational and business situations;
Group 3:extremely fluent) for total IS [χ2(2, n = 122) = 10.04, p = .01], 2 = .08. Group 3
recorded a higher median score for IS (Mdn = 100.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 91.5) and Group 2
(Mdn = 94.0). Post hoc comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U Test on groups 1 and 3 were
statistically significant with a small effect size (U = 359.5, z = -2.49, p = .01), r = .2. Groups 2
and 3 were also statistically significant with a small effect (U = 597.5, z = -2.51, p = .01), r = .2.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant relationship and a medium to
large effect for the subscale Interaction Engagement [χ2(2, n = 122) = 9.59, p = .01], 2 = .08.
Group 3 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 28.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 25.0) and Group 2
(Mdn = 26.0). Post hoc comparisons on groups 1 and 3 were statistically significant with a small
effect size (U = 377.5, z = -2.33, p = .02), r = .2. Groups 2 and 3 were also statistically
significant with a small effect (U = 595, z = -2.54, p = .01), r = .2.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant relationship and a medium
effect for the subscale Respect for Cultural Differences [χ2(2, n = 122) = 6.83, p = .03],2 = .06.
Group 3 had a higher median RCD score (Mdn = 26.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 24.0) and Group 2
(Mdn = 25.0). Post hoc comparisons on groups 1 and 3 were statistically significant with a small
effect size (U = 390, z = -2.21, p = .03), r = .2.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant relationship with a medium to
large effect for the subscale Interaction Enjoyment [χ2(2, n = 122) = 10.16, p = .01],2 = .08.
Group 3 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 13.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 12.0) and Group 2
(Mdn = 12.0). Post hoc comparisons on groups 1 and 3 were statistically significant and a small
effect size (U = 391, z = -2.25, p = .02), r = .2. Groups 2 and 3 were also statistically significant
and a small effect size (U = 597.5, z = -2.58, p = .01), r = .2.
94
Participants that rated their writing ability as extremely fluent, had higher levels of IS,
RCD, IE and IJ.
4.2.3.4 Intercultural experiences / interactions and IS.
Four variables related to intercultural experiences and interactions were explored to
determine if they had a significant impact on IS: studying other languages/cultures, language
spoken in the home, having close friends from other cultures, and frequency of socializing with
people from other cultures.
The number of languages spoken (p = .79, 2 = .01) and languages spoken in the home (p
= .83, 2 = .00) were not statistically significant at the p < .05 level.
4.2.3.4.1 Close friends from other cultures.
A Kruskall-Wallis Test was conducted to explore the relationship between the number of
close friends from other cultures and the level of IS, and the 5 subscales of the ISS. The
Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and a medium to large effect
size at the p < .05 level in the five groups (Group 1: No close friends; Group 2: One close friend;
Group 3: Two close friends; Group 4: Three close friends; Group 5: Four or more close friends)
for total IS [χ2(2, n = 124, p = .04], 2
= .08. Group 5 recorded a higher median score (Mdn =
101.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 91.5), Group 2 (Mdn = 91.5), Group 3 (Mdn = 96.0) and Group 4
(Mdn = 94.5). Post hoc comparisons on Groups 3 and 5 were statistically significant and a small
effect size (U = 526.5, z = -2.44, p = .01), r = .2. Differences between groups 1 and 5 were not
statistically significant with application of Bonferroni adjustment (U = 234.5, z = -2.00, p = .04),
r = .27.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and a medium to
large effect size at the p < .05 level in the subscale Interaction Engagement [χ2(2, n = 124, p =
.02], 2 = .09. Group 5 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 29.0) than Group 1 (Mdn = 24.0),
Group 2 (Mdn = 25.5), Group 3 (Mdn = 26.0) and Group 4 (Mdn = 27.0). Post hoc comparisons
on Groups 3 and 5 were statistically significant and a small effect size (U = 519.5, z = -2.52, p =
.01), r = .2. Groups 1 and 5 were not statistically significant with application of Bonferroni
adjustment (U = 234.0, z = -2.02, p = .04), r = .2.
95
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and a medium to
large effect size at the p < .05 level in the subscale Respect for Cultural Differences [χ2(2, n =
124, p = .02],2 = .09. Group 5 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 26.0) than Group 1 (Mdn
= 23.0), Group 2 (Mdn = 24.0), Group 3 (Mdn = 25.0) and Group 4 (Mdn = 25.5) Post hoc
comparisons on Groups 3 and 5 were statistically significant and a small effect size (U = 551, z =
-2.24, p = .02), r = .2. Comparisons of Groups 1 and 5 were not statistically significant with
application of Bonferroni adjustment (U = 220.5, z = -2.20, p = .03), r = .2.
The number of close friends from other cultures significantly correlated to IS and the
subscales Interaction Engagement and Respect for Cultural Differences with those reporting
having four or more close friends scoring significantly higher scores than participants reporting
between zero and three close friends.
4.2.3.4.2 Socializing with people from other cultures.
A Kruskall-Wallis Test was conducted to explore the relationship between the frequency
of socializing with people from other cultures and the level of IS, and the 5 subscales of the ISS.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and medium to large effect
size at the p < .05 level in the three groups (Group 1: daily; Group 2: weekly; Group 3: monthly)
for total IS [χ2(2, n = 124, p < .00], 2
= .10. Group 1 recorded a higher median score (Mdn =
100.0) than Group 2 (Mdn = 93.0) and Group 3 (Mdn = 89.5). Post hoc comparisons on Groups
1 and 2 were statistically significant and a medium effect size (U = 463, z = -3.03, p = .00), r =
.3.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and a medium to
large effect size at the p < .05 level in the subscale Interaction Engagement [χ2(2, n = 124, p <
.00], 2 = .09. Group 1 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 28.0) than Group 2 (Mdn = 26.0)
and Group 3 (Mdn = 24.5). Post hoc comparisons of Groups 1 and 2 were statistically significant
and a small effect size (U = 514, z = -2.65, p = .01), r = .2. Differences between groups 1 and 3
were also statistically significant and a small effect size (U = 130, z = -2.36, p = .02), r = .2
The Kruskal-Wallis Test showed a statistically significant difference and a medium to
large effect size at the p < .05 level in the subscale Respect for Cultural Differences [χ2(2, n =
124, p = .02],2 = .07. Group 1 recorded a higher median score (Mdn = 26.0) than Group 2 (Mdn
96
= 24.0) and Group 3 (Mdn = 23.0). Post hoc comparisons of Groups 1 and 2 were statistically
significant and a small effect size (U = 540.5, z = -2.45, p = .01), r = .2
The frequency of socializing with friends from other cultures significantly correlated to
IS and the subscales Interaction Engagement and Respect for Cultural Differences with those
reporting daily interactions scoring significantly higher scores than participants reporting
between weekly and monthly interactions.
Table 8
Summary of tests and conclusions on the relationship of selected variables and IS
Demographic
Variables
Test (Significance), 2 Conclusions
age Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.97, p = .23], 2
= .02
IE [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.90, p = .24], 2
= .02
RCD [χ2(2, n = 124) = 1.67, p = .43],2
= .01
IC [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.91, p = .09], 2
= .04
IA [χ2(2, n = 124) = .16, p = .93], 2
= .00
IJ [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.11, p = .35],2
= .02
No correlation with
IS or subscales
gender
Mann-
Whitney U
Test
IS (U = 1850, z = -.35, p = .73) , r = .03
M: (Mdn = 97, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 99, n = 60)
IE (U = 1859, z = -.30, p = .76) , r = .03
M: (Mdn = 27, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 27.5, n = 60)
RCD (U = 1767, z = -.77, p = .44) , r = .04
M: (Mdn = 26, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 26, n = 60)
IC (U = 1838, z = -.41, p = .68) , r = .06
M: (Mdn = 20, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 20, n = 60)
IA (U = 1910, z = -.05, p = .96) , r = .09
M: (Mdn = 11, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 11, n = 60)
IJ (U = 1699, z = -1.1, p = .23) , r = .02
M: (Mdn = 13, n = 64); F:(Mdn = 13, n = 60)
No correlation with
IS or subscales
status Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 122) = 1.34, p = .51], 2
= .01
IE [χ2(2, n = 122) = .61, p = .74], 2
= .01
RCD [χ2(2, n = 122) = 1.29, p = .53],2
= .01
IC [χ2(2, n = 122) = 1.07, p = .59], 2
= .01
IA [χ2(2, n = 122) = .18, p = .92], 2
= .00
IJ [χ2(2, n = 122) = 3.47, p = .18],2
= .03
No correlation with
IS or subscales
comfort with
discussion boards
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 122) = 5.26, p = .07], 2
= .04
IE [χ2(2, n = 122) = 5.78, p = .06], 2
= .05
RCD [χ2(2, n = 122) = 2.70, p = .23],2
= .02
IC [χ2(2, n = 122) = 3.13, p = .21], 2
= .03
IA [χ2(2, n = 122) = 1.07, p = .58], 2
= .01
No correlation with
IS or subscales
97
IJ [χ2(2, n = 122) = 3.45, p = .18],2
= .03
mother tongue
Mann-
Whitney U
Test
IS (U = 1791.5, z = -.33, p = .74) , r = .03
E: (Mdn = 98.5, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 97.5, n = 58)
IE (U = 1793.5, z = -.32, p = .75) , r = .03
E: (Mdn = 28, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 27, n = 58)
RCD (U = 1805.5, z = -.26, p = .79) , r = .02
E: (Mdn = 26, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 26, n = 58)
IC (U = 1842, z = -.07, p = .94) , r = .01
E: (Mdn = 20.5, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 20, n = 58)
IA (U = 1690.5, z = -.86, p = .39) , r = .08
E: (Mdn = 11, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 11, n = 58)
IJ (U = 1780, z = -.40, p = .69) , r = .04
E: (Mdn = 13, n = 64); NN:(Mdn = 13, n = 58)
No correlation with
IS or subscales
English writing
competency
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 122) = 10.04, p = .01], 2
= .08
IE [χ2(2, n = 122) = 9.59, p = .01], 2
= .08
RCD [χ2(2, n = 122) = 6.83, p = .03],2
= .06
IC [χ2(2, n = 122) = 5.00, p = .08], 2
= .04
IA [χ2(2, n = 122) = 1.99, p = .37], 2
= .02
IJ [χ2(2, n = 122) = 10.16, p = .01],2
= .08
Statistically
significant results for
IS and the subscales
IE, RCD and IJ, and
medium to large
effect sizes
Country of
completion of
high school
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 124) = 3.55, p = .17], 2
= .03
IE [χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.18, p = .34], 2
= .02
RCD [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.15, p = .13],2
= .03
IC [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.84, p = .09], 2
= .04
IA [χ2(2, n = 124) = .53, p = .77], 2
= .00
IJ [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.00, p = .14],2
= .03
No correlation with
IS or subscales
Intercultural Experiences and Interactions
Number of
languages and
cultures studied
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 121) = 5.88, p = .79], 2
= .01
IE [χ2(2, n = 121) = 6.61, p = .62], 2
= .02
RCD [χ2(2, n = 121) = 3.94, p = .94],2
= .01
IC [χ2(2, n = 121) = 6.19, p = .42], 2
= .03
IA [χ2(2, n = 121) = 4.04, p = .58], 2
= .02
IJ [χ2(2, n= 121) = 3.29, p = .82],2
= .01
No correlation with
IS or subscales
Language spoken
in the home
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 124) = .37, p = .83], 2
= .00
IE [χ2(2, n = 124) = .11, p = .95], 2
= .00
RCD [χ2(2, n = 124) = 1.17, p = .56], 2
= .01
IC [χ2(2, n = 124) = .40, p = .82], 2
= .00
IA [χ2(2, n = 124) = .98, p = .61], 2
= .01
IJ [χ2(2, n = 124) = .18, p = .91], 2
= .00
No correlation with
IS or subscales
Close friends
from other
cultures
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 124) = 9.98, p = .04], 2
= .08
IE [χ2(2, n = 124) = 11.22, p = .02], 2
= .09
RCD [χ2(2, n = 124) = 11.30, p = .02],2
= .09
IC [χ2(2, n = 124) = 5.99, p = .20], 2
= .05
IA [χ2(2, n = 124) = 3.87, p = .42], 2
= .03
Statistically
significant results for
IS and the subscales,
IE and RCD; effect
size is medium to
98
IJ [χ2(2, n = 124) = 5.05, p = .28],2
= .04 large
Socializing with
people from other
cultures
Kruskal-
Wallis Test
IS [χ2(2, n = 124) = 11.99, p <.00], 2
= .10
IE [χ2(2, n = 124) = 11.61, p <.00], 2
= .09
RCD [χ2(2, n = 124) = 8.08, p = .02],2
= .07
IC [χ2(2, n = 124) = 6.16, p = .05], 2
= .05
IA [χ2(2, n = 124) = 3.26, p = .19], 2
= .03
IJ [χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.39, p = .11],2
= .04
Statistically
significant results for
IS and the subscales
IE and RCD and IC;
effect size is medium
to large
IS = Intercultural Sensitivity, IE = Interaction Engagement, RCD = Respect for Cultural Differences, IC =
Interaction Confidence, IA = Interaction Attentiveness, IJ = Interaction Enjoyment, M= Male, F = Female,
E=English Speaker, NN = non-native speaker; Significant results are bolded.
4.2.4 Question One: Sub Question C
The third sub question looks at both the SoC and IS constructs in relation to each other.
A few demographic and social variables have been identified as having a significant relationship
to SoC but no study has looked at IS as a variable of SoC. Intercultural sensitivity is a predictor
of ICC and since ICC is requisite for effective interactions in a multicultural setting in order to
fully participate and move from the peripheral to legitimate participation, I posed the following
question to determine if IS was relevant in this study.
Q1c. What is the relationship between SoC and IS?
I ran a Spearman’s rank-order correlation to assess the relationship between SoC and IS.
Preliminary analysis showed the relationship to be monotonic, as assessed by visual inspection of
a scatterplot. There was a positive correlation and a small effect size between SoC and IS, rs
(124) = .19, p < .03, 2 = .02. Several of the ISS subscales also had a statistically significant
correlation with SoC and a small effect size. The subscales Respect for Cultural Differences, rs
(124) = .21, p < .03, 2 = .02 and Interaction Confidence, rs (124) = .19, p < .03, 2
= .02 had a
small positive correlation with Classroom Community (SoC).
There was a positive correlation and a small effect size between the ISS subscales
Interaction Engagement, rs (124) = .19, p < .03, 2 = .02, Respect for Cultural Differences, rs
(124) = .21, p < .03, 2 = .02, Interaction Confidence, rs (124) = .27, p < .00, 2
= .02 and
Interaction Enjoyment, rs (124) = .23, p < .01, 2 = .02 and the CCS subscale Learning.
There was also a positive correlation and a small effect size between the CCS subscale
Connectedness, rs (124) = .18, p < .02, 2 = .02 and the ISS subscale Respect for Cultural
Differences.
99
4.2.5 Question One: Sub Question D
Q1d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS measure the same constructs when applied in a
multicultural context like Toronto?
Because of cautions expressed by previous researchers for using the scales in different
contexts as explained in Chapter 2, I wanted to explore the construct validity of the scales in this
Canadian multicultural setting.
4.2.5.1 Confirmatory factor analysis of CCS.
In order to determine the appropriateness of using the CCS scale in a multicultural setting
like Toronto, I performed a confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 22 to determine the
“Goodness of Fit” (Appendix G). Hu and Bentler (1999) as referenced in Schreiber et al. (2006)
suggested that for continuous data if the vast majority of the indices indicate a good fit, then
there is probably a good fit. They suggest that RMSEA < .06, TLI > .95, CFI > .95 and standard
root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08 indicate a good fit. My analysis revealed RMSEA =
.10, TLI = .75, CFI = .78, GFI = .76 and SRMR = .11 ( Table 9), indicating that the model fitted
the data poorly. The results showed that the structure of Rovai’s two-factor model was not
reproduced with all questions loading only on a single factor or on the same factor as the
original.
Table 9
Summary of Model Fit Statistics for Original CCS.
Index Value of
CCS Model
Standard
Score
Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) .11 <.08
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA)
.10 < .06
Goodness of Fit (GFI) .76 > .90
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) .75 > .95
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .78 > .95
4.2.5.1.1 Principal component analysis of CCS.
To reinterpret data and find an alternative model based on Rovai’s 20 item CCS
instrument, I conducted a principal component analysis. Prior to performing PCA, I assessed the
100
suitability of the data. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many
coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .85,
exceeding the recommended value of .6 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value was
significant (p < .00) variance supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of four components with
eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 31.8%, 15.6%, 6.8%, and 6.1% of the variance respectively.
An inspection of the scree plot (Appendix G) revealed a clear break after the second component.
Using Catell’s (1966) scree test (cited in Pallant, 2010), I decided to retain two components for
further investigation. This was further supported by the results of Parallel Analysis (Table 10),
which showed only two components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion
values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (20 variables x 124 respondents).
Table 10
Comparison of eigenvalues from CCS PCA and parallel analysis
Component Number Actual eigenvalue
from PCA
Criterion value from
parallel analysis
Decision
1 6.37 1.79 accept
2 3.12 1.63 accept
3 1.36 1.52 reject
4 1.23 1.42 reject
The two-component solution explained a total of 47.4% of the variance, with Component
1 (Learning) contributing 31.8% and component 2 (Connectedness) contributing 15.6%. The
factor labels proposed by Rovai (2002c) suited the data and were retained. There was a negative
correlation between the two factors ( r = -.22) indicating that the relationship between the two
components is weak. To aid in the interpretation of these two components, oblimin rotation was
performed. Both components showed a number of strong loadings and all but one variable
loaded substantially on only one component. A few items, CCS 12 (.27), CCS 15 (.29) and CCS
17 (.26) had a Communality score just below .3 indicating that they may not fit well with their
associated factors (Appendix G). In order to refine the scale, I removed the item (CCS14) that
loaded almost equally on both factors and I also removed the three items with communality
101
scores below 0.3. The remaining 16 items loaded discretely on the two factors. Nine items
loaded on Factor 1 and seven items loaded on Factor 2 (Table 11). The revised two-component
solution explained a total of 53% of the variance with Factor 1 (Learning) accounting for 36%
and Factor 2 (Connectedness) accounting for 17.3% of the variance. The rotated solution
revealed the presence of simple structure (Thurstone, 1947, cited in Pallant, 2010), with both
components showing a number of strong loadings and all variables loading substantially on only
one factor. The interpretation of the components differs slightly from previous research on the
CCS Scale. The revised factor model was close to that proposed by Rovai with the exception of
CCS9 *I feel isolated in this course which was part of the 2nd
factor Connectedness in the
original model.
Internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha (Table
12). The alphas were strong -- .85 for Learning (9 items), .89 for Connectedness (7 items), and
.87 for Total Classroom Community (16 items). Composite scores were created for each factor,
based on the mean of the items which had their primary loadings on each factor. Higher scores
indicated greater levels of sense of community. The Learning factor had a negatively skewed
distribution, and Connectedness had negatively skewed distributions. Descriptive statistics are
presented in Table 12. The skewness and kurtosis for the subscales were within a tolerable range
for assuming a normal distribution and examination of the histograms suggested that the
distributions looked approximately normal. The kurtosis for overall SoC falls just outside the
acceptable range and thus violates the assumption of normality. Although an oblimin rotation
was used, only a small correlation (- .27) between the composite scores Learning and
Connectedness existed.
102
Table 11
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Revised Two Factor Solution
of CCS Items
Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2
CCS20 *I feel that this course does not
promote a desire to learn. .76 .79 -.30 .63
CCS4 *I feel that it is hard to get help when
I have a question. .79 .80 .63
CCS18 *I feel that my educational needs are
not being met. .74 .75 .56
CCS9 *I feel isolated in this course. .67 .72 -.42 .57
CCS10 *I feel reluctant to speak openly. .66 .64 .42
CCS6 I feel that I receive timely feedback. .63 .63 .40
CCS8 *I feel uneasy exposing gaps in my
understanding . .60 .54 .33
CCS16 I feel that I am given ample
opportunities to learn. .57 .64 -.39 .46
CCS2 I feel that I am encouraged to ask
questions. .55 .59 -.31 .38
CCS3 I feel connected to others in this
course.
-.85 -.86 .74
CCS13 I feel that I can rely on others in this
course.
-.83 .78 .65
CCS7 I feel that this course is like a family. -.81 -.77 .62
CCS11 I trust others in this course. -.74 -.76 .59
CCS19 I feel confident that others will
support me.
-.69 .34 -.73 .55
CCS1 I feel that students in this course care
about each other.
-.66 -.69 .49
CCS5 *I do not feel a spirit of community. -.64 .33 -.68 .49
Note: Major loadings for each item are bolded. Only loadings above 0.3 are displayed.
Table 12
Descriptive statistics for the revised two Classroom Community Scale factors (N=123)
No. of
items
M (SD) Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) Alpha
Learning 9 25.4 (5.7) -.47 (.22) -.08(.43) .85
Connectedness 7 14.1 (5.1) -.01(.22) .50(.43) .89
Classroom Com. 16 39.5 (8.9) -.27(.22) .91(.43) .87
103
4.2.5.2 Confirmatory factor analysis of ISS.
In order to determine the appropriateness of using the ISS scale in a multicultural setting
like Toronto, I performed a confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 22 to determine the
“Goodness of Fit” (Appendix H) My analysis revealed RMSEA =.07, TLI = .86, GFI = .81, CFI
=.87 and SRMR = .06 (Table 13) indicating that the model fitted the data poorly. The results
showed that the basic structure of Chen and Starosta’s five-factor model was not reproduced.
Table 13
Summary of Model Fit Statistics for Original ISS.
Index Value of ISS Model Standard Score
SRMR .06 <.08
RMSEA .07 < .06
GFI .81 > .90
TLI .86 > .95
CFI .87 > .95
SRMR= standardized root mean square residual, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, GFI =
goodness of fit index, TLI = Tucker Lewis Index, CFI= comparative fit index
4.2.5.2.1 Principal component analysis of ISS.
To reinterpret data and find an alternative model based on Chen and Starosta’s 24 item
ISS instrument I conducted a principal component analysis on the data from 124 respondents.
Prior to performing PCA, I assessed the suitability of the data. Inspection of the correlation
matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .87, exceeding the recommended value of .6 and the
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value was significant (p < .00) variance supporting the factorability
of the correlation matrix.
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of six components with eigenvalues
exceeding1, explaining 33.8%, 8.2%, 6.1%, 4.8, 4.7% and 4.5% of the variance respectively. An
inspection of the scree plot (Appendix H) revealed a clear break after the second component.
Using Catell’s (1966) scree test, I decided to retain two components for further investigation.
