In 2016, 6 + million college students (31.6%) were enrolled in one or more distance education course (Seaman et al., 2018); over 3 million students enrolled exclusively in online courses. Indeed, distance education continues to grow, despite declines in overall higher education enrollments. Increased online enrollment trends occurred even before the Coronavirus Pandemic resulted in temporary transitions to emergency remote learning (College Crisis Initiative, n.d.). Online learning has become a norm in the United States. Yet only 41% of surveyed bachelor’s degree candidates indicated that the quality of their online education was similar to or better than that received before the pandemic (Marken, 2020).

Reduced student satisfaction is not surprising for individuals transitioning to emergency remote or online learning, particularly when instructors and support personnel received minimal training. Online implementations differ markedly from face-to-face instruction in interaction, delivery, immediacy, and so forth. Online courses often require a greater commitment to bi-directional communication, clear expectations, and learner autonomy. Because of these factors, feelings of isolation are common among faculty and students as they transition to online instruction. Fortunately, myriad approaches facilitate interaction, manage communication and feedback, and decrease isolation. Developing an online community is one approach.

Establishing a sense of community to improve resilience and satisfaction has a long history. Sense of community was conceptualized as a feeling of membership among physically proximate individuals (Graves, 1992; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Westheimer & Kahne, 1993). With the transition of community from physical proximity to shared interactivity (Bellah et al., 1985; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Wellman, 1979), proponents of online learning have considered community formation as a tool to combat feelings of student and instructor isolation, foster interaction, and reduce attrition (Boston et al., 2016; Gaytan, 2013; O’ Shea et al., 2015; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). For example, Shackelford and Maxwell (2012) found that course introductions, group projects, large class discussions, and opportunities to exchange resources helped to promote a sense of community among graduate students. Milman et al. (2015) found that instructor interaction and support were desired by graduate students to promote community.

However, most studies regarding community formation in online settings focus the concept narrowly on course interactions and activities (Bolliger et al., 2019; Exter et al., 2009; Glazer et al., 2013). Although course interactions are important for community formation, they may lack the duration, common vision, and goal attainment over time to transform professional networks into communities (Bolliger et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2007; Wellman, 1979). This paper reviews current conceptualizations of community use in online learning environments, highlights their benefits and limitations, and proposes a new framework, supported by our research as well as an extensive literature review, that extends online learning communities to better consider institution, program, and professional interaction.

Existing frameworks

Myriad frameworks and theories have been used to characterize and promote community in different contexts (e.g., sense of community, third place, online community, community of inquiry, communities of practice). Each theory provides details regarding community establishment and effective practice. This section summarizes these theories and articulates some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Sense of community

In physical settings, a sense of community depended on perceptions of safety, knowledge of others on a first-name basis, informal interactions, and expectations to stay in the location (Glynn, 1981; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In 1979, Wellman posited that community definitions should encompass disbursed networks because they better accounted for intimate and interactive relationships. Thus, McMillan and Chavis defined community through feelings of membership, shared emotional connection, influence, and reinforcement. As individuals interacted, they discovered mutual interests, and gained respect and common goals (Graves, 1992; Westheimer & Kahne, 1993). Interactions and goals resulted in shared experiences, common histories, and mutually beneficial practices (Bellah et al., 1985; Graves, 1992). These practices led to feelings of belonging, trust, safety, and membership (McMillan, 1996; McMillan & Chavis, 1986) that emerged slowly over time (Bellah et al., 1985, p. 333).

