Weekly Reflection: Communities in Online Learning
In online learning, a “community” is not merely a group of people attending a class together; it signifies a social and cognitive space where learners recognize each other, build trust, and engage in shared inquiry. Theoretically, this is a powerful concept, but in actual online classes, true communities rarely form.
Reviewing this week’s materials helped me clarify why online environments structurally hinder community building. This connects deeply with my Assignment 1 (A1) inquiry topic—the argument that online silence is not a result of individual personality or lack of will, but a structural product created by surveillance, power dynamics, and technological interfaces.
1. Community Requires Relational Safety, Not Just Technology
The lecture emphasized that Social Presence is a core condition for online communities. This means collaborative learning becomes possible only when students perceive each other as “real people beyond the text.”
However, despite being technologically connected, social presence in online classes easily collapses. In my A1 inquiry, I analyzed “surveillance interfaces” to understand online silence, and this analysis applies directly to the failure of community formation.
- Asymmetrical Visibility: A structure where I am visible (when the camera is on), but others are not.
- Unbalanced Gaze: I cannot clearly see the reactions of others.
- Recording & Storage: An environment where every expression and comment is recorded.
- Participation Management: Engagement is tracked via LMS logs.
These conditions reinforce the risk of exposure and evaluation rather than fostering “relational safety.” A community is not just a collection of connected users but a psychologically safe space for interaction. Unfortunately, many online platforms provide conditions that are the exact opposite.
2. Social Presence is Determined by Power Structures, Not Features
The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework views Social Presence as the starting point of a community. However, what this theory often overlooks is that the main factor weakening Social Presence is not a lack of social skills, but the operation of power and surveillance.
For example:
- Speech is tied to evaluation: Turning the camera on/off, chatting, and speaking are all “recordable indicators of participation.” In this environment, speaking becomes a source of evaluation anxiety rather than knowledge inquiry.
- The Instructor is visible, but students are unseen: Teaching Presence often functions more as a surveilling gaze than a moderator. Students can barely verify each other’s reactions, weakening the communal experience.
- A structure where interaction is “recorded” suppresses relationships: A community is formed through the exchange of mistakes, incomplete ideas, and tentative remarks. In online platforms, such risky attempts are difficult to make.
Ultimately, Social Presence in online environments is determined by how structures of power and surveillance regulate learner behavior, not by technological features.
3. “Invisible Relationships” Breed Silence, and Silence Breeds Collapse
In my own experience, speaking in Zoom classes with strangers has always been uncomfortable. The reason was not simple shyness, but the “absence of reciprocity.”
I am visible, but the other person’s expressions, gaze, and emotions are invisible to me. This makes relational trust nearly impossible. The recording feature adds another barrier. In an environment where speech is stored, it is difficult to ask honest questions or make experimental comments.
In such moments, silence is not a choice, but the safest strategy.
A community expands through interaction, but when silence accumulates, interaction itself collapses. Consequently, the word “community” exists only in name.
4. Structural Reasons Why Online Communities Fail
Based on this week’s materials and my reflection, the reasons for the failure of online communities can be summarized as follows:
- Asymmetry of Gaze → Weakened Social Presence
- Surveillance-based Interface → Psychological withdrawal
- Evaluation-centered Structure → Increased risk of speaking
- Tech-centric Design → Absence of relational elements
- Undesigned Meaningful Interaction → Lecture-style broadcasting rather than discussion
These five elements are almost identical to the “structural causes of online silence” I explored in A1. This implies that the failure of online communities is not a unique problem, but an inevitable result of the systemic properties of online learning.
5. To Restore Community, We Need a ‘Relational Foundation’
The theories presented in the lecture explain various elements that enable community formation. However, for these theories to apply in reality, one more condition is necessary: a relational foundation.
This includes:
- Psychological safety
- Non-surveilled, non-evaluative spaces
- Mutual visibility among students
- Possibility for informal conversation
- Moments where speech is not recorded
- Separation of interaction from evaluation
Without these elements, no theory can sufficiently function to form a real community. Even if technological connectivity is strong, without relationality, a community cannot function.
Conclusion: Silence is Structural
Through this reflection, I have reaffirmed that online silence is not simply a learner’s “lack of participation,” but the result of structural and power conditions that block community formation.
While the community models suggested by online learning theories (like CoI) may be ideal, they are difficult to realize under real-world conditions of technical surveillance, asymmetrical gaze, and evaluation-centered structures.
Therefore, to restore online communities, we need a cultural and structural redesign that prioritizes trust, relationships, safety, and autonomy over functions and platforms.
Silence is not a problem of the student, but a problem of the system that defines the range of behaviors permitted to the student.