This was further supported by the results of Parallel Analysis (Table 14), which showed only two
104
components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly
generated data matrix of the same size (24 variables x 124 respondents).
Table 14
Comparison of eigenvalues from ISS PCA and parallel analysis
Component Number Actual eigenvalue
from PCA
Criterion value from
parallel analysis
Decision
1 8.12 1.88 accept
2 1.96 1.72 accept
3 1.46 1.61 reject
4 1.16 1.51 reject
5 1.13 1.42 reject
6 1.08 1.34 reject
The two-component solution explained a total of 42% of the variance, with Component 1
contributing 33.8% and component 2 contributing 8.2%. To aid in the interpretation of these two
components, oblimin rotatation was performed. The rotated solution revealed a number of strong
loadings on each factor but many variables loading substantially on more than one component.
There was a positive correlation between the two factors (r = .30). Several items, ISS11 (.03),
ISS22 (.11), ISS14 (.24) and ISS 19 (.27) had a Communality score below .3 indicating that they
may not fit well with their associated factors. Six questions loaded above .3 on both factors
(ISS1, ISS4, ISS6, ISS10, ISS13, ISS16, and ISS24) indicating that they may not discriminate
concepts sufficiently (Appendix H).
During several steps, a total of two items were eliminated because they did not contribute
to a simple factor structure and failed to meet a minimum criteria of having a primary factor
loading of .4 or above and no cross-loading on .3 or above. (ISS11, ISS 22). I also removed
several factors that had a Communality value less than .3 on the second iteration (ISS14, ISS17,
ISS19). The resulting pattern matrix showed significant loadings on both variables for ICS13,
ISS1, ISS16 and ISS4 so they were removed. On this iteration, the result was significant
loadings on both variables for ISS8 and ISS24 so I removed them. With the remaining 13
variables, I performed an oblimin rotation.
105
The remaining 13 items load onto 2 factors. Seven items relate to tolerance and
intolerance. I have labelled this factor Intercultural Openness and 6 items relate to confidence
and support which I have labelled Intercultural Confidence and Appropriateness. The resulting
two-component solution explained a total of 49.2% of the variance, with Component 1
(Intercultural Openness) contributing 37.1% and component 2 (Intercultural Confidence and
Awareness) contributing 12%. The rotated solution revealed the presence of simple structure
(Thurstone, 1947), with both components showing strong loadings of over .5 and loading on only
one component (Table 16). There was a positive correlation between the two factors (r
= .35).
Internal consistency for each of the scales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha (Table
15). The alphas were mostly strong -- .81 for Openness (7 items), .72 for Confidence and
Appropriateness (6 items), and .85 for Total Intercultural Sensitivity (13 items). Composite
scores were created for each factor, based on the mean of the items which had their primary
loadings on each factor. Higher scores indicated greater levels of intercultural sensitivity. Both
the Openness factor and the Confidence and Awareness factor had negatively skewed
distributions. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 15. The skewness and kurtosis for the
subscale Intercultural Openness violate the acceptable range and thus violates the assumption of
normality. An oblimin rotation was used because the correlation (.35) between the composite
scores Openness and Confidence and Awareness exceeded the recommended .3 for Varimax
rotation. The two-factor solution differs significantly from the original 5 factor model.
Table 15
Descriptive statistics for the revised two Intercultural Sensitivity Scale factors (N=123)
No. of
items
M (SD) Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) Alpha
Intercultural
Openness
7 29.6 (4.1) -1.06 (.22) 1.44 (.43) .81
Intercultural
Confidence and
Appropriateness
6 23.8 (3.1) -.12 (.22) -.03 (.43) .72
Intercultural
Sensitivity.
13 53.5 (6.3) -.40 (.22) -.26 (.43) .85
106
Based on the revised model, participants had a median score of 53.5 (SD=6.3) out of a possible
score of 65. The median score for Intercultural Openness was 29.6 (SD=4.1) out of a possible
score of 35 and for Confidence and Appropriateness, the score was 23.8 (SD = 3.1) out of a
possible score of 30.
Table 16
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Revised Two Factor Solution
of ISS Items Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2
ISS9 *I get upset easily when interacting
with people from different cultures. .83 .83 .69
ISS7 *I don’t like to be with people from
different cultures. .73 .79 .42 .64
ISS18 *I would not accept the opinions of
people from different cultures. .72 .71 .50
ISS20 *I think my culture is better than
other cultures. .70 .62 .43
ISS12 *I often get discouraged when I am
with people from different cultures. .69 .77 .46 .63
ISS15 *I often feel useless when interacting
with people from different cultures. .62 .70 .46 .54
ISS2 *I think people from other cultures are
narrow-minded. .61 .61 .37
ISS3 I am pretty sure of myself in
interacting with people from different
cultures.
.70 .68 .47
ISS5 I always know what to say when
interacting with people from different
cultures.
.64 .48 .66 .39
ISS23 I often show my culturally-distinct
counterpart my understanding through
verbal or nonverbal cues.
.62 .63 .35
ISS21 I often give positive responses to my
culturally different counterpart during our
interaction.
.62 .63 .40
ISS6 I can be as sociable as I want to be
when interacting with people from different
cultures.
.56 .48 .66 .50
ISS10 I feel confident when interacting with
people from different cultures.
.54 .47 .64 .47
Note: Major loadings for each item are bolded. Only loadings above 0.3 are displayed.
4.2.6 Question Two
Q2. Can indicators of connectedness and learning, the underlying dimensions of the construct
SoC be observed within the context of a blended asynchronous online college course?
107
In Blackboard, the performance dashboard provides user statistics such as DB hits,
number of new posts and number of response posts for both students and faculty. As a
restriction of my ethical agreement, I was permitted access only to the course statistics and
discussion board posts for the students who had agreed to take part in the study. There was a
significant disparity between interaction frequencies as represented by total number of posts in
the DB by participants in the study. Some students posted only 1 message while others posted a
maximum of 46 messages (Table 17). Students in Professor D’s class posted the fewest (M =
3.1, SD = 1.3) while the students in Professor A’s class posted the most (M = 16.3, SD = 9.6).
These numbers align with the differing expectations of student interaction between the
professors. In order to determine if the number of DB posts related to SoC, I used the Spearman-
Rho Correlation Coefficient. There was no correlation between the two variables, rs (123) = .09,
p = .30, 2 = .01.
Table 17
Descriptives of students’ posts by professor.
N M SD Min. Max
Professor A 56 16.3 9.6 1 46
Professor B 43 5.9 2.6 2 13
Professor C 11 8.2 2.3 5 12
Professor D 14 3.1 1.4 1 6
In order to better understand the actual purpose and nature of the posts, I imported all the
participants’ DB postings into ATLAS.ti7. First, I unitized the posts according to paragraphs or
natural breaks that emerged in the posts. The number of units per student ranged from 1 to 280
(Table 18). The mean number of units ranged from a low of 4 for Professor D’s class to a high
of 37.5 in Professor A’s class. The units of analysis amongst students in Professor C’s class
were the most evenly assigned with a standard deviation of 4.8 which means that the range was
either plus or minus approximately 35%. On the other hand, the units of analysis assigned per
student in Professor A’s class had a much larger SD of 41.3 which represents either a plus or
minus of approximately 104%, and a significant disparity in DB participation by the students.
Table 18
Descriptives of number of units of analysis assigned to students’ posts per professor.
S(N) U(N) M SD Min. Max
108
Professor A 56 2101 37.5 41.3 1 280
Professor B 43 747 17.4 10.1 3 39
Professor C 11 134 12.2 4.8 6 20
Professor D 14 56 4 1.9 1 7
Note: S(N)=number of students. U(N)= total number of units
I then coded each unit with the coding scheme modified from Dawson’s (2006) codes.
This scheme (Appendix D) included codes assigned to describe different aspects of the
dimensions Spirit, Trust (Connectedness) and Learning. The codes were not mutually exclusive
so one unit could be assigned several codes indicating different aspects of the same behaviour.
Of the 3034 units analyzed, 1476 were assigned at least one code indicating Community (Spirit
and Trust) or Learning (Table 19).
Table 19
Descriptives of number of quotations assigned to students’ posts per professor.
S(N) U (N) T (SoC)N SoCM %SoC %CONT
Professor A 56 2101 1056 18.9 51 49
Professor B 43 747 329 7.7 43 57
Professor C 11 134 71 6.5 53 47
Professor D 14 56 20 1.4 34 66
Total 124 3034 1476
Note: S(N)=number of students. U(N)= total number of units. T(SoC)N=Total units coded with
SoC indicator. SoCM=Average number of SoC coded units; %SoC = percentage of total units
coded with SoC indicator; %CONT = percentage of total units coded with no SoC indicator
(discussion of content)
Units that did not contain indicators of spirit, trust or learning were typically units that
provided information related to the course topic but did not include references to other learners
or posts, personal opinions or requests for information or feedback from others. These posts
were monologues rather than being dialogic with indicators of interaction and represented 51%
(n = 1558) of all the units. The units coded with a SoC indicator and those not coded with a SoC
indicator were fairly evenly distributed for Prof. A and Prof. C (Figure 18). The greatest
disparity was in Professor’s D’s classes where monologue type posts accounted for 66% of all
units.
109
Figure 18. Percentage of units coded with SoC indicators and content only indicators.
I used the Spearman-rho Correlation Coefficient to investigate the relationship between
reported SoC and the number of units posted that provided content related to the discussion point
but did not contain SoC indicators. Most of these posts were in fact recorded in the LMS
statistics as new posts; however, some were recorded as response posts because the learner had
used the reply function and consequently linked to the instructions or general question posted by
the professor although the content was similar to a monologue, not dialogic in nature. No
correlation between the two variables was found, rs (123) = .09, p = .30, 2 = .01.
Evidence of SoC (social community and learning) was observable in 49% (n = 1476) of the
units analyzed. Evidence of Spirit was more than twice as evident in Professor A’s class and
almost non-existent in Professor D’s Class (Table 20). Results for Trust were very similar. The
total Social Community in Professor B’s and C’s classes were similar but were approximately
one third of the total found in Professor A’s class. There was an almost total lack of evidence of
Social Community in Professor D’s class.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Professor A Professor B Professor C Professor D
Pe
rce
nta
ge
SOC CONT
110
Table 20
Descriptives of number of social community codes assigned.
Prof A
(M)
Prof B
(M)
Prof C
(M)
Prof D
(M)
T
(M)
Support (SS) 27 (.5)
16 (.4)
1 (.1)
0 (0)
44 (.4)
Reference to Members (SRM) 471 (8.4)
128 (3.0)
32 (2.9)
3 (.2)
634 (5.1)
T Spirit 498
(8.9)
144
(3.3)
33
(3)
3
(.2)
678
(5.5)
Self- Disclosure (TSD) 445 (7.9)
98 (2.3)
18 (1.6)
0 (0)
561 (4.5)
Personal Reflection (TPR) 28 (.5)
2 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
30 (.2)
Total Trust 473
(8.4)
100
(2.3)
18
(1.6)
0
(0) 591
(4.8)
Ttl Social Community 971
(17.3)
244
(5.7)
51
(4.6)
3
(.2)
1269
(10.2)
The other construct included in Community is Learning which has four observable
behaviours: Critique/Disagreement; Explicit Interaction; Personal Opinion and Feedback
Seeking. Explicit expressions of critique or disagreement with other member’s posted opinions
or content were coded as critique/disagreement (LC) (Table 21).
Table 21
Descriptives of number of learning codes assigned
Prof A
(M)
Prof B
(M)
Prof C
(M)
Prof D
(M)
TTL
(M)
Critique/ Disagreement (LC) 64 (1.1)
14 (.3)
3 (.3)
0 (0)
81 (.7)
Explicit Interaction (LEI) 595 (10.6)
146 (3.4)
51 (4.6)
10 (.7)
802 (6.5)
Personal Opinion (LPO) 662 (11.8)
126 (2.9)
55 (5.0)
13 (.9)
856 (6.9)
Feedback Seeking (LFS) 97 (1.7)
13 (.1)
6 (.5)
5 (.4)
121 (1.0)
Total Learning 1418
(25.3)
299
(7.0)
115
(10.5)
28
(2.0)
1860
(15)
111
Any statements that directly referred to another DB contributor’s message or answered
and/or commented on another message were coded as explicit interaction (LEI). Twenty six
percent (n = 802) of the units were coded explicit interaction. Statements that expressed
personal opinions on topics as indicated by expressions such as I think, I believe, personally, I
say etc. were coded as personal opinion (LPO). Units that included expressions inviting
feedback from other participants to a position advanced, asked for clarification of post or posed a
question about the course were coded as feedback seeking (LFS). The four behaviours
critique/disagreement, explicit interaction, personal opinion and feedback seeking are evidence
of the construct Learning. The construct was evident in all of the professor’s courses. The means
ranged from 2 to 25.3.
The relationship between the subscale Learning as measured by CCS and the total
number of units coded as Learning in the content analysis of the DB post was investigated using
the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. No significant correlation (p = .30) between
the two variables was found. Individuals with higher numbers of units coded with learning did
not report higher Learning scores.
4.2.7 Summary
Analysis of course, demographic and intercultural factors indicate that only professor,
comfort with using discussion boards, mother tongue, English writing competency, frequency of
socializing with friends from other cultures and intercultural sensitivity were significant variables
with small to large effect sizes for SoC and its subscales. Other course variables such as course
length/number of face to face meetings, demographic variables such as age, gender, status,
mother tongue, English writing competency and country of completion of high school were not
statistically significant. Intercultural variables including the number of languages and cultures
studied, language spoken in the home, and the number of close friends from other cultures was
not significant.
Analysis of course, demographic and intercultural factors indicate that only English
writing competency, the number of close friends from other cultures and the frequency of
socializing with friends from other cultures were significant variables related to IS and its
subscales.
112
Evidence of social community and learning could be found in approximately half of the
online interactions. There was no correlation between the frequency of learning codes assigned
to participants and the Learning subscale score they received on the CCS.
Rovai’s two factor CCS model was retained with 16 of the original items loading
discretely and only one item not matching the original assigned factor. Chen and Starosta’s five
factor ISS model was not reproduced. An alternative two factor solution is proposed with 13 of
the original 24 items and new factor labels.
113
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter is divided into six sections and includes a discussion of relevant contextual
data that identifies unique elements of both the participants and the context that had a significant
influence on the results of this study. This section is followed by a discussion of SoC and the
relevant variables that influenced individual’s feelings of connectedness and learning including a
focus on intercultural sensitivity. Variables are discussed in relation to previous research and
related theory. Using the concurrent nested approach with the qualitative and quantitative data
being integrated at the point of interpretation, previously unreported qualitative data from the
open ended survey questions is used to illustrate findings from the quantitative analysis, and to
expose discontinuities. This approach enables a more comprehensive interpretation of the data
analysis. The relationship between SoC and IS is explored, followed by a section discussing the
appropriateness of using the CCS and ISS in a multicultural urban college. The final summary
section recaps the main discussion points.
5.1 A Context Rich in Diversity
Context must play a critical role in any discussion about SoC due to the situated nature of
community. The blended learning college participants in this study reported speaking 32
different languages as their mother tongue which aligns with general population trends in
Canada; they identified with 49 different cultural groups. Approximately one quarter of the
participants had completed part or all of their primary education, and one seventh had completed
all their high school education outside of Canada in another language. One fifth of the students
had studied between one and seven years at a university before attending their college program
and several of those participants had studied in another country in another language. Participants
had reported studying in 27 different countries and in 21 different languages. This information
provides a snapshot of the diverse prior educational contexts in which students have been
immersed and the rich linguistic diversity that they bring to the educational context.
Previous researchers have found that participants that share the communicative culture
participate more in interactions (Reeder et al., 2004). Learning is culturally bound so it is
important not to assume that all learners perceive other learners, the teacher and the learning
environment the same. How we conceptualize knowledge, what counts as evidence, how we
organize information, and what we attend to all vary across cultures. In North American classes,
114
students are generally expected to think critically, synthesize information and make connections.
They are expected to interact with the teacher and other students, challenging authoritative
knowledge and offering their personal perspectives in a direct manner (Engelking & McPherson,
2005). Students who have not completed their education in Canada or have not acculturated to
North American practices may struggle to adapt to these new educational expectations. This
may impact on their ability to successfully interact in course discussions. However, some
researchers have found that participants who have had exposure to more than one culture are able
to identity expectations of the target context and adapt quicker to the communication style
(Shafer, 2004).
5.1.1 Multiculturalism in Canada
One of the most influential factors making the Canadian context unique and thus
important to consider when interpreting research findings related to SoC is multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism was officially established as policy in 1971 in Canada. It is included in the
1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act of 1982 and
further entrenched with the 1988 Multicultural Act. Canada was the first country in the world to
pass a national multicultural law which requires all government agencies, departments and
Crown corporations to implement practices that ensure equal access and participation of
minorities within their institutional structures. Multiculturalism is now firmly entrenched in all
aspects of society. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2012) state that,
Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal.
Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their
ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security
and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of diverse cultures. The
Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic
harmony and cross-cultural understanding (para. 2).
This commitment to inclusive practices that value diversity influences all aspects of society
including the guiding principles of our education system. Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive
Education Strategy (2009) outlines the ministry of education’s commitment to inclusive
education based on principles of acceptance and inclusion of all students. The focus is on
providing an education that reflects the provinces diversity, an education that is free from bias
115
and discriminations and values diversity and culture. Students who have completed part or all of
their education in Canada are a product of these inclusive practices; they have continuously been
exposed to multiple cultures and taught, at least officially, that all cultures are to be respected
and treated equally.
5.1.2 Temporality of the Bounded On-line Learning Community
The courses included in this research study are all unique and represent a temporary
culture. The culture that emerges online is completely dependent on the intersecting cultures and
agency of the individuals taking part, the culture found in the course content and the culture of
the medium – aptly referred to as ‘cultural flows’ by Ess and Sudweeks (2005). As discussed in
Chapter 2, this emerging culture has been labeled a ‘third culture’ or a series of ‘third cultures’
(Hewling, 2006). Gee (2000) as cited in Hewling (2006) posits that at any particular point in
time, the ‘enactive” (process of giving value and meaning to elements) and ‘recognition work’
(work by others to debate and change organization of elements) serves as an ongoing process of
sense making and that the online classroom is an evolving site of cultural creation (p. 5). The
messages reveal intercultural activity occurring in the online class as well as how participants
interact with the delivery platform, the course content and the institutional culture (Hewling,
2006, p. 6).
I view the series of cultures that emerge online as kaleidoscopes of culture because with
each discussion that develops, the emerging pattern of interaction and the depth and breadth of
cognitive engagement is dependent on the active role and primacy of any individual component
in that activity, and is based on the cultural frameworks of individuals in the kaleidoscopic
chamber. The interaction patterns of individuals within the community change with each new
discussion thread and are viewed differently by each individual in the course. What is said and
done in the course is a reflection of, and in turn influences an individual’s intercultural schema.
Our understanding of language utterances is also temporal. According to Hall (2002) “language
meaning is located in the dialogic relationship between the historical and the present, between
the social and the individual” (p. 12) and we interpret meanings based on how the language is
used at that particular moment. The simplicity or complexity of the meaningful pattern that
emerges is dependent on the number of cultural schemas through which an individual views the
interaction so the cultural kaleidoscope will differ for all participants as they view the interaction
116
through their own unique lens and interpretations are reflected and filtered through their own
personal cultural frameworks.
These series of kaleidoscopes of culture are part of a transitory generative culture.
Generative cultures are dynamic; they are about inclusion and involve respect for differences.
The transitory nature of this culture is due to the temporary interplay of transecting cultural
schemas at work as participants try to make sense of the interactions taking place. Depending on
the mix of participants, their evolving sensitivity, mindfulness and agency, the content and
learning associated with the discussion board, and the role played by the teacher, a unique culture
is created. The success of this learning community is somewhat dependent on the success of the
individuals enacting cultural schemas to communicate competently with each other to achieve
their goals. The cohesiveness they feel in reaching this goal will be individual and dependent on
each alignment of the activity in the community with the expectations and efforts of each
participant. The culture that evolves throughout the course can never be recreated as each course
is a unique combination of individuals in time. Even with the same participants and the same
topics to be discussed, different kaleidoscopes of culture would emerge because individuals
within the interaction would be operating with cultural schemas modified to some degree by
every past cultural interaction, even those that just transpired. In an online course, the transitory
generative culture created does not have a life beyond the course; however, the experience of
being a part of that transitory generative culture can impact the cultural schemas of each
individual participant going forward.
5.2 Sense of Community
The interplay of participants’ cultural schemas is important in influencing the success of a
group of individuals learning together. In a blended learning course, the challenge of developing
group comfort and cohesiveness is heightened with the reduction of verbal immediacy clues and
opportunities to bond face-to-face. The benefits of participating and learning in a supportive,
inclusive environment and feeling a sense of community with fellow students are well
established in the literature. Sense of community has been identified by many researchers
investigating online university cohorts as a predictor for student satisfaction (Drouin, 2008;
Dueber & Misanchuk, 2001; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rourke et al.,
117
2001). This satisfaction is a result of students’ perception that they have been supported in the
learning process and have met their personal learning goals. Higher SoC typically correlates to
higher satisfaction (LaPointe & Gunawardena, 2004; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003;
Rovai, 2002a; Swan, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005). Several studies have established that stronger
SoC correlates with reduced attrition rates (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk & Lee, 2007; Rovai, 2002a;
Rovai, 2002c). Student retention, satisfaction and success are fundamental goals of higher
education. Given the differences in the personal and educational goals of college and university
students, and that learning is contextually situated, my first question attempts to establish if
students are able to develop a strong SoC in blended online college courses.
1. What is the level of sense of community (SoC) which is composed of connectedness
and learning as measured by the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) of college
students enrolled in a blended computer mediated class in an urban multicultural
setting?
The mean for total classroom community of the study participants was 47.7 (scored out of
80) (SD = 10.3) which represents a very modest level of SoC. The Connectedness mean score
was 20.5 (scored out of 40; SD = 6.3) representing a weak sense of connectedness and the
Learning mean was 27.2 (scored out of 40; SD = 5.9) representing a moderate level of learning.
An examination of certain item responses and open-ended question responses provides further
clarification and understanding of the CCS results.
The responses on the CCS item related to Connectedness (CCS5 - *I do not feel a spirit
of community) were generally neutral. Only 39% of the respondents reported that they felt
connected to others in the class with 37% responding neutral and 21% responding that they did
not feel connected to others in the class. These weak SoC responses could lead to the conclusion
that students did not feel connections to others in the course; however, in response to an item
question that directly asked students if they felt isolated in the course (CCS9), 70% of the
students reported that they did not feel isolated in the course, a feeling which has been previously
linked to low SoC (Haythornthwaite et al., 2000).