Third place

Third place theory also focuses on environmental conditions of community formation. Third places establish a sense of community by providing welcoming, non-hierarchical, and conversation centric spaces (Aldosemani et al., 2016; Oldenburg, 1989). Third places are easily entered and do not convey a sense of responsibility to participants (Cunningham & Walton, 2016; Oldenburg, 1989). They focus on communication and try to build environments around conversation (Lin et al., 2015; Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). The theory is useful for establishing welcoming, distance education spaces that promote interaction (Aldosemani et al., 2016; Soukup, 2006). However, third place theory does not directly consider the psychological/affective influence of community formation. The theory assumes that carefully constructed environments attract communities over time as new members become regulars. This concept is important for higher education institutions that bring together unfamiliar individuals for interactive and dialogic learning experiences. Yet, limited guidance on third place development and maintenance is provided (Aldosemani et al., 2016). Third place theory also minimizes knowledge construction goals, focusing instead on social interaction (Oldenburg, 1989). Because institutions of higher education are hierarchical and gate-keeping, establishing true third places may be difficult to accomplish while focusing on professional entrance, expertise development, and assessment (Aldosemani et al., 2016; Soukup, 2006).

Online community

Conceptualizations of physically dispersed communities, bounded by shared experiences, goals, histories, and interactions, led to the conception of online communities (Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Rovai, 2001, 2002a). Proponents of online learning consider community formation a tool to develop interaction, combat feelings of isolation, and reduce attrition (Boston et al., 2016; Gaytan, 2013; O’ Shea et al., 2015; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). Rovai (2002b) developed and subsequently validated the Classroom Community Scale (CCS) to measure graduate students’ sense of online course community when taught asynchronously. Although online community is derived from the sense of community literature (McMillan, 1996; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Wellman, 1979), researchers in online settings often focus on course design elements such as timely feedback, course introductions, use of social media, and so forth as antecedents of community (O’ Shea et al., 2015; Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Rovai, 2002a; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014), thus oversimplifying community by ignoring macro components derived from institutional, program, and professional sources (Abedin et al., 2010).

Community of inquiry

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework was developed for online learning to analyze asynchronous computer mediated communication (Garrison et al., 1999). The framework postulates that online learning occurs through the interaction of cognitive, social, and teaching presences. Cognitive presence is the degree that students create meaning through interaction with others and the course. Social presence is one’s ability to convey their character and personality, highlighting personal representation and the need for safety and trust (Glynn, 1981; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Teaching presence refers to the design and facilitation of the course and aligns with environmental influences highlighted in other frameworks. Akyol and Garrison (2008) found a significant relationship between the three presences (cognitive, social, teaching), student satisfaction, and perceived learning. CoI stresses interpersonal interaction and alludes to the need of an instructor to design and facilitate the environment, rules, and interactive procedures. Yet, CoI has been criticized as being incomplete. In a review of literature, Castellanos-Reyes (2020) stated CoI lacks elements regarding learner, emotional, and autonomy presences. Additionally, while alluding to safety, trust, and belonging, CoI provides minimal guidance about how to facilitate these elements, focusing instead on inquiry learning. Although CoI is useful for conceptualizations of online communities, it may lack elements that define a sustained sense of community over time. Finally, CoI does not consider the larger social context of community formation.

Community of practice

Communities of practice (CoP) also focus on knowledge development (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002). Like third places, CoPs are often informal, self-managed, and dependent on participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). New members begin on the community periphery and transition to full participation as they master social domains, familiarize themselves with history and practice, participate over time, and co-construct knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Smith et al., 2017). Coordinators direct interaction, a small core group (10–15%) actively contributes to practice (e.g., activities, processes, tools, and information development) while others participate on the sidelines (Smith et al., 2017; Wenger et al., 2002). Personal and group contributions define and refine the group as practices become part of the shared history. The idea that a malleable, collective purpose is shaped by a shared history of tools, procedures, and deliverables (Lave & Wenger, 1991) is powerful for community development. A history, captured in practice, provides social expectations that result in community norms and opportunities for engagement (see also Bellah et al., 1985; Wenger, 2002).

Additionally, CoPs consider larger social systems (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Smith et al., 2017), important for higher education where courses, programs, the institution, and professions may represent separate communities. CoPs claim that learning is derived from authentic social practice. Activities, courses, assignments, research groups, and other events are indicative of these larger social systems (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Yet little guidance is provided about how to examine larger social systems through CoPs. Additionally, CoPs are broadly defined and may lump together several community types (Wenger, 1998, p. 6; Smith et al., 2017). Thus, while useful to higher education, CoPs may be too broad to capture the needs of online learners.

