A sense of community is not easily obtained--either in an online environment or elsewhere. Getting people to work alongside one another is a classic dilemma that plagues humanity. We see this at our workplaces, in our families, between counties, and of course, in our online courses.
It is claimed that a greater sense of community is possible in an online course. I don't think this is necessarily so. I would argue that assigning group projects to students is a poor way to create community because it is forced. The students may or may not want to get to know the other members of their group; regardless, due to the fact that the students' initial motivation is their grade in the course, the sense of community is not well-developed, weak and pathetic. And who can blame them? How can something significant with respect to a community develop from a required community-developing assignment?
A casualty of exclusive online learning is our humanity. Our humanity is diminished when we exclusively communicate with others by artificial (technological) means. Some examples of communication by artificial means are: phone conversations, letter or email-writing, text messaging, etc. What have we lost? Some may argue that we haven't lost anything, because the words that we communicate are clear, but I would argue that we have lost something important in our human communication with one another. We cannot see facial expressions, or hear the tone of voice, or see body language--these are essential components of human communication. Facts can be communicated through artificial means, but a sense of community is not.
I have taken two online courses before taking this one, and although I may interact with members of my class, I do not feel like I am in a community with them. I didn't feel any connection with my fellow classmates. I think a good explanation for this is that it's particularly difficult to connect with someone when there isn't a face to associate to the text. When we exclusively know someone from the text they type, it's easy for us to classify them as an online entity: although we theoretically know that this person exists and lives a real life somewhere, it's easy for us to categorize them as an "online entity."
Another casualty of exclusive online learning is entropy in group assignments. In either synchronous or asynchronous settings, it is challenging to communicate efficiently to the other members of your group in a timely manner.
When we made our team charter, we found it challenging to come to a group consensus. We could use the synchronous or asynchronous methods of communication, and ultimately used a little of both. I don't think it is particularly effective because there is such a delay between responses (either in synchronous or asynchronous formats). Moreover, many times a few members of the group would type the same thing, which is a far cry from efficiency. I know that to get a group of people to work together is never a simple task--it always takes some work--but I'd like to wager that would could have agreed more quickly (and with fewer hindrances) if we had spoken in person. However, having said that, to meet in person would have taken quite a bit of driving time. So, although I think meeting in person is a better way of problem-solving, I am happy that I didn't have to drive a few hours to meet in a coffee shop. I think that entropy is a valid concern that online courses have to deal with.
I am not sure that I would like to force my students into an online community if/when I teach my online classes. In particular, for an online class in mathematics, I do not think that an online community is necessary, and I am not sure that it is beneficial. Having feedback/input from fellow classmates is irrelevant and impractical in a math course--impractical because communicating mathematics via text exclusively (without a special program involving mathematical symbols or diagrams) is terribly complicated.