Participants’ responses to the open-ended question “Who and/or what contributed the
most to your development of a sense of community in the course?” (Q37) also did not reflect the
CCS results. Of the 68 students who responded, 18% (n = 12) responded that they felt no sense
118
of community - (#62) “I did not feel a sense of community in the ONLINE course. I felt it was
extremely independent with little to no interaction between the students.” Thirty one percent (n
= 21) identified the course professor - (#53) “The professor and some of the students who took
the initiative to reply with more than just their responses to the course questions.” Forty-five
percent (n = 30) indicated that taking part in the DB and interacting with other students in the
course contributed most to their SoC –
(#88) “The discussion board and having people talk to me and ask questions and
comment on what I said, as well as me doing the same to them. Because everyone can
see the work that each other does and can read about their goals and thoughts and get to
know them through their posts.”
The number of open-ended responses identifying someone or something as contributing to their
development of SoC does not align with responses to CCS5. Only one third had reported feeling
SoC in the survey item yet three quarters identified someone who contributed to their SoC.
Based on this observation, it would seem that those participants who responded “neutral” to
feeling a SoC in the course did in fact identify something or someone who contributed to their
feelings of community. Consequently, although there may be a tendency to interpret a ‘neutral’
response as negative, this could be inappropriate because most of those participants identified
contributing factors to their SoC even though they may not have felt that their SoC was strong
enough to select ‘agree’.
The factors that the students identified as contributing to their SoC in the course (the
professor, taking part in the DB, other students) align with key elements of the community of
inquiry model and support the importance of teaching presence, social presence and cognitive
presence which Rourke et al. (2001) have identified as being essential to collaborative –
constructionist learning experiences.
A few of the CCS questions received significantly lower scores, and this may have also
influenced the overall SoC score. Reponses to the statement that likened the course to a ‘family’
(CCS7) were low with half (47%) the participants disagreeing and one third (34%) responding
neutral to the statement. Similarly, the responses to the statement related to students feeling that
others in the course ‘depend’ on them (CCS15) were also significantly low with 54% (n = 68)
disagreeing and 29% (n = 36) responding neutral to the statement. There may be certain trigger
119
words such as ‘family’ and having others ‘depend’ on them for their education that might not fit
with the attitudes and beliefs towards education of this cohort; consequently, some wording
choices used in the scale may have an impact of the scores and should be examined in future
research using the CCS with a Canadian cohort. Alternatively, students may not equate
community with interdependency.
The responses on the instrument questions related to the subscale Learning were
significantly higher. Seventy two percent of the respondents reported that they felt their
educational needs were met in the class (CCS18) with 17% responding neutral and only 8%
responding that they did not feel their educational needs had been met. The corresponding open-
ended question “How did the course match your learning expectations? Are you satisfied with
the learning in this course?”(Q31) echoed this finding with 90% responding that they were
satisfied with their learning - (#20) “yes it meant [sic] my expectations by being very
informative.” These results are very similar to those reported by Shea et al. (2001) who report
that of 1974 students enrolled in online courses, overall seventy nine percent (79%) were very
satisfied with their online course regardless of their background while only eleven percent (11%)
expressed any level of dissatisfaction (p.6).
Very few of the responses directly commented on the impact of participation in
discussion boards on their learning. A few commented on the discussion board being “active”
and the benefits of reading other students’ opinions about the subject matter. Others mentioned
that students wrote poorly in the discussion board and that this did not help the learning aspect -
(#14) “No, when I look back at the course I dont [sic] remember much about the learning aspect.
More just about the discussion board and how poorly students wrote on it.” A few students
directly commented negatively on the use of discussion boards for supporting their learning -
(#102) “I feel that the learning materials (readings) were very helpful in expanding my
knowledge. But I did not feel that I learned from reading the class discussions posted on
blackboard.” These comments indicate a prevalence of independent learning representative of
the prevailing individualistic historical culture of western schooling. They do not indicate social
construction of knowledge set up by the instructor which is the approach supported by
contemporary online learning theorists, although it should be noted that the courses in this study
were not all designed using constructivist principles. Although most of the learners reported
120
satisfaction with their learning experience, their perceived SoC was not that high. There may be
a disconnect between how this cohort defines learning and what the current scales are attempting
to measure. These students may equate learning more with a transmission of knowledge from
the teacher or text than from an understanding of the concepts developed through dialogic
interaction with others. Several comments made by students indicate that they were not that
invested in the actual content of the course, rather the course was just a requirement to get
through so they may have equated completion with satisfaction - (#9) “yup. It was just a gen ed.
Had to get it done. Didn’t care what the course was.” Studies that examined doctoral and
graduate students at the university level may have had stronger SoC scores because those
students would likely be studying courses of specific interest rather than courses that may be a
graduation requirement but not necessarily related to their fields of interest.
Other researchers studying SoC in online communities and using the CCS have reported
significantly higher SoC scores (Table 22). Rovai (2002b; 2003) and Rovai et al. (2005)
reported Connectedness scores for university graduate students studying online ranging from M
= 26.5 to M = 28.9 and Learning scores ranging from M = 30.9 to M = 32.9. The higher scores
could be attributed to the delivery mode as the courses were taught totally at a distance but since
the opportunity to meet face to face in a hybrid class also affords the opportunity to make some
personal connections, the delivery pattern cannot account for the significant differences in
Connectedness and Learning. In fact, Rovai and Jordan (2004) conducted a comparative study
of face to face, fully online and blended courses. They hypothesized that community would be
strongest in the blended class since students would have a greater range of opportunities to
interact with each other and their professor which would result in increased socialization,
feelings of connection, knowledge building and a sense that their learning was being supported
by others in their class. The blended courses had the highest post-test mean scores for both
Connectedness (M = 32.7) and Learning (M = 34.3) of the three learning modes. Dawson’s
(2006) reported scores for Australian graduate and post graduate students appear similar to my
findings; however, because he reported only pooled results for the three learning modes (in-class,
blended and online) it is not possible to compare scores according to mode. Ethnic variables
were not reported; consequently, my speculation that the Australian cohort may better reflect the
ethnic diversity of the Canadian cohort can’t be confirmed.
121
Table 22
Classroom community scores reported in studies
Present
study
Rovai (2002) Rovai (2003) Rovai and
Jordan (2004)
Rovai and
Whighting
(2005)
Dawson
(2006)
Modality
context
Blended
Can. Coll. -
undergrads
Online
US university
grad. students
Online
US university
doc. students
Blended
US university
grad. students
Online
US university
grad. students
Mixed
Aust. Uni.
grad and
post Connectedness 20.5 (6.3) 26.5 (7.4) 28.9(6.3) 32.7 (4.4) 27.50 (6.5) 20.2 (4.2)
Learning 27.2 (5.9) 30.9, (6.4) 31.7 (5.3) 34.3(3.7) 32.90 (4.5) 26.0 (3.3)
The Connectedness scores reported in Rovai and Jordan’s (2004) previous study of
blended courses are approximately 25% higher and the Learning scores are also significantly
higher. Since previous studies have established that high SoC is a predictor of satisfaction and
learning, the low SoC scores, and in particular the low Connectedness scores, are an area of
concern and warrant further examination.
A recent study by Drouin and Varanian (2010) measured students’ (N = 194) sense of,
and desire for sense of community in face-to-face and online classes. They report that only 30%
of the students wanted SoC online, 50% were undecided and 20% did not want SoC. In face-to-
face classes, 47% wanted SoC, 43% were undecided and 10% did not want SoC. These results
suggest it would be advisable to investigate students’ desire for SoC in conjunction with
measuring SoC in further studies as a low SoC may be largely attributable to students’ openness
to the value of SoC more so than other factors explored in the current study.
5.2.1 Factors affecting SoC
Researchers emphasize the importance of understanding variables which affect SoC
(Garrison et al., 2000; Shea et al. 2006; Tsai, et al, 2008). In order to ensure that comparisons
with other studies were appropriate, I chose to use only studies that used the CCS as the
independent variable in their analysis of the relationship of variables to SoC. Several researchers
who have investigated correlations between certain demographic and course variables and SoC
have advocated the need for further investigation into the impact of specific variables on the
ability to build sense of community amongst students (Liu et al., 2007; Rovai, 2001, 2002a; Tsai
et al., 2008). While some studies have found correlations between SoC and certain variables,
other studies have not found similar correlations. For example, Rovai (2001, 2002a) reported
that females tended to have a higher SoC than males. Graff (2004), on the other hand, did not
122
find a significant correlation. Age and ethnicity have been reported as significant by Rovai
(2001) and Rovai and Wighting (2005) but as insignificant by Overbaugh and Nickel (2011).
Other researchers have studied factors such as learner interactions (Dawson, 2006; Exter et al.,
2009; Sadera, Robertson, Song & Midon, 2009), sense of alienation (Rovai & Wighting, 2005),
teaching presence (Shea et al., 2006), cognitive style (Graf, 2004) and desire for SoC (Drouin &
Vartanian, 2010). In order to better understand the variables that might affect college students’
ability to feel a SoC, I posed the following research question:
1a. What course and demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of SoC and its subscales?
I collected data related to a number of variables that I felt might possibly influence SoC in
multicultural learners.
5.2.1.1 Course variables.
Rovai (2002d) posits that “classroom community is strong when learners (a) feel
connected to each other and the instructor, (b) manifest the immediate communication behaviors
that reduce social and psychological distance between people (Mehribian, 1971), (c) share
common interests and values, (d) trust and help each other (e) actively engage in two-way
communications, and (f) pursue common learning objectives” (p. 322). Rovai’s (2002c) CCS is
designed to capture this construct in a quantifiable manor that measures both feelings of
connectedness and learning which together represent one’s SoC.
Several studies of ALNs report that there is a relationship between instructor presence,
availability of content (course artifacts), explicit participant expectations and learner satisfaction
(Picciano ,1998; Rovai, 2002b; Swan, 2003). Yan and Lie (2008) found that SoC can be
positively influenced among students in e-learning classes through pedagogical, social and
managerial functions. Tu (2002) posits that requiring online introductory activities supports the
development of ‘trust’ among participants which is a foundation of community development.
Shea et al. (2001) identified three factors that affect the success of asynchronous online learning
– consistency in course design, interaction with course instructors, and active discussion (p. 13).
Picciano (1998) also indicated that students’ perceived learning was directly related to instructor
activity, percentage of grades for course discussion and specificity of instructor’s discussion
instructions.
123
Based on the literature, I investigated whether the course set-up and interaction patterns
of the professor related to SoC. In this study, the course variable professor was statistically
significant and a medium to large effect size (2 = .08) on SoC and the subscale Learning (2
=
.08) scores. However, there was no relationship with the subscale Connectedness. As explained
previously, the professors varied significantly in terms of teacher presence (Professor A was
fully engaged in the discussions, required class introductions and posted explicit expectations
and course artifacts; Professor B was initially present to support introductions but took no part in
the DB posts which were used primarily to respond to set questions or to post assignments;
Professor C posted explicit participant expectations and course artifacts but did not take part in
the DB and Professor D did not take part in the DB or post any course expectations or artifacts).
Based on the literature, Professor A’s students should have the highest sense of both
Connectedness and Learning as Professor A’s course delivery mirrored the recommendations for
successful online classes. In fact, the participants in Professor C’s classes reported the highest
Connectedness scores (M = 23, SD = 6.1) even though the professor did not take part in the DB.
The Connectedness scores for Professor A (M = 19.8, SD = 6.1) who actively took part in the
DB were below the median score of 20 on the scale and only marginally higher than the scores
attributed to Professor D (M = 19.9, SD = 5.4) who had no online presence and didn’t provide
specific expectations for the students’ DB posts. In regard to the Learning scores, Professor B’s
scores (M = 29.2, SD = 6.0) were the highest and significantly different with a small effect size
(r = .2) with Professor A (M = 26.2) and a medium effect size (r
= .2) with Professor D (M =
24.5). These results contradict the expectations based on the literature and indicate that requiring
dialogue amongst students and comments on each other’s posts does not lead to higher reported
levels of learning. In fact, it was specific responses to directed course questions that led to the
highest sense of learning. These results could be interpreted as support for Anderson’s (2003)
equivalency theorem which states,
Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of
interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The
other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the
educational experience (p.4).
124
In this study, the students in Professor B’s courses had to research responses to specific
questions and post their responses on the discussion boards as well as post a minimum number of
responses to two other students. This represents a focus on student-content interaction, a limited
focus on student-student interaction and little student-teacher interaction, and resulted in students
reporting higher levels of learning. Whether or not this could be considered ‘deep’ learning
remains undetermined.
Based on the CCS results, it is possible to interpret the findings to support the observation
that Professor A was not as successful at nurturing a SoC in the classes as Professors B and C,
yet when asked in the open-ended question who or what contributed most to your SoC in the
class, 31% of the participants in Professor A’s class identified ‘the professor’ while 33% of
Professor C’s class and only 22% of Professor B’s class indicated the professor. The statistics
alone cannot capture an accurate picture. Observable activity within the DB cannot be
considered the sole proof of a professor’s influence or interaction. Direct interaction with
students outside of the DB through emails or face to face meetings are potentially significant
contributors to feelings of connectedness with the professor and are not captured when DB
entries alone are considered as the only artifacts of interaction.
Further research needs to be done in this area to better understand the role that face to
face classes have in blended courses and the other mechanisms blended learning teachers use to
communicate with students individually outside of the discussion boards – activities that may be
supporting students’ learning goals and sense of connectedness.
The courses ranged in duration from 7 weeks to 14 weeks and students reported meeting
face-to-face two or fewer times or as many as 5 times during the course. Although moderate
SoC has been found in courses as short as five weeks (Rovai, 2001), theorists have proposed that
community takes time to develop and there is a correlation between the length of time a
community is expected to be together and the investment into community building participants
are willing to make. Based on the literature, I expected that the course taught over 7 weeks
would have a lower SoC and that the classes with the most face-to-face meetings over 14 weeks
would have the highest SoC score. There was no statistically significant relationship between
course durations, face to face meetings and SoC which contradicts expectations from the
literature.
125
5.2.1.2 Demographic variables
A number of demographic variables were investigated in relation to SoC. Because of the
multicultural context and the emergent state of e-learning, I included factors related to identity
(age, gender, status, mother tongue, country of completion of high school) and ability (comfort
level with DB and English writing competency). A few factors associated with identity were
reported in previous studies with inconsistent findings related to their significance to SoC. Age
was not found to be a significant factor for SoC in this study. These findings are consistent with
those reported by Overbaugh and Nickel (2011) and Richardson and Swan (2003) but
inconsistent with research conducted by Rovai (2001) and Rovai and Wighting (2005). The
students in this study were younger than the students in many of the other studies that examined
age and SoC. The majority of the participants were in the 25 and under year range (83%, n =
103), and the remainder were almost all in the 26 to 35 range (14%, n = 17). The younger age
reported by the participants can likely be attributed to the fact that all the other studies have been
with university students and most have been with graduate and post graduate students.
Gender was also not a significant factor for SoC. Previous researchers have found that
females reported a higher SoC than males (Rovai 2001, 2002a), that males reported a higher SoC
than females (Chapman, 2012) or similar to my results, no difference at all (Graf , 2004;
Richardson & Swan, 2003). It should be noted that while my study had an almost equal number
of males and females in the class, most studies had a significantly higher number of females than
males in the class (Rovai, 2002a: F = 66%; Rovai, 2002b : F = 71%, Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011:
F = 94% :). Some researchers attributed a more inclusive voice to females (Rovai, 2001), which
when combined with higher ratios of females might explain the contradictory findings. Further
studies should be done to determine if the lack of significance is reflective of the different group
represented in the research or if it is influenced by ratio of males to females in the class.
Several researchers have studied ethnicity. The primary comparison has been between
Caucasians, African Americans and Hispanics, ethnicities representative of the study context
(Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). These studies reported that ethnicity was statistically
significant. Because of the multicultural nature of the Canadian context and the problems
inherent in assuming that characteristics associated with national cultures are representative of
every member of that culture, I chose not to use ethnicity as a factor. Instead I decided to
126
examine the impact of status in Canada as this categorization was clearly delimitated and
captured significantly different experiences. For the purpose of this study, I chose to group the
participants into three groups a) students not born in Canada (Landed, Visa, Refugee), b)
students whose parents moved to Canada (1st Generation Canadians) and c) students whose
parents were born in Canada (2nd
generation + Canadians). The reason for this grouping was
based on the likelihood that students from the first group would have completed at least some of
their formative education outside of Canada, students in the second group would likely have
completed their education in Canada but might still be heavily influenced by their parents’
formative experiences with differing educational settings and the third group whose parents were
educated in the Canadian education setting would likely have only a Canadian exposure to
educational practices. Based on the different formative educational experiences of the groups I
anticipated a marked difference between the three groups; however, there was no significant
difference in SoC scores attributed to status. This may be because all the groups have been
exposed to multiple cultures. The groups that went through the Canadian education system are
the product of an inclusive education that emphasizes exposure to and respect for differences.
Although the first group may not have completed their formative high school years in Canada, by
operating in more than one culture, they may have a heightened awareness of the current context
as part of the acculturation process and be better able to adapt (Shafer, 2004).
An examination of English versus non-English mother tongue revealed no significant
effect on SoC; however, there was a small statistically relevant relationship with a small effect (r
= .2) size on the subscale Connectedness. Participants whose mother tongue was not English had
higher levels of SoC (Mdn = 22, n = 58) than participants with English as their mother tongue
(Mdn = 19, n = 64). One possible explanation for this is that non-native speakers may be more
mindful in interactions with others as they are used to adapting their language and
communication to the circumstances and consequently may feel more connected as they have put
more effort into communicating appropriately with others in the course.
A focused examination on country of completion of high school which captures where
participants completed their preparation for post- secondary studies in relation to SoC was also
not statistically significant. This result was surprising because although most of the students
completed their formative education in Canada, 14% had completed their high school in another
127
country and it is likely that the educational practices and expectations were significantly
different. Students who have completed their education outside of Canada are somewhat similar
to participants taking part in cross-cultural interactions because they do not share common
educational practices and expectations. Previous researchers such as Kim and Bonk (2002) have
noted differences in online collaboration amongst participants in cross-cultural interactions. As
discussed in chapter two, researchers report that when participants share common language
backgrounds and expectations, they are able to connect easier (Pincas, 2001; Reeder et al., 2004;
Ware, 2005). The finding that there was no significant difference between the groups supports
the observation that the multicultural nature of the Canadian context may be a significant
influence.
The demographic factors related to ability were both significant factors with SoC.
Comfort level using the DB was significantly related and a large effect size with SoC (ɳ2 = .12)
and Learning (ɳ2 = .10). Participants reporting low comfort level participating in DBs had lower
SoC. Because all students reported prior experience with online learning, it is somewhat
surprising to identify that comfort level with DBs was a significant influence on SoC. Kistow
(2011) also found comfort level with the LMS was a significant factor. Additional research in
this area is needed to determine the factors that are causing this discomfort as a lack of prior
experience or exposure are unlikely sources of the discomfort. Factors such as communication
style, learning style and individual vs. group orientated preferences for learning could be
potential factors.
The comfort level with the discussion board may be related to participants’ self-reported
English writing competency. There was no statistically relevant relationship between English
writing competency and SoC; however, there was a relationship and a medium effect size (ɳ2 =
.07) with the subscale Learning and writing competency. Those participants who reported being
able to interact competently in everyday writing interactions differed significantly from
participants who were able to write competently in educational and business settings and all
settings. Language ability is critical because it mediates and influences cognition (Pincas, 2001).
Consequently, communication ability impacts on successful participation and learning in e-
learning communities.
128
I anticipated that the students reporting everyday interaction fluency in their written skills
might correlate to those who had completed their high school studies outside of Canada;
however, there was no significant relationship. In fact, of the 14 students self-reporting everyday
interaction fluency in writing, 8 had completed all their high school in Canada in English. The
other 6 had completed their high school in another country but of the 6, half reported studying in
English and either French or another language.
5.2.1.3 Intercultural experiences / interaction variables
Bonham, Cifuentes and Murphy (1995) posit that many factors outside a group such as
participation in other groups, associations with individuals and computer mediated
communication influence the distance education culture being formed by the group. I
investigated several intercultural factors including the study of other languages and cultures,
language spoken in the home, the number of close friends from distinct cultures (which signals
an ability to establish bonds with culturally distinct others), and the frequency of socializing with
culturally distinct others to determine their relationship with SoC. There was no correlation
between the numbers of languages spoken, language spoken in the home and SoC, although
mother tongue did have a small correlation as previously noted. The amount of interaction
between students from distinct cultures and the high percentage that consider at least one person
from a distinct culture as being part of their close circle of friends is an indicator of the
multicultural nature of this cohort. Hall (2002) states that as we are members of multiple groups,
we have many cultural identities that we negotiate within those groups. Our linguistic actions
are a means of inviting others to see our world in a particular way in that communicative moment
(p. 18). The number of friendships with people from other cultures was another factor that I
thought would support the ability to feel a part of a community online; however, this factor was
not significant.
The frequency of socializing with friends from different cultures was significantly related
and a small to medium effect size (ɳ2 = .05) to SoC and medium to large effect size (ɳ
2 = .09) to
Learning. It was surprising that there was no significant correlation with Connectedness as I
anticipated that participants who regularly socialized with friends from other cultures would
more easily identify with and feel connected to culturally distinct others in the classroom. The
frequency of socializing with culturally distinct friends supports the development of cultural
129
schemas. Each cultural interaction supports the development of sensitivity towards other
cultures. The lack of correlation between the frequency of socializing with culturally distinct
friends and connectedness may be related to the inventory items. Participants may have been
able to transfer information and skills from their interactions to enhance their learning but may
not be viewing interactions in the online community as they view interactions with their friends.
5.2.1.4 Intercultural sensitivity
IS measures the affective aspect of ICC and has been defined in this study as an
individual`s “active desire to motivate themselves to understand, appreciate, and accept
differences among cultures” (Chen and Starosta, 1998, p. 231). As explained in Chapter 2,
researchers (Chen and Starosta, 1999; Cui & Awa, 1992; Fritz et al., 2002) have established that
IS is requisite for developing ICC. Other researchers have established that IS is negatively
correlated with ethnocentrism (Dong et al., 2008). In a multicultural postsecondary classroom,
daily interaction and collaboration with students representing culturally and linguistically distinct
backgrounds is both inevitable and requisite. Consequently, this can be problematic for
individuals who are ethnocentric. Gregory (2001) found that multiculturalism and intercultural
sensitivity were both related to greater attraction to interaction. Success in these interactions
depends on the individual’s ability to communicate ideas clearly in a way that can be understood
by others from different linguistic backgrounds and the individual’s ability to see situations from
other’s perspectives. IS is fundamental to developing an individual’s ICC. Although many
studies have looked at IS in university settings and the workplace, I was unable to locate any that
measured IS in Canada or in college settings. I posed the following question to determine the
level of IS of the participants in the courses as well as significant factors that influenced
participants’ IS.