Collective findings and limitations

Collectively, community theories emphasize the need for interpersonal interaction to instill a sense of community. All frameworks emphasize interaction over time, though duration varies (e.g., Smith et al., 2017). Students must be willing to interact with others, establish relationships, and leverage more knowledgeable peers (Glazer & Wanstreet, 2011; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012). Faculty members establish interactive spaces and promote policies that welcome others and encourage collaboration (Liu et al., 2007; O’Shea et al., 2015).

The psychological aspects of community formation are primarily detailed in the literature regarding a sense of community (for example Glynn, 1981; Graves, 1992; McMillan & Chavis, 1986) and how feelings of membership, comfort, connectedness or a sense of belonging, trust, safety, and interdependence emerge through sustained interaction. When people believe they can express themselves naturally, their ideas are respected, and they have contributions to make, they are more likely to feel a sense of community (Garrison et al., 1999; Oldenburg, 1989; Wenger, 2002).

Additionally, these theories suggest that individuals play an integral role in community formation. Student characteristics (e.g., academic standing, experience, employment) can impact the development and sustainability of community. So too can instructor variables such as experience, preparedness, communication, and facilitation strategies. Each theory points to rules and established norms as an environmental characteristic of community. These norms lead like-minded individuals to participate and develop shared experiences and histories that refine rules, goals, and community ideals. In this sense, the practices within communities are fluid (Aldosemani et al., 2016; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Oldenburg, 1989; Smith et al., 2017). Individual ideas and needs influence and shape collective interests and experiences, transforming practice over time.

Despite similarities, gaps appear within these theories that may limit their application to online degree programs in higher education. CoI and much research regarding online community focuses narrowly on interpersonal experiences within specific courses. However, course community is short lived and takes considerable time and effort to develop (Bolliger et al., 2019; Motteram & Forrester, 2005). Few have examined time as a component of community formation (Smith et al., 2017). The burden of course community development falls largely on the instructor (Bolliger et al., 2019; Glazer et al., 2013). Additionally, the focus on courses ignores larger social and intellectual endeavors at play within institutions of higher education.

Moving beyond courses

Describing factors that influenced student retention in higher education settings, Tinto (1999, 2006, 2012) found that student, institutional, and environmental factors needed to be considered. Lee and Choi (2011) recognized these same factors when considering student persistence in online programs. Milman et al. (2015) and Dennis et al. (2016) indicated that similar factors are necessary for consideration both prior to admission and beyond graduation.

Community-focused research describes the need to look beyond courses to foster and maintain a sense of community. Although largely discussing community formation in online courses, Palloff and Pratt (2007, p. 27) indicated that “the institution forms the larger community and, when attention is paid to community building in an online class, each class becomes a neighborhood within that community.” Hill (1996) noted that sense of community varies based on settings and contexts. Thus, community in single courses may look and function differently than community in online programs and institutions. Glazer et al. (2013) investigated faculty perceptions regarding the formation of academic online communities and found three levels of community: learner-level, instructor-level, and institutional-level. They stated that learners should interact within these other communities and develop trust and positive interdependence. True community encompasses multiple layers beyond course-related activities and discourse; community models for online, higher education systems should account for these layers. Although CoPs hint at larger social systems in community formation (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Smith et al., 2017), little detail is provided regarding their role in community development.

Framework development

The literature provides many insights into the underlying theories of online communities and highlights several current limitations. Our research points to important elements that need to be considered when creating a framework for building and sustaining online program communities in higher education. These elements include, but are not limited to, students’ perceived feelings of connectedness in online programs (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; DesArmier & Bolliger, 2019; Jamison & Bolliger, 2020); student support, management of communication, and documentation of professional growth (Bolliger & Shepherd, 2010; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2011, 2014); student engagement in online environments (Bolliger & Halupa, 2018; Bolliger & Martin, 2018, 2021); and online student satisfaction (Bolliger & Erichsen, 2013; Bolliger & Wasilik, 2012; Martin & Bolliger, 2022). Some of our previous research has centered on faculty and students’ perceptions of online community at the program level (Bolliger et al., 2019; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019), and academic and social activities on both program and institutional levels that are useful in building and sustaining online community (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2022b). In 2022, we argued for extending online community beyond the course level (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2022a). Additionally, we have explored longitudinal social networking and learning management system opportunities at the program level to engage audiences, enhance communication, and increase feelings of community within online programs (Aldosemani et al., 2016). Finally, to aid the process of evaluating our online graduate programs (master’s, Ed.D., and Ph.D), we conducted informal interviews at oral defenses about graduate students’ experiences with their program and administered formal student exit surveys for over a decade.

Based on our prior research and an extensive review of the literature, an accurate community framework in online, higher education settings should account for the psychological/affective antecedents of community as learners enter and matriculate through institutional programs over time. It should also describe multiple layers of community formation and maintenance at the institutional, program (including courses), and individual levels. Furthermore, it should indicate how these layers interact and develop over time to help learners enter and exit the institution. The remainder of this paper introduces our framework based on these conditions.

The institutional, program, and professional (IPP) community framework

Our framework begins prior to admission and concludes post-graduation (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Representation of Institutional, Program, and Professional Community Layers Over Time

Full size image

Within this time span, institutional, program, and professional communities are represented. Whereas institutional and professional communities contain elements that are separate and distinct from one another, they exhibit overlap for learners pursuing higher education. That overlap is predominantly represented in the program. Additionally, the salience of each community shifts throughout our framework. Some community practices influence learners greater at different stages of their higher education experience. The vertical size of community representations at a given point in time indicates its relative salience. Although Fig. 1 indicates that institutional community plays a larger role than professional community prior to admission, that may not be the case (see Fig. 2). Salience of community layers varies by individual. Regardless, the following sections detail what community involvement looks like during matriculation and progression.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Alternative Arrangement of Community Layers Over Time in Online Degree Programs

Full size image

Pre-admission

Individual

The framework begins with learners seeking admittance to higher education. It assumes that those interested in online degree programs, certifications, or other types of credentials are committed to be successful and desire personal investment with their program (Gaytan, 2013). These individuals are more likely to be non-traditional students who select online degree programs because they fit existing life schedules and align with personal and professional goals (Milman et al., 2015; Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008; Seaman et al., 2018; Stephen et al., 2020). Because these learners are more likely to manage employment, dependent care, and other community responsibilities, have existing social, professional, and community networks; and align personal goals with higher education attainment; desires for community may vary (Bolliger et al., 2019; Exter et al., 2009; O’ Shea et al., 2015; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019; Tinto, 2012; Truluck, 2007). Some learners may mistake community functions are purely social, and minimize their engagement with them (Exter et al., 2009; O’ Shea et al., 2015). Although community formation cannot be forced upon learners, they can be reminded that deeper learning occurs through guidance, which needs to be developed and nurtured (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Regardless, prior to admission, a desire for institution (and possibly program) affiliation and membership may exist (Dennis et al., 2016; Milman et al., 2015). Prospective students have a sense of trust, “willing to rely on or have faith and confidence in the college to take appropriate steps that benefit him and help him achieve his learning and career objectives” (Ghosh et al., 2001, p. 325). This trust may be supported by perceptions and historical portrayals rather than direct experience (Brankovic, 2018; Dennis et al., 2016). By seeking admission, prospective students hope to gain greater access to academic resources, faculty expertise and mentoring, career development, and professional support as they pursue personal and professional goals. Although, trust may erode and institutions and programs fall short of student expectations (Tinto, 1999; Yeager et al., 2017), community development strives to foster collaborative, interpersonal relationships with individuals of similar interests (defined by programs).