Q1b. What is the level of the variable intercultural sensitivity (composed of interaction
engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction
enjoyment and interaction attentiveness), as measured by the Intercultural Sensitivity
Scale (ISS) and what demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of IS and its subscales?
To measure the IS of participants, I administered Chen and Starosta’s (2002) ISS, a 24
item questionnaire. The pooled mean for IS was 97.2, out of a possible score of 120 (SD = 11.1).
130
No benchmarks have been definitively established to determine ranges of low, medium or high
IS scores. Del Villar (2010, 2012) used an arbitrary classification of scores to distinguish among
high (88 to 120), moderate (56 to 87) and low (24 TO 55) levels of IS. Using these scores as a
guideline, I classified the results according to the three categories (Table 23). Eighty one percent
of the respondents in this study registered high sensitivity, 19 % had moderate sensitivity and no
respondents had low sensitivity.
Table 23
Respondent’s’ Intercultural Sensitivity
Sensitivity Frequency Percent
High (89 to 120) 100 81
Moderate (57 to 88) 24 19
Low (24 to 56) 0 0
Total 124 100
Del Villar reported two studies of IS among Filipino nationals. In the 2010 study, she
found that three quarters registered high sensitivity (72%, M = 93.6), and one quarter (28%) had
moderate sensitivity. The results were similar in her 2012 study. She posits that Filipinos are
very “interculturally savvy” because of their historical experience with varied cultures and their
continued exposure to foreign cultures. She identified their comfort coexisting with other
cultures, abundant opportunities for intercultural communication and their practice of working
abroad as possible explanations for their high IS levels.
The high intercultural sensitivity of the participants in this study (M = 97.3) could be due
to the lifelong exposure to other cultures, daily opportunities for intercultural communication,
travel and interactions with extended family abroad which may mirror the multicultural exposure
reported in the Filipino study. Immersion in Canada’s rich ethnic diversity exposes most urban
Canadians to a truly multicultural context throughout their lives. As previously discussed,
Canada’s immigration practices and multicultural policies, as well as Ontario’s educational
policies support acceptance of all cultures. This may explain the participants’ high sensitivity to
understanding, appreciating and being open to other cultures.
A comparison of reported subscale scores from studies conducted in Taiwan, USA,
Germany and Turkey (Table 24) indicate that the levels of IS reported in this study are
consistently higher. It is interesting to note that the Canadian participants had significantly
131
higher levels of Interaction Confidence and Interaction Attentiveness suggesting that the
participants feel very secure and sure of their abilities to communicate effectively with
individuals from other cultures and that they are very aware of and open to differences among
cultures.
Table 24
Mean scores on each dimension of ISS scale
Author McPherson Kao Yuan Graf and
Harland
Graf and
Harland
Penbek et
al.
Location Canada Taiwan USA Germany Turkey
Context College University
Nursing
MBA
students
MBA
students
University
business
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Interaction Engagement 3.9 ( .9) 3.7 (.5) 3.8 (.4) 3.8(.4) 3.6(1.0)
Respect for Cultural
Differences
4.2 (.8) 3.9 (.5)
4.2 (.5) 4.1 (.6) 2.9 (1.2)
Interaction Confidence 4.1 (.8) 2.8 (.6) 3.4 (.6) 3.3 (.5) 3.4 (1.0)
Interaction Enjoyment 4.3 (.7) 3.7 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.3 (.5) 2.4 (1.2)
Interaction Attentiveness 4.2 (.7) 3.7 (.5) 3.6 (.6) 3.6 (.6) 3.6 (1.1)
Total 4.0 (.5) 3.5 (.4) 3.8 (.4) 3.8 (.5) 3.2 (1.1)
Two of the open-ended questions were posed to solicit information related to the
subscales of the ISS. Participants were asked about their feelings about interacting with
participants from other cultures in threaded discussions (Q 33). Of those that responded, 46% (n
= 57) reported positive feelings - (#31) “No issues. I love other cultures and helping them see
things from unique perspectives.” Twenty one percent (n = 26) reported no influence of culture
on the interactions - (#51) “I didn't know the culture of each person and frankly the persons'
culture doesn't matter.” Fourteen percent (n = 17) reported they were not ‘comfortable’ or felt
‘excluded’ when interacting with other cultures online. These responses to the open-ended
questions do not appear to align with the moderately strong Interaction Attentiveness score (M =
11) out of a possible 15 and the high Interaction Enjoyment score (M = 13) out of a possible 15.
Participant’s self-reports show a marked lack of behaviours such as a recognition and
identification of cultural differences online which indicate attentiveness requiring them to
132
identify otherness and adjust behaviour accordingly. The IS construct is composed of six
components as described in Chapter 2 including respect for cultural differences, adaptability to
act in an expected and accepted way in a particular context, and not acting in an egocentric way
(Chen and Starosta, 1995). A significant number of responses do not indicate an awareness of
the influence of other cultures or the need to adjust ones communication to accommodate the
needs of others in the group which ICC theorists have identified as requisite for IS.
Question 34 asked respondents to describe how well they were able express their
opinions and interact with participants from other cultures online. Half of the participants who
responded (n = 57) felt that interacting with people from other cultures was easy - (#18) “I was
able to express my opinions with everybody regardless of their cultural background.” Five
percent (n = 6) reported that they were able to express themselves okay but were aware of other
cultures - (#48) “I find I need to suppress my opinions slightly since I don’t know the various
cultures reading my posts. Also since there is no tone when posting it is possible for you to be
misunderstood.” Approximately one quarter (n = 25) reported that they were able to
communicate well and specifically mentioned that culture played no role - (#20) “because you
don’t see the person you don’t really know their cultural background leaving the learning to be
neutral.” Five percent (n = 6) indicated that they were not able to express themselves well and
interact with individuals from other cultures. Cumulatively, ninety percent of the participants
indicated that they were confident communicating online with culturally distinct others. These
responses support the strong level of Interaction Confidence (M = 20.5) out of a possible 25
reported, but do not correlate to the moderately strong Interaction Attentiveness (M = 11) out of a
possible 15.
Two open questions were asked to gauge participants’ general awareness of their culture
and the influence of culture on their practices and opinions. Participants were asked to describe
how their cultural background helped or hindered their online interactions (Q. 35). Fifty percent
(n = 51) reported that their cultural background had no influence - #23“I don’t think that my
cultural background helped or hindered. It had no real impact.” Twenty seven percent (n = 28)
indicated that it was helpful / they were used to multicultural interactions - (#43) “I’ve been
travelling my entire life, so that made it easy for me to relate to people from different cultural
backgrounds.” Eighteen percent (n = 18) reported that they spoke through the lens of their
133
culture - (#10) “In given [sic] an opinion on an issue, I would base a lot of it on what I have
valued through my culture.” Five percent (n = 5) felt that their lack of exposure to other cultures
hindered them. Just over half the respondents indicated an awareness of their own culture and
the influence it has on their interactions which contrasts with the lack of recognition expressed in
question 34.
A similar question asked participants to describe how having different cultural
perspectives influenced the learning that took place (Q. 36). The responses were coded into five
categories. Ten percent (n = 9) felt that they were able to learn about different aspects of other
cultures - (#2) Learned about different cultures like food. Forty eight percent (n = 44) reported
that the different cultural perspectives enriched the learning - (#31) Everyone had a very
different opinion…helped me think outside the box. Thirty four percent (n = 31) felt it had no
influence and 6.5% (n = 6) felt it had a challenging or negative influence - (#37) origental [sic]
and west culture have a differnet perspectives so some times i cannot understand very well
expecially sexualism [sic]. The responses to this question seemed to be more related to the actual
topic of the course and the sharing of cultural differences or attitudes related to the topic.
A fifth open ended question (Q38) asked students to describe how participating in the
course with participants from other cultures influenced their world view. Fifty three percent (n =
46) reported no change - (#30) “I grew up with people of different cultures so nuthin [sic]was
different.” Forty seven percent (n = 40) reported that it expanded their knowledge/
understanding - (#18) “gave me a greater perspective on how other people see different issues.”
Approximately half of the respondents indicated that they were open to change and were aware
of the influence of other cultures on their opinions. This awareness represents the cognitive
aspect which is the foundation for the affective aspect, sensitivity, and results in the behavioural
aspect, intercultural competence (Chen & Starosta, 1997). However, many of the responses that
indicated no change should not be considered as a negative or closed reaction to culture because
many of those responses acknowledge the existing influence of prior multicultural experiences
which were similar so this interaction did not trigger change. One possible explanation for this is
the inclusive multicultural learning opportunities that students have been exposed to previously.
They may be aware of differences and be automatically making adjustments subconsciously but
134
may not actually be consciously thinking about the influence of their culture and communication
style on the process of communication.
5.2.1.4.1 Factors affecting IS
Since IS and SoC overlap in several ways including the necessity to be mindful to
context, others in the interaction and to adjust behavior accordingly, I wanted to determine if the
same variables were significant for both constructs. Studies of IS have used previous research as
comparatives when discussing their results. Interpreting the discussions of IS can be problematic
because many of these studies have used different scales to report IS. These scales, as reported
in Chapter 2, do not necessarily measure just the affective aspects of ICC, so comparatives are
not necessarily equal or appropriate. Consequently, I chose to only use studies that had used
Chen and Starosta’s ISS for this discussion. Using this criteria, I was able to locate only a few
studies that explored the influence of demographic and social variables using the ISS prior to my
data collection; a limited number of studies focusing on demographic variables have been
reported subsequently. These studies looked at variables such as gender (Nieto & Booth, 2009),
international education (Deardorff, 2008; Penbek et al., 2009), university major (Peng, 2006),
multiculturalism (Dong et al.,2008), national cultures (Graf, 2004) and experience with foreign
cultures and plans to study abroad (Christmas, 2010; Kao Yuan University, Taiwan, n.d.).
Recently, Del Villar (2012) reported on the relationship of a much broader spectrum of variables
including: age, number of years affiliated with an organization, number of college [university]
affiliations, number of years affiliated with a college [university’s college] organization, number
of business contacts, frequency of communication with business contacts, mode of
communication with business contacts, number of countries visited, length of stay in another
country, number of foreign friends, years of foreign friendship, and frequency of communication
with foreign friends. She reported that six variables: gender, position in the company, years of
service, educational level, university classification, and present affiliation did not have significance.
To better understand the factors that influence IS and to validate and expand on the findings of
previous studies that examined the relationship of certain demographic and background
variables, this study sought to identify factors that affected participants’ IS in this context.
Q1b (second part) What demographic variables and what intercultural experiences and
interactions are significant predictors of IS and its subscales?
135
5.2.1.4.2 Demographic variables.
A number of demographic variables were investigated in relation to IS. Because of the
multicultural context, I included factors related to identity (age, gender, status, mother tongue,
country of completion of high school) and ability (comfort level with DB and English writing
competency). A few factors associated with identity were reported in previous studies with
inconsistent findings related to their significance to IS. In this study, age was not a significant
factor. These results contrast with those of Del Villar (2010, 2012) who reported that maturity
did play a role in sensitivity. In her study of Filipinos, she found that the older the age of the
individual, the higher the sensitivity of the individual.
Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between gender and IS or the
subscales. These results echo the findings of other studies that looked at IS and gender (Bayles,
2009; Del Villar, 2012) but are contrary to the findings that males have higher sensitivity than
females (Del Villar, 2010) and the contrasting finding by Nieto and Booth (2010) that females
have higher sensitivity.
Considering how language acts as a cultural lens, I thought mother tongue might be
related to IS. In this study, there was no significant correlation between mother tongue and IS or
any of the subscales.
There was also no significant relationship with status and IS or any of the subscales. This
result was unexpected. As previously mentioned, several researchers have found that immigrants
have a dual cultural frame that helps them adapt quicker. They are more interculturally
competent than non-immigrants because of their intense personal experiences with more than
one culture which heightens their ability to notice differences between their culture and the host
culture (Kim, 2001; van Oudenhoven & van der Zee, 2002). Using the Canadian census status
classification categories may be a limitation of this study. In her study of the differences in
biculturalism, intercultural sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility among Latino immigrants,
Christmas (2010) presents a compelling argument that age of immigration or move to the host
country should be taken into consideration. Citing studies by Kim, Brenner, Liang, and Asay
(2003) that used the term “1.5-generation” to describe the generation that have moved here as
young children but have spent most of their developmental years in the host culture, and Pollock
and Van Reken (2001) that used the terms “Third Culture Individuals” to describe individuals
136
that are exposed to more than one culture for a significant portion of their developmental years
but eventually return to their home country, she makes the argument that the social and linguistic
exposure to the host culture during one’s formative years has a significant influence on one’s
socialization into the host country. Christmas defined 1st generation as individuals that
immigrated to the country after the age of 12 and second generation as those that were born in
the country or moved there before the age of 12. She hypothesized that 1st generation
individuals would have higher IS because they would be more cognitively aware of differences
and similarities between their home country and the host country; whereas, 2nd generation
individuals who spent their formative years in the host country would have been socialized into
the host country and therefore not be as sensitive to differences and similarities. In fact, her
results showed the opposite. The second generation reported a slightly higher IS score. In this
study I did not differentiate status according to age of arrival in Canada and because no
significant difference was found for any classification, it raises the possibility that the
multicultural context in Canada negates the influence of status compared to a bicultural setting
like the United States.
Identifying where participants completed high school has the same intent as identifying
age of arrival in Canada because as previously discussed, it identifies where participants spent
their formative educational years. During high school, individuals are prepared for the academic
and linguistic expectations of post-secondary studies in a North American institution. The
education policies additionally support multiculturalism. I thought that individuals who
completed their high school in Canada would score higher on the subscales Interaction
Confidence and Interaction Enjoyment than those who had completed their high school outside
of Canada. However, no significant relationship with IS and any of the subscales was found.
In addition to the factors related to identity, I also examined two factors related to ability.
The first factor, comfort with DB was not relevant. The only demographic factor that was
relevant was English writing competency. One’s ability to communicate effectively in English is
a critical skill in an online environment as the major means of interactivity with the course
content and other classmates is through the writing medium. A clear connection exists between
individuals’ confidence in their writing ability and their willingness to communicate. There was
a significant relationship and a medium to large effect size (ɳ2
= .08) between the IS scores and
137
reported writing competency. Individuals reporting a lower level of writing competency had
lower IS scores. These findings are similar to those of Del Villar (2010, 2012) who found a
positive but moderate correlation (r = .36, p = .00) between IS and communicative competency
(CC). Apprehension about taking part in online discussion forums can be related to an
individual’s willingness to communicate because if an individual lacks confidence expressing
themselves and interacting online they may be unwilling to communicate and engage in online
forums. Del Villar (2010, 2012) found a negative correlation between IS and willingness to
communicate. IS scores were noticeably lower for individuals scoring low on the willingness to
communicate scale in her study. The findings were not supported in a study of nurses at Kao
Yuan University (n.d.). The author (unknown) reported that there was no significant difference
between students who had taken a proficiency test and those who had not and the level of IS;
however, this study did not report the actual proficiency scores so a comparison of results is not
possible.
5.2.1.4.3 Intercultural experiences / interaction variables.
Rogoff (2003) has noted that “experience with several cultural communities may also
provide cognitive and social flexibility and the potential for new syntheses of cultural ways” (p.
331). Exposure to multiple cultural experiences supports the development of a more complex
and larger repertoire of cultural schemas to draw on. In turn, the ability to understand, consider
and utilize multiple frameworks supports the development of intercultural development and
ethnorelative thinking (Endicott, Bock and Navaez (2003, p. 414). Dong et al. (2008) found that
intercultural sensitivity and multiculturalism are negatively correlated to ethnocentrism.
Considering this link between intercultural experiences and intercultural competence, I
investigated the relationship of several intercultural experiences including number of languages
and cultures studied, language spoken in the home, number of close friends from other cultures
and frequency of socializing with people from other cultures.
Previous studies have reported a relationship between international experiences which
included exposure to the country’s language and culture and level of IS (Penbek et al., 2009).
Olsen and Kroeger (2001) found that university staff who were very proficient in a second
language in addition to English and who had diverse cultural experience, had stronger
intercultural communication skills. In this study, there was no correlation between the number of
138
languages and cultures studied and IS or the subscales. This result was surprising because
developing communicative competence in another language even to a small degree involves
more than just the study of grammar. The lexicon, register and paralinguistic features of a
language are embodiments of the associated culture. It would seem probable that individuals
who had studied other languages would be sensitive to differences between their culture and the
culture of others.
Similarly, speaking several languages and using a language other than English in the
home would seem to be a predictor of IS as operating within multiple linguistic and cultural
frames of reference requires sensitivity to the context and interaction. I expected that individuals
in Group 2 (non-official language) and group 4 (English and non-official language) would have
higher sensitivity as they were likely co-existing in two cultures – the culture at home and the
English mainstream culture they were immersed in at school and socialized in outside the home.
Christmas (2010) reported a positive correlation between IS and bicultural competency which
includes knowledge of cultural beliefs and values of both cultures, a positive attitude toward both
groups, and communication competency in both languages. She found that 2nd
generation
Latinos (born in the US or moved to US before the age of 12) had greater IS then 1st generation
Latinos (moved to US after the age of 12). Based on previous studies, she posits that this could
be due to the second generation’s ethnic loyalty and desire to maintain family harmony.
Assuming that use of another language in the home is an indicator that aspects of the parent’s
ethnic backgrounds are being shared and maintained, it is surprising that there was no significant
correlation.
Another example of multicultural interaction that would seem to support the development
of IS is the number of close friends from other cultures that participants have. I expected to find
a significant relationship between the number of close friends and IS because intercultural
communicative competence is developed through exposure to and development of an
understanding of practices and beliefs differing from one’s own. A close friendship signifies
mutual respect for and appreciation of another individual; it provides the opportunity to better
understand and develop respect for cultural differences because the differences are exposed
within a positive, trusting relationship. In this study, there was a significant correlation and a
medium to large effect size (ɳ = .08) with the number of close friends from other cultures and
139
IS. There was a similar significant relationship and a medium to large effect size with the
subscales Interaction Enjoyment (ɳ = .09) and Respect for Cultural Differences (ɳ = .09). Post
hoc tests indicate that there was a significant difference and small effect size between Group 3 (2
close friends) and group 5, (r = .2). Similar results were reported by Del Villar (2010, 2012).
She found a significant positive correlation between the number of foreign friends an individual
had, the frequency of communication with foreign friends and the individual’s IS.
Del Villar (2010) also reported a significant correlation between frequency of socializing
with people from other cultures and IS. She found that respondents who communicated
frequently with their foreign friends, business associates or clients indicated that their
experiences resulted in a positive general outlook towards others. Additionally, they felt less
anxious communicating with foreigners and consequently scored higher on the Interaction
Confidence and Interaction Enjoyment subscales. In her study, she found that the mode of
communication did not have to be face-to-face as emails and chats achieved the same results. In
my study, socializing with others did mean face-to-face socializing. This variable was
significantly related and a medium to large effect size (ɳ2 = .10) with IS. There was also a
significant relationship and a medium to large effect size between frequency of socializing with
friends from other cultures and the subscales Interaction Engagement (ɳ2
= .09) and Respect for
Cultural Differences (ɳ2 = .07). Participants that interacted daily reported higher levels of IS
than those reporting monthly interactions. A study in the nursing department conducted at Kao
Yuan University (n.d.) reported a significant difference between students who have a foreign
relative and those that do not on the Interaction Confidence and Interaction Enjoyment subscales.
Peng et al. (2005) reported that ethnic Chinese and Thais differed in their levels of IS associated
with intercultural experiences – those that had more experience interacting with other cultures
had high IS. The connection between exposure to individuals from other cultures and confidence
and competence in ICC is logical and well supported by the literature. These encounters help
individuals develop a repertoire of frameworks related to social beliefs, cultural values and
expectations. Through problem solving intercultural communication challenges, an individual’s
schemas increase in breadth and depth and also become more sophisticated (Endicott et al, 2003,
p. 408).
140
Only a few variables with medium to large effect sizes were identified in this study.
Further studies should be conducted to determine other factors that significantly correlate. For
example, Penbek et al. (2009) found a correlation between IS and study of an internationally focused
curriculum and intercultural experiences. Similarly, Del Villar (2010, 2012) found that the more
countries visited and the longer the stay, the higher the IS. A report of nursing students at Kao Yuan
University (n.d.) noted that those planning to study abroad had higher IS than those not planning to
which indicates that personal goals and motivation may be a factor to explore. Two studies have
looked at other cultural influences and IS as measured by the ISS. Graf (2004) found that national
culture, organizational culture and gender culture significantly correlated to IS. Del Villar (2012)
explored the correlation between Hall and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions attributed to Filipinos
(high context; low uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, high power distance orientation,
masculine cultural orientation) and IS. These studies published subsequent to my data collection
suggest other variables that may be significant and warrant further investigation although using
national culture identities remain a concern. The intercultural communication of these groups online
reflects a multitude of fluid, dynamic cultures (Ess and Sudweeks, 2005, p.9). They caution that
when looking at intercultural communication online, an alternative framework is required to look at
distinctive groups within a national culture.
5.3 The relationship between SoC and IS
The importance of communicative competence to competent participation in discussion
boards has been demonstrated both in the literature and in the findings of this study. The
importance of IS to the development of ICC and important factors that influence it have also
been established in the literature and discussed in Chapter Two. In a college setting, students are
expected to communicate their ideas clearly in English, interact with individuals from a
multitude of linguistic and cultural backgrounds and take an active role in the learning process.
In an urban, multicultural environment like Toronto, this requires the ability to interact with
others who may have differing worldviews and communication patterns. Consequently, the CC
required is actually ICC. The findings of this study established that English writing competency
was a significant factor for both SoC and IS. SoC and IS, although representing different
constructs, do have overlapping elements such as mindfulness and sensitivity as well as
141
similarities in the variables that are significant factors influencing both constructs. To determine
if there was a relationship between the two constructs, I posed the following question:
Q1c. What is the relationship between SoC and IS?
There was a small positive relationship and a small effect size (2 = .02) between IS and
SoC. While a small effect size is still significant, given that there appeared to be an overlap in
constructs, I had anticipated that the relationship would be more significant. The subscales
Respect for Cultural Differences and Interaction Confidence also had a significant relation and a
small effect size (2 = .02) with SoC.
There was a significant relationship and a small effect size (2 = .02) between the ISS
subscales Interaction Engagement, Respect for Cultural Differences, Interaction Confidence and
Interaction Enjoyment and the CCS subscale Learning. There was also a significant relationship
and a small effect size (2 = .02) between the ISS subscale Respect for Cultural Differences and
the CCS subscale Connectedness.