Institution and program

Online and traditional higher education institutions build foundations of community long before student admission (Dennis et al., 2016). Public presence attracts learners (e.g., reputation, histories, architecture, team sports, programs, and policiesBrankovic, 2018; Nathan, 2005; Thomas & Andes, 1987). Historical actions, marketing, and peer groups (e.g., family, friends, professional colleagues) also influence perceptions (Ghosh et al., 2001; Nathan, 2005; Tinto, 1999; Yeager et al., 2017). Specific programs may bolster these feelings. Course sequences, faculty member interests, and matriculation and graduation policies promote association. Prior to admission, higher education institutions predominantly interact indirectly with prospective students. Recruiting events may occur, but direct interaction is minimal for most individuals.

Many programs require admission and may have limited availability. This application requirement, combined with individual goals, provides opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with program expectations, structures, and professional interests prior to admission. The application process may generate feelings of affiliation.

Profession

Prior to admission, individuals have experience with the larger profession, even if only limited to name recognition and perceived function. Thus, professional community is represented at the beginning of the framework. For some learners, higher education provides entrance opportunities into a profession. Others previously entered the profession and desire additional knowledge, access, promotion, or goal attainment through higher education (Langrehr et al., 2017). Regardless of background, professional salience is smaller during pre-admission than at other times of community development because institutions and programs are seen as gatekeepers or the means to further professional goals. As learners progress through these programs, the salience of professional communities enlarges.

Post-admission

Admission, the next step in developing community, may automatically bolster feelings of affiliation and belonging. Most higher education institutions follow controlled enrollment policies. Acceptance into an institution may bring a sense of membership and status. This initial boost begins the longitudinal effort among institutions and degree programs to develop and maintain community. Students enter degree programs with different experiences. Some students know what they will study prior to admission; others do not. Those who do not, may have interests in various subjects and programs. They may explore options through course participation, interest inventories, career counseling, and so forth. For these students, an initial sense of institutional affiliation may be greater than program and professional affiliation (Tinto, 1999). However, with limited personal experience with the institution, the sense of belonging and membership comes from perceptions and beliefs. Students want to be treated fairly as they prepare for future careers (Ghosh et al., 2001; Yeager et al., 2017).

Institution

Following admission, the test of institutional and program reputation and trust begin. Expectations and hopes meet reality (Dennis, 2016). Supporting student learning and degree attainment requires shared commitment. Institutions and programs provide access to academic, social, and professional services (see Fig. 3; Glazer et al., 2013; Lee & Choi, 2011). Although programs provide access to specific content and professional interaction, institutions influence community development by providing the infrastructure for learning. Institutions set parameters and provide tools for course design and delivery. They administer learning management systems, web services, and grading platforms. They ultimately award certificates and degrees, maintain student records, establish checks and balances for faculty and student disputes, and so forth. They provide libraries, technology support, academic and career counseling, and other services. They foster environments where additional services develop through student organizations, clubs, study groups, and so forth.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Institutional Services that Promote Community Development

Full size image

Institutional infrastructure, policies and procedures set expectations and provide consistency. As students learn what is expected of them, they can adjust routines and plan for future activities that will help them be successful in the higher education environment (Tinto, 1999). Ideally, consistency and support strengthen trust as students from diverse backgrounds transition from pre-admission expectations to personal experience. When learners feel that higher education institutions have fair policies and care about individuals, their trust in the institution increases (McMillan, 1996; Yeager et al., 2017). Consistency provides a structure for shared experience and history among learners. They interact with common systems and work towards common institutional deadlines (e.g., midterm, final exams). Thus, even if students share differing degree programs, they can find common experiences when they interact with each other in research courses, intern and externship experiences, and so forth. These shared expectations and experiences may increase student feelings of belonging, shared purpose, and safety. As long as policies seem fair and unbiased, they help to solidify trust and promote retention as learners work towards their goals. However, when learners perceive institutional bias through the generalized negative treatment of others, trust and community erode (Yeager et al., 2017).

Institutions also provide various social and academic services that can bolster feelings of identity, belonging, and safety (Angelino et al., 2007; Gaytan, 2013; Glazer et al., 2013). Student organizations and clubs, socials, guest speakers, academic and career services, writing centers, libraries, and other supports help students acculturate socially and academically (Lee & Choi, 2011; Milman et al., 2015; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019). These services foster direct interaction between students and institutions and further a sense of belonging. They educate students regarding institutional policies and clarify expectations. Ideally, as students interact with these services, they gain familiarity and comfort in the environment, furthering a sense of safety and belonging. Diverse clubs and organizations exist to help students find a setting where they can be and explore themselves and portray their identity as they desire (Nathan, 2005). Distance learners in higher education settings expressed desires to develop a sense of belonging to their institution (Motteram & Forrester, 2005; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2022b). If this sense of belonging is strong, students may overlook limitations at the course or program level (Tinto, 1999). These services demonstrate that the institution considers the needs and interests of its diverse student-body (Hirt et al., 2003; Milman et al., 2015). Yet, these services only function as community builders when they are available and communicated to online students. When services are only provided to face-to-face students, they may erode feelings of trust (Ghosh et al., 2001; O’ Shea et al., 2015).

Program

Although the institution provides basic infrastructure for expectations and interactions, sustained community is more fully embodied within certificate and degree programs. Within these structures, individuals with similar professional goals and interests congregate to learn and interact with others (Glazer et al., 2013; Tinto, 2012; Wenger, 2002). Thus, diverse interests represented within higher education become more focused in the program—providing more meaningful opportunities for interaction and collaboration, greater alignment with professional goals, and increased likelihood for shared experiences over time (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Program Activities that Promote Community Development

Full size image

Programs foster community through a variety of activities. Some are represented as singular or disparate events (e.g., orientations, socials, guest speakers) that set expectations, help students and faculty members interact, promote shared experiences, and focus interests. Other activities represent moderate or long-term commitments on involved parties (Glazer et al., 2013; Lee & Choi, 2011). Faculty members do a lot to promote perceptions of community within courses, as evidenced by the myriad literature on the subject. Course community includes elements of course design; timely feedback; student-instructor, student–student, and student-content interaction; and so forth (Glazer et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2007; Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014). These practices promote interaction among learners, faculty, and professionals as they work towards course milestones. Shared experiences aligned to personal and professional interests deepen learners’ sense of belonging and trust (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Tinto, 2006, 2012; Westheimer & Kahne, 1993). They also provide shared histories enriched by learning artifacts that can become part of the reputation and status of the program (Bellah et al., 1985; Wenger et al., 2002). Courses often begin collaborative experiences between students, instructors, and other professionals. Even when a course falls short of expectations, learners will more likely overlook it if program and institutional interactions are viewed positively (Ghosh et al., 2001).

Regardless, course-based interactions are temporary. Community development requires sustained, longitudinal interaction (Bellah et al., 1985; Graves, 1992). Seven to fifteen weeks may be insufficient to promote sustained feelings of community. Course-based relationships are also hierarchical. This hierarchy provides a sense of structure and highlights expectations (Tinto, 2012). These conditions are useful to foster an initial sense of community but may not provide a sense of value and co-dependence needed for strong community formation over time (Aldosemani et al., 2016). Community members should transition from students to colleagues as they progress through programs. This transition requires greater time commitment and collaboration than can occur in courses (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2022b). Cohort models may help students with sustained interaction over time but maintain existing hierarchies (Gillett-Swan, 2017; Rausch & Crawford, 2012).