The weak significance of IS to SoC was surprising since ICC is germane to establishing
presence online and developing a SoC. Further investigations to determine if the context was a
significant contributing factor are warranted.
5.4 Appropriateness of the CCS and the ISS
One possible explanation for the lack of a strong relationship between IS and SoC is that
the instruments may not have actually captured the constructs accurately in this context. Because
the multicultural nature of Toronto is quite different than contexts used to validate the
instruments previously, I investigated the following question:
Q1 d. Do the items in the CCS and ISS scales measure the same constructs when applied
in a multicultural setting like Toronto?
A confirmatory factor analysis of each scale found that the data did not fit the models.
This result was not surprising for the ISS because previous researchers, Fritz, Mollenberg and
Chen (2001) applying the ISS in Germany found that some of the factors did not discriminate
clearly. Tamam (2010), applying the scale in Malaysia, cautioned that the ISS may not be
suitable for multicultural contexts. I was unable to locate any subsequent research to the initial
validation studies by Rovai that examined the validity of the model in different contexts. I
142
subsequently conducted a principal components analysis for each scale to determine if a new
model could be created from the inventory items.
5.4.1 The Revised CCS
The revised two-component solution for the CCS consisting of 16 items was quite similar
to the original model. Eight of the original 10 items loaded on the Learning factor accounting
for 36% of the variance and seven of the original 10 loaded on the Connectedness factor
accounting for 17.3% of the variance. One item that was originally associated with
Connectedness loaded on Learning. This item which referred to feeling isolated in the course
(CCS9) is the same item identified as receiving noticeably lower scores from participants. The
revised scale had a sufficient number of items loading on to each factor. Additionally, the
Cronbach’s alpha for the revised CCS and the subscales ranged from .85 to .89. This suggests
that a modified version of Rovai’s two factor model is a reasonably good tool to use with this
cohort; however, it would be beneficial to further refine the items to improve the validity of the
instrument. Additionally, the scale should be validated with a larger sample. Pallant (2010)
summarizes the range of acceptable sample sizes ranging from a high of 300 to a minimum of
150 cases. Other authors she cites suggest that the ratio of participants to items is more important
but the acceptable range is from five to ten participants per item. The principal components
analysis I did was with 123 cases. While this falls within possible acceptable guidelines (20
items x 5 = 100), it falls short of the minimum 150 cases recommended by some researchers.
5.4.2 The Revised ISS
The principal component analysis resulted in a two component solution explaining 49%
of the variance. Seven questions related to opinions about other cultures loaded clearly on the
first factor. (ISS9, ISS7, ISS18, ISS20, ISS12, ISS15 and ISS2). It is notable that all the
questions were negatively worded and expressed opinions that would not be socially acceptable
in Canada such as ISS9 “I get upset easily when interacting with people from different cultures.”
The original five factors had a mix of positively and negatively worded items; nine negatively
worded items were included in the 24 items. Except for the omission of ISS8 and ISS16, the
questions that loaded on the first factor were the same as those identified by Chen and Starosta as
belonging to the subscales Respect for Cultural Differences and Interaction Enjoyment. I labeled
this factor which accounted for 37% of the variability, Interaction Openness.
143
Six questions loaded clearly on the second factor (ISS3, ISS5, ISS23, ISS21, ISS6, and
ISS10). It is notable that all the questions were positively worded and expressed opinions about
ease and confidence communicating with others – and included statements that would be socially
acceptable in Canada such as ISS3 “I am pretty sure of myself in interacting with people from
different cultures.” Except for the omission of ISS4, the questions that loaded on the second
factor represented all the questions attributed to Interaction Confidence and 2 of the 7 factors
associated with Interaction Engagement. I labeled this factor which accounted for 12% of the
variability, Interaction Confidence and Appropriateness. None of the 3 questions associated
with the subscale Interaction Attentiveness were valid in the factor analysis.
The resulting two factor structure shows strong discriminant loadings and has enough
questions attributed to each factor to support discrimination of the concepts. The findings of the
principal component analysis may explain why the Interaction Attentiveness subscale did not
correlate to SoC or its subscales.
Previous researchers have studied the ISS in different contexts to see if it is applicable in
other settings. Fritz, Mollenberg and Chen (2001) used a confirmatory factor analysis to test the
validity of using the ISS with German students studying business administration. Using the
maximum likelihood estimation method, they were able to reproduce the five factors. They
determined that the factors had sufficient discriminate validity; however the subscales Interaction
Enjoyment and Interaction Attentiveness did not discriminate high enough. They determined
that the instrument was held satisfactorily overall but that the operationalization of the concepts
could be further improved.
A recent study by Tamam (2010) was unable to reproduce the 5 factor structure
formulated by Chen and Starosta. He examined the theoretical validity of the model in a non-
Western context, Malaysia, which he presents as a multiracial collectivist country where
sensitivity is highly valued and stressed. Tamam predicted that because of Malaysian cultural
values, the subscales Respect for Cultural Differences, Interaction Engagement, Interaction
Confidence, and Interaction Attentiveness would be applicable, but Interaction Enjoyment would
not be applicable because enjoyment is not an important value in Malaysian culture (p. 177). A
confirmatory factor analysis performed using AMOS showed that Chen and Starosta’s five factor
model was not reproduced. He then used a principal components analysis using the Direct
144
Oblimin option to interpret the 24 item ISS. Twenty one items loaded on three factors which he
labeled as Interactional Attentiveness and Respect, Interaction Openness, and Interaction
Confidence (Table 25). Three items were excluded because they loaded on more than one factor.
He posits that there is a conceptual overlap of the factors when applied in a different culture so
researchers should be cautious when using it in a non-Western setting.
There was notable consistency between Tamam’s three factor model and my two factor
model. Six of the eight items attributed to his second factor Interaction Openness were the same
as the items attributed to my first factor Interaction Openness. ISS20 (I think my culture is better
than others), which was included in my factor was not included in Tamam’s model.
Additionally, Tamam included ISS4 (I find it hard to talk in front of people from other cultures)
and ISS22 (I avoid those situations where I have to deal with culturally distinct others), both of
which were eliminated in my model. Of the six items that loaded on to my second factor
Interaction Confidence and Appropriateness, three were the same as the items attributed to
Tamam’s third factor Interaction Confidence and two were the same as items attributed to
Interaction Attentiveness and Respect. ISS10 (I feel confident when interacting with people from
different cultures) was included in my model but not in Tamam’s model. It is interesting to note
that the three items related to Intercultural Attentiveness loaded highest on Tamam’s model but
did not load at all on my model. Tamam advocates the need for Malaysians to sustain good
racial relations and notes the increased awareness of individual and cultural rights in the growing
democracy. Additionally, in the context of national unity, he states that intercultural sensitivity
is seen as necessary for harmonious race relations (p. 174). It would appear that in Malaysia,
which Tamam describes as multicultural, intercultural awareness and sensitivity is in the
developmental stages; whereas in Canada, which is also multicultural, intercultural awareness is
further developed and may not require as much conscious attention.
145
Table 25
Factors for ISS, Tamam’s model and my model.
Chen and Starosta’s ISS Model Tamam’s Model McPherson’s Model
IE RCD IC IA IJ IAR IO *IC *IO ICA
1 C T
11 C
13 C T
21 C T M
22 C T
23 C T M
24 C T
2 C T M
7 C T M
8 C T
16 C T
18 C T M
20 C M
3 C T M
4 C T
5 C T M
6 C T M
10 C M
14 C T
17 C T
19 C
9 C T M
12 C T M
15 C T M
Chen and Starosta model: IE = Interaction Engagement, RCD = Respect for Cultural
Differences, IC = Interaction Confidence, IA = Interaction Attentiveness, IJ = Interaction
Enjoyment; Tamam’s Model: IAR = Interaction Attentiveness and Respect, IO = Interaction
Openness, *IC = Interaction Confidence; My Model: *IO = Interaction Openness, ICA =
Interaction Confidence and Appropriateness
146
Based on the findings of this principal components analysis, the ISS may not be an
appropriate tool to accurately and consistently identify the IS of multicultural urban Canadians.
The number of items that did not load discriminately on the revised scale (n = 11) may account
for some of the unexpected findings in this study. The revised scale may need to be further
modified. The Cronbach’s alpha for the revised ISS and the subscales ranged from .72 to .85. At
the very least, several of the remaining 13 items should be rewritten to ensure a balance of
positively and negatively worded items on each factor. The sample size was also only
marginally acceptable (5 participants x 24 items = 120) indicating the need for further
investigation into the scales’ validity in this context with a larger cohort.
5.5 SoC Artifacts Online
Gudykunst, Guzley and Ortega (1993) raise a methodological concern in social science
research – the consistency between a survey response and actual behaviour in the given context.
They propose that if a gap exists between what an individual says she/he will do in a given
situation and what they actually do, this gap may be larger if the individual is interdependent.
While all individuals, regardless of culture, have both an independent and interdependent
construal of the self, one construal will dominate and be influenced to various degrees by social
elements. Behaviour will be influenced by situational factors, other participants in the situation
and the cultural framework through which the individual interprets the interaction (p. 289). This
complexity calls into question the appropriateness of relying on survey methods alone. Graf and
Harland (2005) compared participants’ responses to the Behavioural Assessment Scale for
Intercultural Communication Effectiveness (BASIC) which has a behavioural focus to the
responses to the ISS which has an emotional focus and found little convergent validity in the two
scales. They concluded that intercultural communication behaviours might not be strongly
related to the emotions an individual experiences in intercultural communication interactions. To
determine if the behaviours of the participants matched the self-reported attitudes and opinions of
the participants, I proposed the following question:
Q2. Can indicators of connectedness and learning, the underlying dimensions of the
construct SoC, be observed within the context of a blended asynchronous online college
course?
147
I expected that the number of DB posts would correlate to individual’s SoC as measured
by the CCS. The number of posts ranged from one to 46 and the mean number of posts by
professor ranged from a low of M = 3.1 in Professor D’s class to a high of M = 16.3 in Professor
A’s class reflecting the discussion board participation expectations which differed greatly
between professors. The Spearman-Rho Correlation Coefficient indicated no correlation
between SoC and the number of DB posts.
Rovai (2002b) found a correlation and moderate effect size (r = .42) between classroom
community and number of messages posted by subjects using the Pearson product-moment
correlation procedure. Further, he found a highly significant difference between the number of
messages posted in the high community course and the low community course. The Blackboard
course with the lowest community also had the lowest number of posts. In this study, there was
not a significant difference between the number of messages posted in the high community
courses and the low community courses. In fact, although Professor A’s courses had the highest
number of message posts (M = 16.3). The participants reported the second lowest SoC scores (M
= 46.2) which were close to the SoC scores for Professor D’s students (M = 42.4) who had the
lowest number of message posts (M = 3.1). Accordingly, in this study, the number of posts was
not predictive of community.
While numbers alone can give an indication of participation in terms of the participants’
frequency of posting during the course, they do not reveal the nature or content of the posts.
Dawson (2006) studied the correlation between numbers of discussion board posts and SoC.
Contrary to Rovai (2002d), he reported that quantity of DB posts is not an indicator of
community development. Dawson codified the contributions into discussion interaction types:
learner-learner (direct interaction between peers), learner-content (postings between teachers and
students) and system (orphaned posts with no associated discussion) based on the LMS statistics
available. He reported a significant relationship with a medium effect size (r = .50) between
learner interactions and SoC and a negative correlation of system posts and SoC. He did not find
a correlation between learner-learner posts and the subscale Learning. Using course statistics in
this manner assumes that participants have accurately and consistently used the threading
properties of the LMS. This was not the case for the participants in this study. A review of the
content of many posts that would be labeled learner-content using Dawson’s discussion types
148
indicated that many of the posts were in fact system posts. The participants had used the reply
function and consequently linked to the instructions or general questions posted by the professor
although the content was similar to a monologue, not dialogic in nature and did not represent
interaction between the professor and the student. As a result, I decided not to use the LMS
statistics in the analyses.
Instead, to better understand the actual purpose and nature of the posts, I conducted a
content analysis of every DB entry of the participants taking part in the study. I imported the DB
posts, unitized the messages into paragraphs (units per student ranged from 1 to 280 -Table 18)
and assigned codes to each message using a modified version of Dawson’s (2006) codes
describing different aspects of Spirit, Trust and Learning ( see Table 19). Monologue type posts
coded as content accounted for 51% (n = 1558) of all units and provided information related to
the course topic but no indicators of interaction. I expected that there would be a strong
correlation between the number of content coded posts and low SoC. I used the Spearman-rho
Correlation Coefficient to investigate the relationship between reported SoC and the number of
units posted that provided content related to the discussion point but did not contain SoC
indicators. No correlation was found between the two variables. These findings do not support
the negative correlation that Dawson (2006) found between orphaned posts (a related, but not
identical variable) and SoC.
Evidence of SoC (social community and learning) was observable in 49% (n = 1476) of
the units analyzed. Social community is composed of spirit and trust. I investigated the
relationship of evidence of community found in the DB posts and the level of Connectedness as
measured by the CCS subscale. The construct Spirit represents feelings of belonging and
connectedness. It has two observable behaviours, support and reference to members.
Expressions of support for other members and compliments on the contents of other’s messages
such as “That's a very good example of a hero XX, Kudos to you!”were coded as support (SS).
These expressions were evident in a limited way in Professor A’s (M=.5) and B’s (M=.4) classes,
but not in Professor D’s class. References to other members by name or by use of pronouns were
coded as reference to members (SRM) and ranged from a M of .5 in Professor D’s classes to a M
of 8.4 in Professor A’s classes. Spirit was evident in 22% (n = 634) of the units analyzed.
149
The construct Trust, the feeling that class members can be trusted regarding possible
feedback and support has two observable behaviours, self-disclosure and personal reflection.
Self- disclosure of personal information was coded as self-disclosure (TSD). There was no
evidence of self-disclosure in the courses taught by Professor D. Similarly, there was no
evidence of personal reflection (TPR) either. Evidence of personal reflection was identified
only in limited numbers in the courses taught by Professors A and B. Trust and Spirit combined
represent and individual’s social community. There was almost three times the average number
of units coded for social community in Professor A’s courses (M =17.3) compared to Professor
B’s courses (M =5.7) and Professor C’s courses (M =4.6). The students in Professors A’s and B’s
courses posted introductions at the beginning of the semester. These introductions accounted for
a significant number of the self-disclosure codes assigned. The general nature of the discussions
in Professor A’s courses included personal responses to scenarios and questions posed.
Although it is not possible to draw any conclusions without having access to the entire
discussions, it seems that the topic of the course and how it was structured had the greatest
impact on the evidence of SoC found and that the evidence itself did not necessarily reflect
meaningful SoC.
I investigated the relationship between the subscale Connectedness as measured by CCS
and the total number of units coded as social community in the content analysis of the DB post
using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. No significant correlation between the
two variables was found. Individuals with higher numbers of units coded with social community
did not report higher Connectedness scores.
The other construct included in Classroom Community is Learning which is the notion
that knowledge is co-constructed with fellow class members. I investigated if evidence of
learning found in the DB posts correlated to individual’s feelings of Learning as measured by the
CCS. Learning has four observable behaviours: Critique/Disagreement; Explicit Interaction;
Personal Opinion and Feedback Seeking. Explicit expressions of critique or disagreement with
other member’s posted opinions or content were coded as critique/disagreement (LC). Direct
critique or challenge of another’s opinion or challenging the content of a post was not frequently
done in the posts (M = .7). This behavior would be expected to be significantly higher in the DB
150
forums of courses where students were expected to dialogically construct their knowledge. In all
the courses included in this study, knowledge was transmitted but not co-constructed.
Any statements that directly referred to another DB contributor’s message or answered
and/or commented on another message were coded as explicit interaction (LEI). Twenty six
percent (n = 802) of the units were coded explicit interaction. The distribution ranged from a
high of M = 10.6 in Professor A’s courses to zero assigned interaction codes in Professor D’s
courses. Statements that expressed personal opinions on topics as indicated by expressions such
as I think, I believe, personally, I say etc. were coded as personal opinion (LPO). Sharing
personal opinions was a significant part of the participation in Professor A’s courses (M = 11.8)
and not very frequent behavior in Professor D’s courses (M = .9).
Units that included expressions inviting feedback from other participants to a position
advanced, asked for clarification of post or posed a question about the course were coded as
feedback seeking (LFS). Seeking feedback and inviting others to respond to what one has posted
is commonly found in posts where the intent is to collaborate to build knowledge. This was not a
frequent behavior observed in the courses studied (M = 1).
The four behaviours critique/disagreement, explicit interaction, personal opinion and
feedback seeking are evidence of the construct Learning. The construct was evident in all of the
professor’s courses but the mean ranged significantly ( 2 to 25.3).
I investigated the relationship between the subscale Learning as measured by CCS and
the total number of units coded as Learning in the content analysis of the DB post using the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. No significant correlation between the two
variables was found. Individuals with higher numbers of units coded with learning indicators
did not report higher Learning scores.
A comparison of the DB posts of the participant reporting the second lowest SoC score
and the second highest score reinforced these findings. Both participants were enrolled in
courses taught by Professor B who had tied for the highest SoC mean (50.5) attributed to
instructors. Participant #91 reported a SoC score of 70, a Learning score of 35 and a
Connectedness score of 35. Participant #91 had posted only 3 times to the DB. These
discussions were coded into seven units with three units assigned at least one code associated
with Spirit and Trust (43% of units) and 5 units assigned at least one code associated with
151
Learning (71% of posts). On the other hand, participant # 73 reported a SoC score of 13, a
Learning score of 9 and a Connectedness score of 4. Participant #73 had posted 15 times to the
DB. These discussions were coded into 22 units with six units assigned at least one code
associated with Spirit and Trust (27% of units) and 21 units assigned at least one code associated
with Learning (94% of posts) (Appendix I). Relying on either the CCS scores or content analysis
scores alone would not render an accurate understanding of the participants’ SoC.
The content analysis of the DB posts did not correlate to the CCS responses. This
supports Baxter and Babbie’s (2004) concerns with the potential disconnect between learners’
perceptions and observations and what is actually happening on the social plane. The complexity
of understanding this disconnect is further fueled by all the unknowns when examining the data.
For example, Dawson (2006) as discussed in Chapter 2, found that the number of external
contacts that students reported having available to discuss the content of the learning outside of
class directly correlated with the need to establish a SoC within the DB. Many students
demonstrating low SoC scores may have had access to social networks outside the class.
5.6 Summary
The rich linguistically and culturally diverse cohort participating in this study was
enrolled in blended learning courses in an urban community college in Ontario. Their diverse
cultural backgrounds, the number of languages spoken, their prior educational experience and the
frequency of their socializing with friends from distinct cultures attest to their multicultural
perspectives and cultural fluidity. When participating online, the interactions represent
kaleidoscopes of cultures as each individual operates through a unique cultural schema. A
transitory generative culture emerges as the multicultural diverse students learn together; due to
the temporality of the bounded situation, this culture is unique to that moment in time and cannot
be reproduced.
Participants reported a weak SoC (M = 47.7). Several factors including the professor,
comfort with the DB and frequency of socializing with people from other cultures influenced the
degree that participants felt a sense of community in the blended courses and had a medium to
large effect size. The relationship between English writing competency was statistically
significant with a medium effect size for the subscale Learning. Even though the two constructs
152
IS and SoC had overlapping elements, participant’s IS as determined by the ISS had a positive
relationship and small effect size to SoC. The participants in this study had very high levels of
IS but this was not a large influence on their reported SoC.
An analysis of responses to the open-ended survey questions revealed several
discontinuities between scale responses and responses to questions that sought to explore the
same aspects of SoC. An exploration of the appropriateness of both scales for the multicultural
Canadian context resulted in both scales failing to be reproduced by a confirmatory factor
analysis. Follow-up PCAs for each scale produced two factor models that may serve as the
starting point for future validation studies of the instrument.
The analysis of the DB posts revealed evidence of SoC in approximately half the units;
however, the behavioural categories did not correlate with the CCS subscale scores providing
evidence of a disconnect between the affective and behavioural aspects of participant’s sense of
community.
The following chapter provides an overview of the study, sets out the limitations,
provides a summary of the findings for each research question, outlines the implications of the
study and recommendations for future research.
153
CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The limited focus on blended learning research in the Canadian context and the consensus
in the literature that developing a Sense of Community (SoC) in e-learning courses was
important for student satisfaction and learning inspired this research. The study’s aim was
threefold: (a) to provide a rich description of multicultural participants in hybrid courses, (b) to
identify the existence of SoC and develop a better understanding of the applicability of the
Classroom Community Scale (CCS) and the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) in a Canadian
multicultural setting, and (c) to better understand learner variables including the intercultural
sensitivity of students in hybrid learning classes. This study provides a detailed description of
the cohort and highlights the scope of their linguistic and cultural diversity. It provides evidence
that SoC is possible to develop in blended courses taught in an urban multicultural college and
identifies several factors that correlate to its development, including a weak correlation with IS.
Evaluation of previously validated scales and suggested revisions are also included.
After a review of the findings of my study, limitations and implications are discussed.
The chapter finishes with recommendations for future research and conclusions.
6.1 Summary of Main Findings
This study found that the participants did report feeling a moderate SoC. While causality
is not claimed, this study attempted to identify what factors might affect an individual’s SoC
online. An evaluation of the survey data, open responses and content analysis of the online
discussions revealed the following about this cohort and their ability to develop a SoC:
These millennial students truly represent a multicultural mix. They are culturally fluid
and easily move between multiple distinct cultural and linguistic frameworks. A
significant number of the students are operating in at least two distinct cultures and
languages with half of them speaking a language other than English in the home;
almost 80 % of the participants spoke or wrote another language; The students are
used to effortlessly and competently interacting with friends from distinct cultures on
a regular basis.
154
The CCS scores revealed that students reported only a moderate level of SoC (M =
47.8) out of possible 80. Students’ scores were just above 20 out of possible 40 on
the Connectedness sub-scale (M = 20.2) and significantly higher on the Learning sub-
scale (M = 27.5). Higher SoC has been associated with learner satisfaction in the
literature; despite the modest level of SoC, 90% said they were satisfied with their
learning.
Data indicate that students who had low comfort level with the discussion board (DB)
(large effect size ; ɳ2 = .12) indicated lower levels of SoC.
The frequency of socializing with culturally distinct friends (medium effect size; 2 =
.05) and level of IS (small effect size; 2 = .02) positively correlated with SoC scores.
Data indicate that students who felt they did not write well (medium effect size ; ɳ2 =
.07) or had low comfort level with the DB (large effect size ; ɳ2 = .12) indicated
lower reported levels of Learning.
The professor had a medium to large effect size (2 = .08) on SoC and was also
specifically identified by 31 % of responding participants as contributing most to their
SoC. The survey responses did not correlate to participation by the professor in the
DB; in courses where the professor participated minimally or not at all, the professor
was identified by one third of the students as having the greatest influence on their
SoC.
The participants had very high intercultural sensitivity (IS) identified by the ISS. The
scores were consistently higher than those reported by other studies using the
inventory. According to the literature, high IS indicates the individual is aware of and
respects cultural differences and is able to adjust one’s communication accordingly;
responses to open-ended questions related to IS did not reflect a strong awareness of
the impact of culture on their interactions.
Indicators of Spirit, Trust (Connectedness) and Learning could be observed in the DB
entries but the tabulated results did not correlate to the Connectedness and Learning
subscale scores; there was no correlation between total number of posts and SoC.
155
A principal components analysis of the CCS produced a reasonably close model to
the original retaining 16 of the 20 original items and the same two factor model
indicating that the CCS could be used with this cohort after some modification.
A principal components analysis of the ISS produced a vastly different model
retaining only 13 of the original 24 items and a two factor model rather than the
original five factor model suggesting that the instrument was not a good fit and may
need substantial revision to be considered valid in the Canadian urban context.
In order to understand these findings, it is helpful to examine them in light of the theoretic mix
that framed this research based on: Socio-cultural Constructivism Theory, Situated Learning
Theory, Sense of Community and Intercultural Communication Competence Theory
Every participant was operating with a unique cultural schema and the degree of
sensitivity and mindfulness that they brought to the interaction, influenced both their
IS and their SoC.
Communication competence mediates all interactions and is in turn potentially further
developed by all interactions
Both surface and deep learning involving interaction can support SoC and the
development of ICC. The courses in general were not representative of a knowledge
building approach which supports learning through dialogic inquiry. Just over half of
all the units analyzed were monologues and did not include any indicators of Spirit,
Trust and Learning yet students did report moderate levels of SoC.
Cultural schemas are constantly evolving with each significant intercultural encounter
and will in turn affect how the participant interacts in the future.
Metaphorically the interactions represent kaleidoscopes of culture because the
outcome will be dependent on the mindfulness and sensitivity, the skills, agency and
cultural schemas of the participants within that specific context
156
6.2 Implications of the Research
6.2.1 For the Design and Delivery of Blended Courses
The practical implications of this research for blended learning course delivery come
from the aggregate survey findings and the coding of the DB entries. The four professors
involved in the delivery of the 21 courses included in this study each approached blended
learning in a different way. Participation in the DB by the professor ranged from active to
absent. In some courses the DB was a vital part of the course and marks were assigned for
participation, in others it was an available tool but was not an integral aspect of the learning.
Expectations for student interaction also varied greatly. Some courses encouraged or required
regular interaction while others operated more like a correspondence course with the DB being
used to post individual monologues. This is not surprising in the emerging e-learning
environment.
Comfort level with DBs and English writing ability were identified as significant factors
in students’ development of SoC. Practices that provide language support for the students and
follow a consistent hybrid learning pedagogy may improve students’ comfort participating in
online discussions:
1. The institution should establish clear guidelines as to the role of the professor in the
course, the types of interaction that should occur within the course, and the value placed on that
interaction to ensure reasonable consistency from course to course within the same modality.
2. Students should be provided with clear expectations of how to participate in the DB
including expectations around the number and frequency of posts expected, and guidelines for
content of the messages in order to maximize SoC. The role of the teacher and the student
should also be made clear. The greater autonomy inherent in an online course may conflict with
students’ past educational experiences and can “require a shift in their conception of what
learning involves and what constitutes appropriate roles of students and teachers (Tam, 2000, p.
13).” Course facilitators should ask students to privately self-identify if they are not comfortable
with using the DB and monitor the participation of those students at the beginning of the course
providing supportive and constructive feedback so that the students increase their comfort level.
157
3. There should continue to be an emphasis on supporting the development of competent
writing skills and comfort using the discussion board. A number of practices such as providing
clear, explicit instructions, clearly articulating expectations rather than assuming the student
knows what is expected and the awareness that not all students have been acculturated to be self-
directed and seek clarification or challenge the opinions of others may provide helpful scaffolds.
6.2.2 For Understanding and Measuring the Presence of SoC
Social theories of learning have in common the notion that learning is social in nature and
involves interaction among people (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Brown, Collins & Duguid,
1989; Dewey, 1961; Swan & Shea, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978). Lave and Wenger (1991) use the
term “communities of practice” to describe a learning environment where learning emerges from
participation in purposeful, patterned activity. The common purpose of the community is
learning and through active participation, the members of the community feel satisfaction that
their learning needs have been met (Picciano, 1998; Rovai, 2002).
The courses used in this study incorporated various types of learner-learner interactions
found to support development of SoC in previous studies as aggregately reported by Shackelford
and Maxwell (2012), including: opportunities to learn about other students in the class such as
the inclusion of highly interactive introductions and identifying shared interests and experiences,
participation in whole class and smaller group online discussions, exchanging resources, sharing
personal experiences, and face-to-face meetings. These interaction opportunities give students
opportunities to develop their social presence. Rourke et al. (2001) distinguish three kinds of
social presence responses in online discussion: affective responses, interactive responses and
cohesive responses. The content analysis of the discussion board entries found indicators of
these social presence responses but no correlation was found between them and SoC. While
these interactions may support the development of SoC, course instructors need to be aware that
participants’ SoC is not guaranteed simply by inclusion of these elements.
The CCS was used to measure SoC in this study. The scale provides sub scores for both
Connectedness and Learning. Responses to questions related to connectedness were mostly
close to the median mark 2.0. The scores were more or less the same across all courses
regardless of course length, professor or course design. The inventory questions relate to
interactions with others in the class but do not differentiate between perceptions of interactions
158
with fellow students and with the teacher. When asked in the open-ended question what
contributed most to their SoC in the course, students indicated the professor and participation in
the DB. The statements included on the inventory do not really capture all of these factors that
students reported as contributing to their SoC; consequently the low scores may have been a
result of the type of statement that was included and the choice of key vocabulary in the
statements that provoked a response. Although the principal component analysis revealed that
the CCS was reasonably useful for this context, caution should be taken when interpreting the
results
6.2.3 For Theorizing About IS in a Multicultural Context
Most models of the development of intercultural communication competence depict
individuals moving along a continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism, from being
unaware of other cultures and their differences to being enlightened and able to embrace other
cultures (Bennett, 1993; Piccione, 2000). In a city like Toronto, is it possible for individuals to
actually exist in an ethnocentric state once they have been in the city a length of time?
Inclusiveness is a foundation of our education system and our constitutional policies even if its
actual implementation in school and other contexts may sometimes fall short of that ideal. In
urban settings, we interact daily with culturally distinct others. Intercultural sensitivity is seen as
requisite for the development of ICC as IS aids the awareness of and openness to cultural
differences as well as the ability to adjust behavior accordingly to ensure successful interactions.
These models are developed on the premise that each cultural encounter exposes you to
differences, which may lead you to question your own beliefs and values and come to support
and accept the values of others that are different from your own. However, if you have been
immersed in an environment rich in diversity and have always had exposure to people from
different cultures, do you develop intercultural competence or is intercultural communication
competence the norm of individuals living in an
urban multicultural community like Toronto? Are we just sensitive to the difference
when we encounter individuals who have not had the same exposure that we have had, and are
acting in an ethnocentric way which goes against the norms that we value?
Most of the studies that look at the development of ICC, talk about gatherings among
strangers and the development from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence.
159
These studies do not reflect the typical social habits of college students who report having a wide
variety of linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD) friends with whom they consistently
socialize. Their ability to communicate with LCD friends has likely not moved along a
continuum. The participants in the study report strong confidence and competence when
interacting with culturally diverse others, yet they do not seem to be consciously making
adjustments to their behaviours. Current intercultural communicative competence theories do
not adequately account for the impact of the role of living in a multicultural context like Canada
on IS and ICC.
6.2.4 For Methods
Content analysis of the discussion forums using behavior indicators of SoC provided
important insight into the actual behaviours of participants online that may be potentially at odds
with their perceived behaviour. Preparing and then coding the transcripts was time consuming
and the results did not appear to capture the SoC construct. There were a lot of expressions used
that have previously been identified as being indicators of community and learning but these did
not correlate with the SoC scores and the subscales Community and Learning. Previous studies
have indicated that SoC is not actually something that all students want and the DB is not the
only means of establishing SoC within a course. The main value of the content analysis process
was that it helped me to become very familiar with the postings. I was able to see evidence of
some of the comments made by individuals in the short answers. The behaviours related to
learning didn’t really capture the learning that students reported and were aggregately not
predictive of the subscale Learning. A significant portion of the students reported that the
teacher was the largest influence on their SoC yet there was no evidence of any significant
teacher influence in the DB. The use of both qualitative and quantitative data were useful in this
case study because neither method alone would have provided a robust picture of connectedness
and learning in this situation.
6.3 Limitations
A number of limitations in this research must be acknowledged. An incomplete data set
compromised the study’s validity. The length of the survey and a potential disconnect between
the survey content focused on interactions and course experience may have had an impact of
160
student responses. The impact of living and being educated in a country that has firmly
established multiculturalism policies and practices might have had a strong influence on the
results. Additionally, my own cultural biases may have influenced how and what I chose to
discuss. Despite these limitations, I believe this research does contribute to the body of
knowledge about the factors that affect development of SoC in blended courses. Further details
about each of the limitations are provided below.
6.3.1. Data Set
Initially gaining access to hybrid classes was difficult because at the time when I
collected my data there was not a well-established practice of conducting research in the college
setting either in the liberal arts field or in distance learning which in the colleges is housed within
Ontario North, a consortium offering all distance education course offered across the province on
a part time basis by all the colleges. Consequently, some of the restrictions imposed on my
research by the college’s ethics committee constrained the type of analysis I was able to do. I
was not permitted to be a participant in the classes and consequently was not able to examine the
patterns of discussion that took place in the class overall. Instead, I was given access only to the
entries made by participants who had agreed to participate in the study. Although this data was
useful, it was not contextualized within the discussions thus limiting the type of analysis I could
conduct. The resulting incomplete data set compromised the study’s validity. A content analysis
of interactive structure which looks at who said what to whom (Baxter & Babbie, 2004) would
have produced a richer picture of the interaction that took place and further insight could have
been gained into the interactions between participants with differing scores on the CCS.
Furthermore, that type of analysis would have aligned much better with my grounding theories,
sociocultural theory and communities of practice. However, the DB posts did provide insight
into the types of interactions taking place and the relationship of SoC artifacts with the CCS
inventory scores.
6.3.2. Length of the Survey Instrument
Due to the timing of receiving permissions and contact information for the students, I had
to administer the survey tool all at once. The inclusion of two survey scales as well as a number
of open-ended questions might have been considered a bit long by some participants taking 20-
30 minutes to complete, although 80% of the participants did include responses to the open-
161
ended questions. These responses at the end of the survey may not be accurate due to respondent
exhaustion or boredom (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). Additionally, participants may have seen little
relevance in the survey which focused on SoC if their course required little interaction. This may
have increased their apathy and non-response (La Bruna and Rathod, 2005). The open-ended
responses were used to correlate the inventory scores and to develop a richer understanding of
the participant’s experiences since individual interviews were not possible.
6.3.3. Influence of Multiculturalism Policies and Practices
Students who have completed their studies in the Canadian Education system have been
exposed to a curriculum that promotes inclusiveness. The use of a scale that requires them to
recognize differences and the manner in which statements were worded may have been
incongruent with their own understandings of cultural difference. Consequently, they may have
responded to some of the questions in a politically correct manner which may not necessarily
reflect their true beliefs. Self-assessment is sometimes subverted by the effects of social
desirability (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009, p. 283).
6.3.4. Personal Bias
My own intercultural background includes experiences living and working abroad in
several countries, being married to an individual from a culture distinct from my own and having
several close family members also from other distinct cultures as well as over 20 years of
interacting with and teaching multicultural students.
6.4 Recommendations for Future Research
This study provided insight into factors that affect participants’ ability to form a SoC as
well as the relationship that IS has on that development. Overlap in the theoretical constructs is
also highlighted. More research is needed to better understand other factors that might also be
relevant. One area for further exploration is the cause of the discomfort with the DB that some
participants reported as prior experience does not seem to determine comfort level. Factors such
as discussion board design and participation expectations, communication styles, learning styles
and individual vs. group orientated preferences for learning could be potential factors to be
explored in future studies.
162
A second focus of research I would like to follow up on the potential disconnect between
how education theorists and students define learning and successful learning communities.
Rourke, et al. (2001) purport that social presence and perceived interaction with others is
necessary for successful learning communities in a “community of inquiry” model where
learning occurs through the interaction of three components: cognitive presence, teaching
presence and social presence. Since learning is the assumed goal of college students enrolled in
an online course, student satisfaction with the learning should define “success” in a learning
community. However, reporting being satisfied may not equate to learning. The inclusion of a
single item scale designed by Richmond et al. (1987) “On a scale of 0 to 9, how much did you
learn in the class, with 0 meaning you learned nothing and 9 meaning you learned more than in
any other class you’ve ever had?” would provide a consistent interpretation of learning to use in
the analyses. Rovai (2002c) reports that this scale has been used in several studies related to
cognitive learning. Inclusion of a scalable response to satisfaction with the course would also
improve interpretability. The courses used in this research were all within the Liberal Studies
Department: A number of credits in liberal studies are required to graduate but these courses are
not content specific to the participants’ field of study. It would be useful to explore if students
were satisfied with just completing the course and gaining the requisite credit. A comparison
with specific degree relevant courses would also be useful to determine if course content and
students’ perception of the importance of the course to their future career play a significant role
in determining satisfaction with the learning.
A third focus of future research worth exploration when evaluating the presence of SoC
in an online course would be to consider examining participants’ motivation and desire for SoC.
A recent study (Drouin & Varanian, 2010) found that the majority of students either did not want
or were undecided about the desire for establishing a SoC in their online classes. Whether or not
students value SoC and its importance to learning may be a significant influencing factor.
The final and personally most interesting area for future research is the influence of
multiculturalism on IS and the development of an instrument to better gauge the IS of
multicultural participants actively engaged in daily intercultural interactions. It would be very
worthwhile to explore this area further in a future research project by asking follow-up questions
to determine the influence that participants’ formative education and socialization has had on
163
their IS. Would these individuals who have high IS, and as a result high intercultural
competence, be as successful at communicating if they were to interact in a cross-cultural
situation? Should multicultural contexts be considered like a ‘national’ culture? Current
understandings of the development of intercultural competence need to be further explored in
this context.
The effectiveness of the ISS to measure the IS in this context was of significant concern.
The measurement of participants’ intercultural sensitivity was an important part of this research
project; intercultural communication competence had not previously been studied in connection
with SoC. If the ISS is to be used in this context, it needs to be refined. The factors need to be
reconceptualized. For example, in the statements related to Interaction Engagement, “culturally-
distinct” is used in five of the seven statements - “I have a feeling of enjoyment towards
differences between my culturally-distinct counterpart and me.” If the students have lived in a
multicultural setting and had an education that is based on inclusivity, are they able to respond
honestly to questions that focus on distinct differences? The eight statements that relate to
cultural respect and interaction enjoyment are also potentially problematic for Canadians. It
would not be acceptable in our culture to agree with statements like “I think people from other
cultures are narrow-minded”, “I do not like to be with people from different cultures” or “I get
upset easily when interacting with people from different cultures.” Five of the questions relate to
interaction confidence. By virtue of living in a city that is so ethnically and culturally diverse,
individuals have been interacting with LCD others for years so comfort in communicating is not
likely an issue. Because people living in large cities like Toronto are exposed to others from
different cultures on a daily basis, a term like “stranger” may not have the same meaning as it
would have for someone living in a context that is not multicultural or multiracial. The three
statements that relate to attentiveness require the respondent to be very aware of communication
differences. However, others in the course, regardless of culture or language, may have already
acculturated to the norms of North American educational conventions if they have been educated
in the Canadian school system so communication differences may not be as evident. There
appears to be a need to develop questions that better reflect that realities of a multicultural cohort
used to living and dealing with diversity on a daily basis.
164
Research that examines the SoC of students enrolled in blended learning courses taught in
other metropolitan cities in countries with well-established multicultural policies such as
Australia would also be useful as a comparative for the survey instrument and any research
results.
6.5 Summary
This mixed methods research study was designed to identify factors that relate to sense of
community for students enrolled in hybrid courses in a Canadian urban college. This study
sought to develop a better understanding of the multicultural nature of the students and the
influence that these various attributes might have on their feelings of connectedness and learning.
Unlike previous studies (Dawson, 2006; Exter et al, 2009; Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011; Rovai,
2001, 2002; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Sadera et al, 2009) which limited the factors being
analyzed to age, gender, ethnicity and learner interaction, this research showed that other factors
had a significant impact on the development of SoC. In particular, the relationship between SoC
and IS had not been a research focus. This study linked aspects of sociocultural theory,
linguistics, intercultural communication theory, and classroom community theory in a unique
manner. Additionally, little research had previously been conducted in the Canadian college
setting specifically looking at hybrid learning courses. This study contributed significantly to the
limited research by creating a detailed picture of the multicultural nature of college students
studying in an urban college. The findings also provided insight into students’ perceptions of
their connectedness to others and their sense of learning which did not support current theories of
the importance of SoC to learning. The applicability and validity of the ISS was identified as an
area for further research as the findings of this study indicated that almost half the items on the
scale were not valid.
The complexity of blended courses and the significance of factors that support
Connectedness and Learning in the classroom are evident. Despite the inclusion of several
additional variables that other researchers have suggested or theorists have indicated are likely to
play a role, only a few variables with a medium to large effect size were identified. The results
of this study can contribute to teacher development by enriching teachers’ understanding of their
students’ backgrounds and abilities and determining appropriate scaffolds and teaching
165
approaches to support LCD learners and mindful interaction in courses. Additionally, the results
can be a starting point for either developing more suitable metrics for the unique multicultural
Canadian setting or modifying the existing inventories to better fit. Intercultural communication
theorists may also see an opportunity to continue to evolve their understanding of how
intercultural competence is developed in a context where interaction with, and respect for other
cultures is entrenched in the education system and the society in general. Finally, this study can
support a theoretical contribution to the field when thinking about ICC and the related IS.
166
REFERENCES
Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Wade, A., Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Surkes, M.,
Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney, L. & Peretiatkowicz,
A. (2006). A review of e-learning in Canada: A rough sketch of the evidence, gaps and
promising directions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(3). Retrieved
from: http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25
Altshuler, L., Sussman, N. & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity
among physician trainees using the intercultural development inventory. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387-401.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for
interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2),
Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/anderson.html
Angeli, C., Bonk, C.J., & Hara, N. (1998). Content analysis on online discussion in an applied
educational psychology course (CRLT Technical Report No. 2-98): Centre for Reseach
on Learning and Technology, Indiana University.
Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 4,2, 53-72.
Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J.M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential
analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen
& S.M. Lad (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 22-55).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J. & Higgins,C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate
sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning and Performance
Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
Baxter, L. & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Ontario, Canada:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Bayles, P. (2009). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of elementary teachers in bilingual
schools in a Texas school district. (Unpublished Ed. D thesis, Faculty of the Graduate
School of the University of Minnesota, Minnesota, Missouri).
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in
telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-99. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/
167
Bennett, M.J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-27).
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M.J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M.J. Bennett (Ed.),
Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1-34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Bennett, J., & Bennett, M. (2004) Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach
to global and domestic diversity. In Landis, D., Bennett, J. & Bennett, M. (Eds.),
Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. pp. 145-167.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using
the concepts of individualism and collectivism, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16(4), 413-436.
Bielman, V. (2000). Building community in a virtual classroom: Construction of classroom
culture in a postsecondary distance education class. (Unpublished doctoral thesis),
University of Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bolliger, D., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online
courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67.
Bonham, L.A., Cifuentes, L., & Murphy, K.L. (1995). Constructing cultures in distance
education. Technology and teacher education annual 1995, pp. 614–617
Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and
sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K.
S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy,
apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourjolly, J., Sands, R., Solomon, P., Stanhope, V. Pernell-Arnold, A. & Finley, L. (2006). The
journey toward intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in
Social Work, 14(3), 41-62. doi:10.1300/J051v14n03_03
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Reseacher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative
Research, 6, 97-113.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2009, May). State of E-learning in Canada. Ottawa: 145
page(s).
Carini, R., Hayek, J., Kuh, G., Kennedy, J. & Ouimet, J. (2003). College students responses to
web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in higher education, 44(1), 1-19.
168
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students.
Chronicle of Higher Education. 46(23), A39-A41.
Chang, T.T., Wang, X. & Lim, J. (2002). Cross-cultural communication, media and learning
processes in asynchronous learning networks. Proceedings of the 35th
Annual Hawaii
Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved from
http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2002/1435/01/14350014.pdf.
Chapman, T. A. (2012). Variables associated with sense of community in online and on-ground
clinical doctoral education. Dissertation.
Chase, M., Macfadyen, L., Reeder, K. & Roche, J. (2002). Intercultural challenges in networked
learning: Hard technologies meet soft skills, First Monday, 7 (8). Retrieved from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/chase/index.html
Chen, S., Hsu, C. & Caropreso, E. (2006). Cross-cultural collaborative online learning: When
east meets west. International Journal of Technology and Learning, 2(1), 17-35.
Chen, G. M. (1998). Intercultural communication via email debate, The Edge, 1 (4). Retrieved
from http://www.interculturalrelations.com/v1i4Fall1998/f98chen.htm
Chen, G. & Starosta, W. (1995). Foundations of intercultural communication. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Chen, G. & Starosta, W. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In M.
Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook19 (pp. 353-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, G. & Starosta, W. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Chen, G, & Starosta, W. (1999). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness. Human
Communication, 2, 27-54.
Chen, G., & Starosta, W. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity
scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.
Chen, G. & Starosta, W. (2008). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. In M.K.
Asante, Y. Miike & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader (pp.
215-235). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chou, C. (2004). A model of learner-centered computer-mediated interaction for collaborative
distance learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 11-18.
Christmas, C. (2010). Assessing intercultural experience: Differences in biculturalism, intercultural
sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility among Latino immigrants. Masters Dissertation
169
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations
(pp. 1-46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, E. C., & Green, J. L., (1990) Metaphors: The construction of a perspective. Theory into
Practice, 29(20), 71-77.
Collis, B. (1999). Designing for differences: Cultural issues in the design of WWW based course
support sites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 201-217.
Crawford, S., Couper, M. & Lamias, M. (2001). Web surveys perception of burden, Social
Science Computer Review, 19, 146-162.