Community transformation requires endeavors that do not easily fit within course expectations and constraints. Example endeavors include but are not limited to, individual and group advising, sustained participation in research or interest groups, team presentations, professional involvement, and intern and externships (Bolliger et al., 2019; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019). Some of these endeavors may be ungraded and allow hierarchy reduction over time as students take on greater responsibility, are depended upon by other team members, gain voice in directing or shaping future efforts, and regularly interact with similarly interested others. These extended efforts can bolster individuals’ sense of worth and value in the program, foster co-dependence with others (including faculty members and working professionals), allow for mutually formed goals, and strengthen feelings of membership. Increased interaction and trust may lead to additional, long-term program opportunities that promote sustained collaboration and interdependence. In this sense, program community connects the broader institutional community with the more narrowly focused professional community. The program acts as a gatekeeper for professional goals but also seeks to remove hierarchy over time as students transition into professional colleagues through program completion.

Profession

As students enter higher education institutions, they enter or extend one or more professional networks and learn the practices associated with them (Langrehr et al., 2017). Following admission, access to the profession occurs through content-aligned courses, guest speakers, exposure to professional associations, research conferences, internships, externships, and so forth. These experiences, tied to course and program outcomes, open opportunities for greater interaction among learners and the broader regional, national, and international professional community. As such, they also foster community development by harnessing trust (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Professional Services that Promote Community Development

Full size image

Initially, learners trust that these endeavors will further their own professional interests (Ghosh et al., 2001). Increased exposure and opportunities to participate provide shared experiences where professional partnerships can be entered and the sense of belonging and commitment strengthens. As learners access these professional opportunities through their programs, their sense of belonging and trust in the degree program and their professional associations strengthen. With support from peers and faculty, learners may collaborate more fully with professional partners, assume greater responsibility in these interactions, bolster their own feelings of self-worth and value, become increasingly relied upon by others, and strengthen feelings of membership. In this sense, communities that began as hierarchical and tightly controlled, eventually level through access and entrance into larger professional communities with their own history, policies, and structures. Ultimately, the sense of belonging and interdependence with the institution and program fades as professional identity strengthens.

Post-Graduation

Perceptions of access and acceptance in the larger professional community occur over time. Figure 6 represents the amalgamation of institutional, program, and professional layers. It identifies stages of community development and salience prior to admission through graduation.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Combined Institutional, Program, and Professional Community Framework

Full size image

Although the professional layer is present at all stages in the framework, it becomes more relevant as learners progress through the program. By graduation, community emphasis shifts from membership within the institution and program to membership in the larger profession (Dennis et al., 2016). This does not mean that community membership within these other layers ceases upon graduation. Alumni often continue to maintain connections with their institution and program for many years. Indeed, alumni associations and faculty members may go to great lengths to maintain contact and communication with alumni. Yet, following graduation, the degree of interaction with institutions and programs diminishes, whereas interactions with the larger profession increase. As such, associations with the profession may continue to strengthen post-graduation.

Implications

Because multiple community layers influence students in higher education, those layers should be considered during community programming. Feelings of belonging, trust, safety, membership, and interdependence come from the interaction of institutional, program, and professional services. Thus, realistic measures of community should account for these various services as opposed to focusing on single layers. Focusing on multiple layers suggests that true communities are shaped and maintained by multiple professionals, as opposed to a few committed faculty members (Bolliger et al., 2019). Students may require support from occupational counseling, health services, library science, research design, financial aid, professional development, accessibility, and other areas of expertise. These services are dependent on individual student’s needs and goals. Learners may leverage services, activities, and supports differently based on background and individual characteristics. Ultimately, students determine if and how these services will be used (Milman et al., 2015; Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019).

Institution and program community layers

Whereas much attention has been placed on community development in course settings (e.g., Exter et al., 2009; Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Rovai, 2002b; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012; Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014), more research needs to examine sustained community beyond courses. Specifically, research is needed regarding the types of services beneficial to online students and how and by whom they should be disseminated.