Cresswell, J.W. (2003), Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crystal D. and Davy D. (1969). Investigating English style. London, UK: Longman.
Cui, G. and N.E. Awa. 1992. Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311–28.
Daniel, B., Schwier, R. A., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning communities
and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,
29(3), 113-139.
Dawson, S. (2006).Online forum discussion interactions as an indicator of student community.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 495-510.
Dawson, S. (2008). A study of the relationship between student social networks and sense of
community. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 224–238.
Deardorff, D. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States.
(Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, North Carolina State University, North Carolina). Retrieved
from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06162004-000223/unrestricted/etd.pdf
Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessement of intercultural comepetence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-
266. doi: 10.1177/1028315306287002
Del Villar, C. (2010). How savvy are we? Towards predicting intercultural sensitivity, Human
Communication. (13)3, 197-215.
170
Del Villar, C. (2012). Intercultural sensitivity of Filipinos in multi national corporations in the
Philippines, Human Communication. (15)2, 59-84.
Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd
.
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.
Dewing, M. (2013). Canadian Multiculturalism. Retrieved from
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2009-20-e.pdf
Di Giovanni, R. (2006). College instructors' groupware experiences: Using action research as a
tool for curriculum and professional development. (Doctoral Thesis)
Dong, Q., Day, K. & Collaco, C. (2008). Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing
intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism, Human Communication,
11(1), 27-38.
Drouin, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of community and
satisfaction achievement, and retention in an online course. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 9(3), 267-284.
Drouin, M. & Vartanian, L.R. (2010). Students’ feelings of and desire for sense of community in
face-to-face and online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3), 147-
159.
Dueber, B. & Misanchuk, M. (2001, April). Sense of community in a distance education course.
Paper presented at Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Murfreesboro, TN.
DuPraw, M.E. & Axner, M. (1999). Working on common cross-cultural communication
challenges. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/ampu/crosscult.html
Endicott, L., Bock, T. & Navaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and
multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 27,403-419.
Engelking, M. & G. McPherson (2005). Education for all. Toronto, ON: Pearson Publications.
Ess, C. & Sudweeks, F. (2005). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new
understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 9.
Retrieved from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1.html
Etzioni, M. & Etzioni, O. (1999). Face-to-Face and computer-mediated communities, A
comparative analysis. Information Society, 15(4), 241-248.
171
Exter, M., Harlin, N., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2009). Sense of community with a fully online
program perspectives of graduate students. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education.,
10(2), 177 – 194.
Fahy, P.J., Crawford, G. & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference
transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/36/74.Garrison
Fraenkel, J, Wallen, N. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education, (4th
ed.).
Toronto, ON: McGraw Hill.
Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A. & Chen, G. (2002). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different
cultural context. Paper presented at International Association for Intercultural
Communication Studies, Hong Kong, July 24-29.
Gall, J., Gall, M., & Borg, W. (1999). Applying educational research: A practical guide, (4th
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Garrison, D.R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift
from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 1 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2/333
Garrison, R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. Internet and Higher Education.7. , 95-105.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3),
87-105.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). Methodological issues in the content analysis of
computer conference transcripts. In D.R. Garrison & T. Anderson (Eds.), E-learning in
the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (pp. 131-152). London, UK:
Routledge Falmer.
Gee, J. (2000). The new literacy studies and the social turn. In D. Barton., M. Hamilton & R.
Ivanic (Eds.), Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context (pp. 180-196).
London: Routledge.
Glynn, T.J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human
Relations, 34(7), 789-818.
Government of Canada (2012) Canadian multiculturalism: An inclusive citizenship. Retrieved
from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp
172
Graf, A. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: evaluating the impact of
national culture on inter-cultural competencies. International Journal of Human Resource
management, (15)6, 1124-1148.
Graf, A & Harland, L. (2005). Expatriate selection: Evaluating the discriminant, convergent and
predictive validity of five measures of intercultural competence. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 11(2), 46-62.
Graham, M., Milanowski, A. & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater
agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. 9-12. Downloaded from:
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532068
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mix-
method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Gregory, J. (2001). Multiculturlaism, intercultural communication competence and social
attraction. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), CSU, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA.
Gudykunst, W. (1997). Cultural variability in communication. Communication Research, 24(4),
327-348.
Gudykunst, W., Guzley, R. & Ota, H. (1993). Issues for future research on communication in
Japan and the United States. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the
United States. (pp. 291-322). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and
collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the
development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of
knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
17(4), 397-431.
Gunawardena, C. N. & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),
Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, (2 ed.), (pp. 355-
396). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Gunawardena, C.N, Nolla, A.C., Wilson, P.L., Lopez-Islas, J.R., Ramirez-Angel, N. &
Megchun-Alpizar, R.M. (2001). A cross-cultural study of group process and development
in online conferences. Distance Education, 22(1), 85-121.
Gunawardena, C.N. & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as predictor of satisfaction within a
computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8-26.
173
Hadley, H. (n.d). Power Distance: Implications for English Language Teaching. Retrieved from
www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/ powerdistance/hadpower.htm
Hall, E.T., (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hammer, M. & Bennett, N. (1998). The Intercultural Development (IDI) manual. Potland, OR:
Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammer, M., Bennett, M. & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
27,421-443.
Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied
educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Hasler, B. S. (2011). Intercultural collaborative learning in virtual worlds. In R. Hinrichs & C.
Wankel (Eds.) Transforming virtual world learning (Cutting-edge Technologies in
Higher Education,4, 265-304.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M.M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000, September).
Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological
dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Available:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html
Hewling, A. (2006). Culture in the online class. Using message analysis to look beyond
nationality-based frames of reference. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
11(1), article 16. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/hewling.html
Hiltz, S.R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social
presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2011) Innovative practices research
project: Cohere report on blended learning. Collaboration for Online Higher Education
research. Retrieved from : http://cohere.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/REPORT-ON-
BLENDED-LEARNING-FINAL1.pdf
174
Jick, T. (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28-33.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, A., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Justus, M. (2005). Where online learning, community and culture intersect: Toward and
understanding of knowledge-building communities in virtual environments. (Doctoral
thesis). Proquest Disssertations and Theses. UMI 3164198
Karatas, S. & Simsek, N. (2009). Comparisons of internet-based and face-to-face learning
systems based on “equivalency of experiences” according to students’ academic
achievements and satisfactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 65-74.
Kao Yuan University (n.d.). Author (unknown) Intercultural sensitivity of students from
departments of nursing and healthcare administration, 1-15.
Kim, Y. (2001).Mapping the domain of intercultural communication: An overview. In W.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 24, (pp. 139-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher
education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 42(5), 763-777.
Kim, K.J. & Bonk, C. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1). Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/kimandbonk.html
Kim, R., & Goldstein, S. B. (2005). Intercultural attitudes predict favorable study
abroad expectations of U.S. college students. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 9, 265–278.
Kistow, B. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: A study of a graduate school of
business, Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(2) 115 – 128. Retrieved
from:
http://journals.sta.uwi.edu/cts/index.asp?action=viewPastArticle&issueId=2&articleId=1
2&galleyId=9
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2004.Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (2nd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
La Pointe, K.D., & Gunawardena, C. (2004). Developing, testing and refining a model to
understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-
mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106.
175
LaBruna, A. & Rathod, S. (2005). Questionnaire length and fatigue effects, Bloomerce White Paper
#5. Retrieved from http://www.websm.org/uploadi/editor/1143807053whitepaper5.pdf
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, G. (2004). Social presence questionnaire of online collaborative learning: Development and
validity. Paper presented at the 27th
Association for Educational Communications and
Technology Convention (AECT), Chicago, IL.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An
examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online
courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9-24.
Lopes, V. (2008). The efficacy of a course management system in learning. (Doctoral Thesis).
Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). Social presence. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L.
Justice, & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed.).
Information Science Reference. Retrieved from:
http://www.patricklowenthal.com/publications/socialpresenceEDOLpre-print.pdf
Lu, W.H, Yang, C.C., Peng, H. & Chou, C. (2004). The impact of computer-mediated
intercultural communication on learner’s cultural awareness and sensitivity; A case study.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 27th, Chicago, IL,
October 19-23 [ED485083]
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication
across cultures (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Macfadyen, L.P., Chase, M., Reeder, K. and Roche, J. (2003, June), Matches and mismatches in
intercultural learning: Designing and moderating an online intercultural course, In
Proceedings,UNESCO Conference on International and Intercultural Education,
Jyvaskyla,, Finland.
Mann, C. & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research. A handbook
for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, J. & Nakayama, T. (2008). Experiencing Intercultural Communication:An Introduction.
(3rd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
176
McLouglin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment
design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22, (1), 7 – 29.
DOI: 10.1080/0158791010220102
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal
of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
Medina-Lopez-Portilla, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program
duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad. 10, 179-199.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity
with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of Education (2009). Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy. |Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf
Misanchuk, M. (2003). Sense of community, satisfaction, and performance in a distance
education program. (Doctoral thesis). Proquest Dissertations and Theses, UMI 3122714.
Miyahara, A. (2004). Toward theorizing Japanese interpersonal communication competence
from a non-western perspective. In F. Jandt (Ed.), Intercultural communication a global
reader (pp 272-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morse, J.M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40, 120-123.
Morse, K. (2003). Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural
environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 37-55.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2009). Reliability for content analysis. In A.B. Jordan, D. Kunkel, J.
Manganello, & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Media messages and public health: A
decisions approach to content analysis (pp. 67-87). New York: Routledge.
Nieto, C., & Zoller Booth, M. (2010). Cultural competence its influence on the teaching and
learning of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4),
406-425.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oetzel, J.G. (2009). Intercultural Communication A Layered Approach. New York.:Pearson
Education.
Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001, Summer). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 5, 116-137.
177
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the
research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(1), 82-93.
Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education, In Journal of Studies
in International Education, (7) 1, 12–26.
Overbaugh, R. & Nickel, C. (2011). A comparison of student satisfaction and value of academic
community between blended and online sections of a university-level educational
foundations course. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 164-174.
Paccione, A. ( 2000). Developing a commitment to multicultural education. Teachers College
Record, (102) 6, 980-1005.
Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y, & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural
sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369-387.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th
ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
Penbek, Y., Yurdakal, D. & Cerit, A (2009). Intercultural communication competence: A study
about the intercultural sensitivity of university students based on their education and
international experiences. In European and Mediterranean Conference on Information
Systems, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Izmir.
Peng, S. (2006). A comparative perspective of intercultural sensitivity between college students
and multinational employees in China. Multicultural perspectives, 8(3), 38-45.
Peng, S., Rangsipaht, S., Rhaipakdee, S. (2005). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: A
comparative study of ethnic Chinese and Thai nationals, Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 34(2), 199-137.
Picciano, A.G. (1998). Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university,
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2.
Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and
performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-
40.
Pincas, A. (2001). Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance
Education, 22(1), 30-51.
178
Potter, W. & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content
analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258 – 284.
Reeder, K., Macfadyen, L.P., Roche, J. & Chase, M. (2004). Negotiating cultures in cyberspace:
Participation patterns and problematics. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(3), 88-105.
Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Rogers, E. & Steinfatt, T. (1999). Intercultural communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). New York. NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2).
Retrieved from http://cade.icaap.org/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the
content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
Rovai, A.P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development Journal, 49(4), 33- 48.
Rovai, A.P. (2002a). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Retreived from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/79/153
Rovai, A.P. (2002b). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education
classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 41-56.
Rovai, A.P. (2002c). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet
and Higher Education. 5(3), 197-211.
Rovai, A.P. (2002d). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319-332.
179
Rovai, A. P. (2003). The relationships of communicator style, personality-based learning style,
and classroom community among online graduate students. The Internet and Higher
Education, 6(4):347-363.
Rovai, A.P., & Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative
analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, August.
Rovai, A.P., & Lucking, R. (2000). Measuring sense of classroom community. The Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5(3), 10 – 25.
Rovai, A.P., & Wighting, M.J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97-110.
Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J. & Liu, J. (2005). School of climate: Sense of classroom and school
communities in online and on-campus higher education courses. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 6(4), 361-374.
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence
and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology &
Society, 8(1), 54-62.
Sadera, W., Robertson, J., Song, L. & Midon, N.M. (2009). The role of community in online
learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 277-284.
Sadri, H. & Flammia, M. (2011). Intercultural Communication A New Approach to International
Relations and Global Challenges. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Samovar, L., Porter, R. & McDaniel, E. (2007). Understanding intercultural communication. In
Samovar, L., Porter, R. & McDaniel, E. (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader
(pp 6-17). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., Lee, J., & Hagedorn, L. (2008). Using web surveys to reach community
college students: An analysis of response rates and response bias, Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 712-729.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A. and King, J. (2006). Reporting structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review, The Journal of
Educational Research, 99, 6, 2006, pp. 323-337.
Searle, W. & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment
during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,
449- 464.
180
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology. Academic plan 2012-2017. Retrieved from
http://www.senecac.on.ca/about/reports/academic-plan/index.html
Shackelford, J. & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education:
Contribution of learner to learner interaction. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 13 (4). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1339/2317
Shafer, L.N. (2004). A comparative study of foreign-schooled and American-schooled women’s
perspectives of online, threaded discussion assignments. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations.
Shea, P., Frederickson, E., Pickett, A., Peltz, W., & Swan, K. (2001), Measures of Learning
Effectiveness in the SUNY Learning Network. Retreived from
http://hdl.handle.net/1802/2764
Shea, P., Li, C.S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of
learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet and
Higher Education, (9)3, 175-190.
Shih, T. H. & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-
analysis, Educational Research Review, 4(1), pp. 26-40.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning.
Distance Education, 24(1), 69-86.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Singer, M.R. (1998). Culture, a perceptual approach. In M.J Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of
intercultural communication. (pp. 97-109). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Solomon, D.J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(19). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19.
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A multidisciplinary approach
to intercultural communication. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C.
Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 67-105). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. Samovar,
R.E. Porter & E.R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication, A reader (pp. 381-
392). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
181
Suderman, J. (2007). Understanding intercultural communication. Toronto, ON: Thompson
Nelson.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of
interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23-49.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore
(Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction. Needham, MA:
Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-45.
Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and
learner characteristics. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online
Education, Into the Mainstream. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 63-
79.
Swan, K & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In. S. R. Hiltz &
R. Goldman, Asynchronous learning networks: The research frontier. New York:
Hampton Press. 239-260.
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online
course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115−136.
Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F., Brazile, R. & Monticino, M. (2004). Effects of culture on computer-
supported international collaborations. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 60, 365-380.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for
transforming distance learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2),
Tamam, E. (2010). Examining Chen and Starosta’s model of intercultural sensitivity in a
multiracial collectivist country. Journal of intercultural communication research, 39(3),
173-183.
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). Two languages are better than one. Educational leadership,
55(4), 23-26.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classroom as communities. Exploring the educational character of student
persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.
Tsai, I., Kim, B., Goggins, S., Kumalasari, C. & Laffey, J. (2008). Building a model explaining
the social nature of online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 198-215.
182
Tu, C. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment.
International Journal on E-Learning, 34-45. Retrieved from
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ct68/Publication/2002/IJEL12Tu.pdf
Tu, C.H. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-151.
van Oudenhoven, J. P., & van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting multicultural effectiveness of
international students: The Multicultural personality questionnaire. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 26, 679-694.
Vaughan, N., Zimmer, J. , & Villamar, F. (2011). Student engagement and interactive
technologies: What’s the connection? International Journal of Excellence in E-Learning,
4 (1)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-
American telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64-89.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimensions of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49. doi: 10.1.1.103.7298
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Westrick, J.M. & Yuen, C.Y.M. (2007). The intercultural sensitivity of secondary teachers in
Hong Kong: A comparative study with implications for professional development.
Intercultural Education, 18(2), 129-145.
Wighting, M., Liu, J. & Rovai, A. (2008). Distinguishing sense of community and motivation
characteristics between online and traditional college students. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 9(3), 285-295.
Wild, M., & Henderson, L. (1997). Contextualising learning in the World Wide Web: accounting
for the impact of culture. Education and Information Technologies, 2, 179-192.
Wilson, M. (2001). Cultural considerations in online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64.
Wiseman, R.L. (2001). Intercultural communication competence. To be Published in W.
Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural and international
communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Downloaded from
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rwiseman/ICCCpaper.htm
183
Wolcott, L. (1996). Distant, but not distanced: A learner-centred approach to distance education.
TechTrends,41(5), 23-27.
Yang, H. & Liu, Y. (2008). Building a sense of community for text-based computer-medited
communication courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(4), 393-413.
Doi:10.2190/ET.36.4.d
Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
184
Appendix A: Tools to Evaluate SoC / Similar Constructs
Summary of tools to evaluate SoC / social presence / transactional presence
Tool / Author / Construct Description Validity
Social Presence Scale
Gunawardena and Zittle
(1997)
Construct: Social Presence
14 item scale that measures
perceived sense of online
community and social comfort
with CMC
Concurrent validity of the
scale established with bipolar
social indicators based on
Short et al.’s instrument; scale
itself not validated through
statistical analysis
Social Presence and Privacy
Questionnaire (SPPQ)
Tu (2002)
Construct: Social Presence
17 social presence items, 13
privacy items and 12
demographic items mainly
focused on participants’
attitudes towards CMC
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient;
factor analysis which
identified social context,
online communication,
interactivity, system privacy,
and feelings of privacy
accounting for 82.3% of the
variance
Social Presence Questionnaire
Lin (2004)
Construct: Social Presence
20 item social presence
questionnaire of online
learning based on Picciano’s
survey and concepts raised in
the literature
Small sample size;
Exploratory factor analysis
revealed 3 factors: perception
of assistance of group activity
to learning, social comfort of
expressing and assessing
affect, and social navigation;
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
Social Presence Inventory
Kim (2011)
Construct: Social Presence
37 item inventory; four
factors: mutual attention and
support, affective
connectedness, sense of
community and open
communication
exploratory factor analysis;
confirmatory analysis;
correlation analysis
Coding scheme to measure
evidence of social presence
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison
and Archer (2001)
Widely used to assess social
presence in their community
of inquiry model
12 indicators based on three
categories: affective
interaction, interactive
responses, and cohesive
responses.
Tested the efficacy and
reliability of their indicators
and categories and found high
inter-rater reliability.
Coding Scheme
Dueber and Misanchuk (2001)
Construct: psychological sense
of community
22 codes categorized into four
major components
(membership, influence,
fulfillment of needs, and
shared emotional connection)
No validity reported; They
found only limited evidence of
PSOC online. They found
little evidence of emotional
connection and felt that
185
Tool / Author / Construct Description Validity
representing aspects of
McMillan and Chavis’s (1986)
psychological sense of
community (PSOC).
utterances attributed to
membership might better be
construed as polite
conversation and not strong
indicators of community.
Coding Scheme
Liu et al.(2007)
Construct: sense of
community
Codes based on a list of online
collaboration, communication
and social interaction
strategies taken from the
literature believed to facilitate
community building
No information about the
validity of the interview
questions, the coding scheme
or the evaluation surveys was
provided.
186
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
Coding Scheme for Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
Overall CCS Raw Score
CCS raw scores vary from a maximum of 80 to a minimum of 0. Interpret higher CCS
scores as a stronger sense of classroom community. Score the test items as follows: For items: 1,
2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 Weights: Strongly disagree = 4, Agree = 3, Neutral = 2, Disagree =
1, Strongly Disagree = 0 For items 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 , 20 Weights: Strongly disagree
= 0, Agree =1, Neutral = 2, Disagree = 3, Strongly Disagree = 4 Add the weights of all 20 items
to obtain the overall CCS score.
CCS Subscale Raw Scores
CCS subscale raw scores vary from a maximum of 40 to a minimum of zero. Calculate
CCS subscale scores as follows: Connectedness Add the weights of odd items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,
13, 15, 17, 19 Learning Add the weights of even items: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Copyright © 2001 by Alfred P. Rovai, Ph.D. All rights reserved.
Coding Scheme for Sense of Classroom Community
Note: Items 2,4,7,9,12,15,18,20, and 22 are reverse-coded before summing the 24 items.
Interaction Engagement items are 1,11,13,21,22,23 and 24. Respect for Cultural Differences are
2,7,8, 16, 18, and 20. Interaction Confidence items are 3,4,5,6, and 10. Interaction Attentiveness
items are 14, 17 and 19.
199
Appendix C: Open Ended Questions Coding
Code Description Examples
Learner Satisfaction Q. 31
0 No No, I found the online course to be hard to keep
up with, not what I expected at all
1 Yes yes it meant my expectations by being very
informative
2 Yes and No I could have learned more. Some better
discussions could have been made
Influence on Participation Q. 32
1 Past experience History
2 Marks/course expectations Every week I did a discussion board because
they were worth marks.
3 Content / other students I participated in some interesting discussions,
because both sides of the conversation was
accepted. Opinions were tossed around but
nobody got offended. I think that the questions
and the way people replied really helped me
participate and join in on conversations.
4 Time Not so active in the Chat. busy schedule
5 Motivation to learn Active participation, my desire to learn
Feelings Towards Other Cultures Q. 33
1 Positive – useful, fine,
comfortable, interesting
Useful
It was a great experience and felt good to see
what others thought about the issues at hand
2 Off-target response
3 Culture not relevant culture didn;t really come into play. wasn;t an
issue.
4 Neutral didn't do that much
5 Not comfortable /
language challenge
Uncomfortable at times;
some people were mean;
I found there responses hard to understand
6 No interaction I didn't really interact with anyone.
Ability to Express Yourself Online Q. 34
1 Good / No problem / Easy I was able to express myself well.
2 Not well/poorly Somewhat OK
3 Neutral I feel neutral about this, again students wrote
very poorly on the discussion board making it
difficult to carry on a conversation;
because you don't see the person you don't
really know their cultural background leaving
the learning to be neutral
200
Code Description Examples
4 Okay but aware of other
cultures
I find that I need to suppress my opinions
slightly since I don't know the various cultures
reading my posts. Also since there is no tone
when posting it is possible for you to be
misunderstood.
5 Other who cares about cultures, it's the person
speaking that counts. not the culture of the
person, they have an opinion like them speak.
Influence of Your Culture on Participation Q. 35
1 No influence It didn't;
it neither hindered or helped. it was a canadian
history course. really easy material. he gave all
the information in these little lessons. all you
had to do was read the lessons and post a
question or comment. didn;t invovle my own
culture or culturallyinfluenced thought any more
than anything else does.
2 Helpful My cultural background helped my interaction
because by having opposing opiniosn sometimes
within different cultures, I ended up learning
more and getting different points of views from
different people;
My cultural background is mostly European but
I don't think it helped or hindered either way.
Mostly I think my experiences help my
interactions. Living in Louisiana and Colorado
while growing up exposed me to various
cultures that I never experienced coming from
Northern Ontario. It causes me to consider what
I know of other cultures before I post on the
discussion boards.
3 Spoke through own
cultural lens
In giving an opinion on an issue, I would base a
lot of it on what I have valued through my
culture.;
I keep it Islamic and I support visible minorities
4 Lack of exposure hindered Since I have not been outside of North America,
it's hard to really grasp an understanding of the
social situations happening daily in third world
countries, thus it hindered my interactions.
Influence of Perspectives on Learning Q. 36
1 Learned about different
aspects of different
cultures
Learned about different cultures like food
2 Enriched Cultural background helped me let others to get
201
Code Description Examples
a better understanding with my cultural. Vise
versa.
3 Don’t Know It is hard to say because you never meet any of
these students, you don't know what culture is
the individual. As a result, I don't know and
have no opinion.
4 No Influence didn't make a difference
5 Challenging / Negative
Influence
Some canadians do not really understand
immigrants with different background, some of
them lack basic respect and stereotype other
people;
origental and west culture have a differnet
perspectives so some time i can not understand
very well escpecially sexualism
6 Not applicable na
Change Worldview Q. 38
1 No change noone can change my views;
My world view has not really been influenced
differently as I have always been exposed to
multiculturalism.
I grew up with people of different cultures so
nuthin was different
2 Expanded Knowledge /
understanding
it helped me see other veiw points
3 Response off-topic I have discovered the purpose of the realism in
our roles in the social community. It is a
safeguard against irrelevant and congusing
theological discourses
Influence on Sense of Community Q. 37
1 Professor The professor was encouraging and easy to
communicate with which made the world of a
difference.
2 Discussion Forum The open discussion board.
3 Other Students The questions and the many participants really
helped me understand my views on alternative
medicine. It seems that when defending my
points is where I come up with my ideas and
explanations.
4 Nothing / No sense of
community
I didn't have a sense of community in the
course.;
There was no sense of community. The only
202
Code Description Examples
uniting aspect of this course, for the students,
was that no one seemed to care about what
everyone else was saying, but they all shared the
same kiss-ass attitude towards responding to the
teacher. During tests, people only talked to their
friends and were entirely ignorant of everyone
else around them. For example, during the exam
review, a group of students who showed up for
no apparent reason, sat in the corner and
discussed computers without any attempt at
being quiet. I had to tell them to shut up, which I
wouldn't have had to do if they had been my
classmates for the past 3 months, as opposed to
online strangers. This course being online
eliminated any sense of community that would
have been created were this course in-class.
5 Myself Myself.
6 Friends in the course A friend who ended up in the course gave me a
sense of community, since we both listen to one
another and respect one another.
7 God God has created this world, and man has
created the community. The sense of community
comes from our indispensible hatred of the
suffocating solitude. Of course some people
escape community and become ogres or insane
prophets of the relative non-existance.
203
Appendix D: Content Analysis Codification Schema
Based on the Content Analysis scheme by Dawson, S. (2006).Online forum discussion
interactions as an indicator of student community. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 22(4), 495-510.
Behaviour
categories
Codes Description Example
Spirit – The
feeling of
belonging and
connectedness
with other
class members
SS Expressions of support for other
members; complimenting others on
contents of other’s messages
I think your background sounds
amazing and interesting.; I think the
last point was VERY well said; I read
a little bit about what you do in Africa
and I think its incredible.
SRM Reference to other members by
name or use of pronouns you, we
etc.
I don't agree with you guys on this
issue; I agree with you when you
say…
Trust– The
feeling that
class members
can be trusted
regarding
possible
feedback and
support
TSD Self- disclosure of personal
information
As a Christian I believe…; Also being
of an ethnic group…
TPR Personal Reflection For me to accept gay marriages, I
would be going against what I believe
in. ; This post really bothers me,
because it's very ignorant to base
judgement on the color of ones skin.
Learning –
The notion
that
knowledge is
co-constructed
with fellow
class members
LC Critique /disagreement of posted
opinion/content
Your logic is flawed.; I totally
disagree with you.
LA Expressing agreement with others
or contents of other’s messages.
It seems like we are all on the correct
path; I agree with you XX about…; I
do agree with you
LPO Personal opinion on topic indicated
by expressions I think, I believe,
personally, I say
I think that youth can be given a
chance to improve their behauivor.
Personally I don't support war.
LDC Discussion of content- Any
statements that refer to the topic of
the forum but are not connected to
another message
there is no scientific proof
that global warming exists. Some
scientists say it is real, some say it is
simply the cycle of our planet.
Remember, our planet has been
through an ice age
LEI
Explicit Interaction – Any
statements that refer to the topic of
the forum, are connected to another
message, and answer and/or
comment on another message.
ok. First of all, do not assume that I
came from a wealthy family; I cannot
agree with you when you theorize that
the reason could be associated with
student laziness.
204
LSQR
Share quotes /resources: Inclusion
of quotes and resources to support
statements or to share with other
participants.
-Disabled women in toronto get
$12,057 a year, or 58 percent of what
stats Canada says is average for
single person to live.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/
Tor_Star_In_rich_Canada_welfare_w
orsens_25AUG06.htm
LFS Feedback Seeking –Seeking
feedback from other participants to
a position advanced , for
clarification of post or question
about the course
Can you please explain what is a
referendum or how it works becuase I
am not fimilar with what it is too
well.; Okay people tell me what you
think maybe I only say this because of
past experiences but tell me about
what your beliefs are.
Changes made to Dawson’s Content Analysis Codification Schema
Change/Addition Rationale
Renamed dimensions, behaviour categories This label was clearer
Separated the lists of themes associated with each
dimension and provided a clear description. Ex.
‘support’ was expanded to ‘Expressions of support
for other members; complementing others on
contents of their messages.’
The level of detail provided clarity for the manifest
behaviour being coded.
Deleted the theme‘belonging’ No instances of stating a feeling of belonging to the
group were made in the forums.
Eliminated the theme‘self-reflection’ This was identified as difficult to identify
consistently between coders during initial stage of
refining the coding protocol.
Eliminated the theme‘identity building’ This theme overlapped with ‘self-disclosure’
Eliminated the theme‘humour’ Humour is cultural and therefore is unlikely to be
coded consistently.
Eliminated the theme ‘debate’ This theme overlapped with ‘critique’
Added ‘expressing agreement’ This is a form of acknowledging fellow classmates
and acknowledging their posts.
Added ‘explicit interaction’ I wanted to differentiate between monologue type
posts and posts that actually referred to another
person’s post in some concrete way.
Added ‘feedback seeking’ I wanted to identify behavioural elements that
sought explicit interaction from classmates
205
Appendix E: Language Categories
Code
Language Category
Languages Included in Category
1 English English
2 French French
3 Romance Language Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish
8 Indo-Iranian Language
Hindi, Gujarti, Kokani, Punjabi, Urdu,
Saraiki, Farsi, Persian
5 Slavic Language
Russian, Polish, Serbian, Bulgarian,
Macedonian, Ukrainian, Albanian, Friulian
6 Finno-Ugric Language Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian
7 Afro-Asiatic Language Amharic, Arabic, Hebrew
11 Korean Korean
12 Sino-Tibetan Language Chinese
13 Austro-Asiatic Language Vietnamese
14 Maleyo Polonesian Language Tagalog
206
Appendix F: Grouping of Courses by Delivery Pattern
Study participants grouped by delivery patterns
Group 1: 14 week courses meeting 2 or fewer times face to face
Professor Course ID Students Registered
N(%)
Study Participants
N(%)
# %of
total #
# %of
class #
%of
total #
Professor A
01 26 5.4 10 38.5 11.2
02 29 6.0 5 17.2 5.6
03 28 5.8 6 21.4 6.7
04 29 6.0 6 20.7 6.7
05 27 5.6 7 25.9 7.9
06 27 5.6 4 14.8 4.5
07 27 5.6 4 14.8 4.5
08 28 5.8 4 14.3 4.5
09 26 5.4 7 26.9 7.9
10 29 6.0 3 10.3 3.4
Professor B 11 25 5.2 6 24.0 6.7
12 25 5.2 3 12.0 3.4
13 27 5.6 4 14.8 4.5
14 27 6.6 6 22.2 6.7
Professor D 19 34 7.1 4 11.7 4.5
20 34 7.1 3 11.7 3.4
21 33 6.9 7 21.2 7.9
Average 28.3 5.9 18.7
Total 481 100 89 100
Group 2: 7 week courses meeting 2 or fewer times face to face
Professor Course ID Students Registered
N(%)
Study Participants
N(%)
# % of
total #
# %of
class #
%of
total #
Professor B 15 35 50.7 11 31.4 45.8
16 34 49.3 13 38.2 50.2
Average 34.5 12 34.8
TTL 69 100 24 100
Group 3: 14 week courses meeting 5 or more times face to face
Professor Course ID Students Registered
N(%)
Study Participants
N(%)
# % of
total #
# % of
class #
%of
total #
Professor C 17 25 58.3 7 28.0 64.0
207
18 22 41.7 4 18.0 36.0
Average 23.5 5.5 23
TTL 47 100 11
100
The test, which was corrected for tied ranks was not significant at the p < .05 for
Classroom Community χ2(2, n = 124) = 3.15, p = .21, 2
= .03 and the subscales Connectedness
χ2(2, n = 124) = 2.11, p =.35, 2
=.02 and Learning χ2(2, n = 124) = 4.80, p =.09].
208
Appendix G: CCS Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Confirmatory factor analysis of classroom community scale.
209
Principal Component Analysis CCS
Scre
e
Plot
of
CC
S
Prin
cipa
l
Co
mpo
nent
Ana
lysi
s.
210
CCS Component Matrix
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
CCS1 .601 -.353 -.157
CCS2 .541 .214 -.453 -.262
CCS3 .693 -.493
CCS4 .648 .455
CCS5 .644 -.283 .175
CCS6 .469 .368 -.439 -.103
CCS7 .517 -.598 .212
CCS8 .334 .447 .580
CCS9 .711 .239 .179
CCS10 .444 .455 .415 -.233
CCS11 .640 -.412 -.227
CCS12 .270 .443 .699
CCS13 .492 -.616 -.111
CCS14 .560 .190 .253
CCS15 .258 -.472 .122 .525
CCS16 .646 .174 -.350
CCS17 .510 .326 -.315
CCS18 .615 .441
CCS19 .666 -.309
CCS20 .703 .408 -.187 .263
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 4 components extracted.
Component Matrix of CCS Principal Component Analysis.
211
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Two Factor Solution of CCS
Items Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2
CCS20 *I feel that this course does not
promote a desire to learn. .79 .81 .66
CCS4 *I feel that it is hard to get help when
I have a question. .79 .79 .63
CCS18 *I feel that my educational needs are
not being met. .75 .76 .57
CCS9 *I feel isolated in this course. .66 .71 -.38 .56
CCS10 *I feel reluctant to speak openly. .65 .63 -.37 .40
CCS6 I feel that I receive timely feedback. .60 .60 .36
CCS8 *I feel uneasy exposing gaps in my
understanding . .57 .53 .31
CCS16 I feel that I am given ample
opportunities to learn. .57 .62 -.37 .45
CCS2 I feel that I am encouraged to ask
questions. .53 .56 .34
CCS12 *I feel that this course results in
only modest learning. .52 .48 .27
CCS17 *I feel uncertain about others in this
course. .40 .45 -.34 .26
CCS14 *I feel that other students do not
help me learn. .39 -.33 .46 -.41 .31
CCS3 I feel connected to others in this
course.
.83 -.85 .72
CCS13 I feel that I can rely on others in this
course.
-.81 .78 .62
CCS7 I feel that this course is like a family. -.81 -.78 .62
CCS11 I trust others in this course. -.81 -.75 .58
CCS19 I feel confident that others will
support me.
-.66 .35 -.71 .54
CCS1 I feel that students in this course care
about each other.
-.66 -.69 .49
CCS5 *I do not feel a spirit of community. -.62 .35 -.67 .49
CCS15 I feel that members of this course
depend on me.
-.55 -.50 .29
Note: Major loadings for each item are bolded. Only loadings above 0.3 are displayed.
212
Appendix H: ISS Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Intercultural Sensitivity Scale.
213
Principal Component Analysis ISS
Scree Plot of ISS Principal Component Analysis.
214
ISS Component Matrix
Component Matrix of ISS Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
ISS7 .795
ISS13 .777
ISS12 .718
ISS16 .699
ISS9 .699 -.431
ISS8 .694 -.480
ISS24 .682 -.310
ISS1 .671 -.328
ISS15 .664 .321
ISS6 .657 -.433
ISS4 .649 .386
ISS18 .602 -.366
ISS10 .600 .332
ISS21 .527 .462
ISS2 .494 .387
ISS5 .489 .301 -.380
ISS17 .472 .325 .443
ISS3 .466 .327 .374
ISS20 .415 -.485
ISS23 .377 .397
ISS11 .788
ISS22 -.499 .480 .337
ISS14 .364 .331 -.431
ISS19 .334 .393 .430
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 6 components extracted.
215
Pattern and Structure Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Two Factor Solution of ISS
Items Item Pattern coefficients Structure coefficients Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Component 1 Component 2
ISS9 *I get upset easily when interacting
with people from different cultures. .83 .82 .67
ISS7 *I don’t like to be with people from
different cultures. .73 .80 .43 .67
ISS18 *I would not accept the opinions of
people from different cultures. .71 .70 .50
ISS12 *I often get discouraged when I am
with people from different cultures. .71 .75 .32 .58
ISS20 *I think my culture is better than
other cultures. .69 .60 .41
ISS15 *I often feel useless when interacting
with people from different cultures. .64 .68 .34 .48
ISS8 I respect the values from different
cultures. .55 .64 .46 .48
ISS2 *I think people from other cultures are
narrow-minded. .54 .55 .30
ISS16 I respect the ways people from
different cultures behave. .52 .33 .62 .49 .49
ISS13 I am open-minded to people from
different cultures. .52 .45 .65 .60 .61
ISS4 *I find it very hard to talk in front of
people from different cultures. .44 .37 .55 .50 .42
ISS6 I can be as sociable as I want to be
when interacting with people from different
cultures.
.42 .40 .54 .53 .44
ISS10 I feel confident when interacting with
people from different cultures. .41 .33 .51 .46 .36
ISS22 *I avoid those situations where I will
have to deal with culturally-distinct persons. .35 .31 .11
ISS21 I often give positive responses to my
culturally different counterpart during our
interaction.
.69 .70 .49
ISS23 I often show my culturally-distinct
counterpart my understanding through
verbal or nonverbal cues.
.56 .55 .30
ISS17 I try to obtain as much information as
I can when interacting with people from
different cultures.
.54 .57 .33
ISS3 I am pretty sure of myself in
interacting with people from different
cultures.
.54 .56 .32
ISS19 I am sensitive to my culturally-
distinct counterpart’s subtle meanings
during our interaction.
.53 .51 .26
ISS5 I always know what to say when
interacting with people from different
cultures.
.52 .56 .33
216
ISS24 I have a feeling of enjoyment towards
differences between my culturally-distinct
counterpart and me.
.35 .52 .51 .62 .50
ISS14 I am very observant when interacting
with people from different cultures.
.49 .49 .24
ISS1 I enjoy interacting with people from
different cultures.
.41 .43 .54 .56 .46
ISS11 I tend to wait before forming an
impression of culturally-distinct
counterparts.
.18 .14 .03
Note: Major loadings for each item are bolded. Only loadings above 0.3 are displayed.
217
Appendix I
Discussion Board Entries: 2nd lowest SoC
Case # 73
SoC: 13/80: Connectedness: 4/40 Learning:9/40
Fifteen posts to the DB
Twenty two units of analyses: LEI: 10; SRM:5, LDC: 7; SS:3; LFS:1; LPO: 4
Since we seem to be heading into triple picks, I'd like to take on question
number four.
Thanks, Larissa. Not everyone has Office 2007. SRM
That said, there are things that only modern, scientific medicine can handle -
as much as alternative medicine is a great go-to, it's not perfect.
LEI
Good answer! I didn't even think of chriopractic, yoga, and acupuncture as
being part of alternative medicine, but that certainly makes sense.
LEI, SS
Did you mean Indians or native americans?
..both?
LEI, LFS, SRM
Yeah, me too! LEI
From what little I know about the subject (hence why I'm taking the course),
alternative medicine is an expansive field containing treatments, remedies and
I guess in a broader sense beliefs about techniques for wellness and battling
illnesses that differ from standard medical practices. These may have some
practical root in ancient cultures, or be based on newly discovered substances,
combinations, or off a random occurance.
LDC
I'm not so sure about this. If Tai-chi is so miraculous and all-curing, then why
isn't it taught in every gradeschool around the world? I think its power is
based on how much you believe in it, in yin and yang and the power of your
body to heal itself. While I agree that it is a useful practice, I don't think it's a
panacea.
It's really easy in this course to get excited about a practice or a technique
because you don't hear any opposing viewpoints.
LEI, LPO
LDC
I agree, Eva - yoga is much more about mental balance and personal reflection
than stretching and moving around. The physical component is very
important, but it's dramatically overshone by the mental improvements.
LEI, LPO, SRM
I feel that Tai Chi goes beyond just being exercise; in the same way as yoga,
it's a time in which you can calm your mind, slow down, and focus on moving
from position to position, to increase your well-being.
Really cool about your dad, though - 20 years? That's awesome.
LPO
LEI, SRM, SS
Doesn't seem like people are really holding to that, i see lots of elevens, fives, LEI
218
thirteens.. I guess it's more of a suggestion?
Wow, that was deep. I really liked your answer, especially the dictionary
definition (great idea!) and tying in other concepts, like yin and yang. Do you
have any other experiences with dream interpretation?
LEI, SRM, SS
I agree completely; I didn't really understand yoga until I learned about it in
this course, but now I'm really interested by it and I would definitely
consider trying it myself, as well as recommending it to others.
LEI, LPO
I believe that yoga is an ideal practice for almost anyone because it focuses
on simple, easy-to-learn physical techniques, coupled with a philosophical
view of ways to better ones’ life. Aside from the benefits of the calming,
relaxing physical exercise, yoga teaches a way of life and an outlook that
makes the practitioners’ life easier and healthier.
Yoga helps its students to develop towards ‘pure consciousness’, a
wholesome and perfect meditation completely without thought or intrusion.
The steps working towards this are simply things which a student must bring
into their mind in order to proceed down the path, but are also generally just
improvements to ones’ mind and condition; among many, I feel that
aparigraha, nongreed, and the studies of tapas and svadhyaha, self-discipline
and self-study, are among the most relevant in our modern society.
Non-greed, and the avoidance of jealousy and envy that pollute so
many peoples’ minds today, makes the yoga practitioner stronger as a person,
improving their character and allowing them to focus more clearly on the
things in life that do matter.
Self-discipline and self-study, within the path of personal disciplines
(niyamas), I feel are also particularly relevant in the modern world. One who
has become adept at self-discipline will not suffer problems with their self-
control, leading to overeating, overspending, or similar discipline issues; they
will also become more rational thinkers, with their view no longer colored as
severely by impulsiveness.
Self-study, more so than, I believe, any other facet of the yoga
mentality, is critical for success in the modern world. If one cannot look at
their own successes and flaws and judge themselves, and seek to improve,
they have little or no future. All improvements within their lives must come
from inside themselves.
Finally, there are the postures, the typical yoga exercises. These simple, easy
to remember motions and positions are deceptively complex, but they align
ones’ whole body into a position, mode, or orientation that has been studied
for thousands of years and puts the practitioner into perfect balance, skeletal,
muscular, and most importantly mental and emotional. This balance is rare in
our busy world, and so I would recommend yoga to almost anyone
LDC
LDC
LDC
LDC
LDC, LPO
LDC
219
I can't see it either. LEI
Discussion Board Entries: 2nd highest SoC
Case #91
SoC: 70/80; Connectedness: 35/40 Learning: 35/40
Three posts to the DB
Seven units of analyses: LEI: 2; SRM:2, LDC: 4; TSD:1
I learned something new from you [xx]. I had no idea that lemons were
actually good for a sore throat during a common cold. One would
automatically think “citric acid” would automatically lead to irritating and
harming the throat in a negative way.
To further your discussion about natural food remedies for the common cold,
I read somewhere on nutricraze.com that eating foods with zinc in them. Zinc
helps weaken the cold virus and helps the duration of the cold shorten. Foods
with a high source of zinc include foods like barley, chicken, wheat, lamb,
crab, oysters, beef and turkey. Most of the foods on that list, in my opinion,
are well liked by a lot of people so it shouldn’t be hard to get a hold of these
foods to cure their illness
LEI, SRM
LEI, SRM
Losing weight doesn’t come with just eating healthy foods because if you
overeat those healthy foods, the “trying to lose weight” part is
defeated. Exercising is a huge part of losing weight. It will help to burn fat
and transform it into energy that the body can use.
She seems to be covering all the food groups in her day so she is a balanced
eater. She starts off the day great with a small breakfast. She is able to
manage a good lunch as well, but in between those two meals she could have
popped in a small snack. Another small snack could have been put in place
after her lunch as well. The key to not overeating is to eat many meals in
small portions during the day. In doing so, it keeps the metabolism working,
but indulging in too much food at a time would slow down the process of
digesting the foods that are eaten and therefore the fat is retained inside the
body. That is what is causing her inability to lose weight.
The combination of eating more small meals and also getting daily exercise
will give her the optimal experience in losing weight and being healthy.
LDC
LDC
LDC
Hello everyone!
220
My name is [XX] and I’m in my final semester of the Corporate Media
Production program. I’m taking this course to understand more about
nutrition because the knowledge that I gain from this course I will be able to
take with me and use for the rest of my life.
When someone says “healthy diet” I picture all four of the food groups in
someone’s daily intake of food. A day must consist of three meals and also
healthy snacking. Water is also a must. To add to the “food” portion, a
healthy diet must also consist of enough exercise and rest.
TSD
LDC
221
COPYRIGHT
Permission was obtained by e-mail to include the Classroom Community Scale (CCS)
Rovai, A.P. (2002c). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet
and Higher Education. 5(3), 197-211.
Alfred Rovai <[email protected]>
Mon 10/15/2012 7:38 AM
To:gloria mcpherson;
Hi,
You may include the scale provided you cite the source, i.e., the Internet and Higher Education article you identify.
Fred Rovai
Permission was obtained by e-mail to include the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS)
Chen, G., & Starosta, W. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity
scale. Human Communication, 3, 1-15.
Bill Starosta <[email protected]>
Mon 10/15/2012 5:45 AM
Dear Gloria,
Feel free to use our sensitivity scale (with citation). We wish you well in your endeavour.
William J. Starosta