Many institutions provide basic academic and personal wellness supports (e.g., library, writing, career, counseling services) to students. Often, these services are directed at (or more directly benefit) on-campus students (e.g., wellness and healthcare, childcare, athletic facilities). However, their availability to online students may still be important for community development. Results from two surveys suggested that online students appreciated on-campus academic and social opportunities. These opportunities helped students to establish a sense of community (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019, 2022b). It is impractical for programs to account for these myriad services, institutions must play a role. Yet, it is unknown how these services should be provided. Seaman et al. (2018) found that many distance students live relatively close to campus. Are online equivalents necessary or can institutions continue to rely on campus-based services? What is the optimal attendance for community promotion? Activity planners may believe that if attendance is small, the activity was a waste of time and effort (Bolliger et al., 2019). Yet, this may not be the case, depending on the quality of student, instructor, professional interactions that took place.

Additionally, while students indicate that various services influence perceptions of community, it is unknown whether the use of these services versus the knowledge of their availability is more important. More research is needed regarding the types and frequencies of institutional and program-based services to support online learners. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all mentality regarding online community services may not adequately account for the diversity of student needs and situations.

Professional community layer

Additionally, research regarding the development and facilitation of the professional community layer is needed. Although online programs are regularly measured by their cost, number of credit-hours, and course foci, opportunities for professional networking, partnerships, and outreach are also important. The ability to enter domain-specific professional spaces through service learning, field trips and experiences, internships, and research provide learners with entry points into the larger profession. They also model professional practices. More research is needed on how professional entry and affiliation influences feelings of community. Further guidance is needed regarding how to develop and maintain these opportunities for purposes of community. What role does the institution and degree program play in fostering these experiences? How do these experiences influence workload (Bolliger et al., 2019)? How are these experiences rewarded within institutions? How can programs capture and share what is learned from these experiences to bolster professional community, while maintaining organizational data, non-disclosure agreements, and other ethical issues?

Communication

Regardless of the services provided through IPP community layers, communication regarding their availability and purpose is needed. Students will only use services that they know exist. Helping students (and possibly faculty members) become aware of these services is the first step in being able to leverage them for community development. However, awareness may be insufficient for use. Students also need to understand the purpose of community and the services offered (Rogers, 2003). Schwier (2007) cautioned that not all learners are ready or desire to participate in online communities. Hirt et al. (2003) and Milman et al. (2015) found that older students and graduate students did not care as much as others regarding university services or their quality. Educators may assume that all learners will flock to new and supportive communities once they are built; however, some learners may not feel it is important, lack maturity or motivation to embrace it, or have other support networks (Exter et al., 2009; Skelcher et al., 2020). Because online students often have employment obligations and professional experience, they may not know how community development aligns with their goals. Indeed, students may state they lack the time for community formation (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2019). The effectiveness of online learning communities hinge on their perceived value, particularly when student participation is not required (Motteram & Forrester, 2005). Thus, programs and institutions must communicate the purpose and value of community formation (as well as available services) early and often. Yet, more research is needed regarding best practices to educate learners about community benefits. Additionally, research is needed regarding where to house these initiatives. Indeed, efforts to promote awareness of events can result in unwanted outcomes. For example, O’ Shea et al. (2015) found that some online students felt further alienated from their institutions when they received email reminders about campus events and resources they could not attend. Currently, research on community assumes that if activities and services are provided, students will know their purpose and why and how to use them.

Time

The IPP framework suggests that community services and needs are influenced by time. Services deemed important near the beginning of a program may have lesser importance near the end. Additionally, experiences that benefit mature students may be of lesser value and importance to newly admitted students (because of their lack of experience, shared history, knowledge of procedures, and so forth). This idea aligns with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) perspective of peripheral participation. When considering community services, it is important to situate students within their program trajectory and communicate accordingly. Social events may familiarize new students with one another, reduce feelings of anxiety and isolation, and encourage interaction with working professionals. These events might become the impetus for later collaborations. However, the same event might help advanced students and alumni maintain contact with their program, expand professional networks, share institutional knowledge and advice, and heighten professional practice. Time in the program may dictate purpose and communication approaches. Yet, little research has examined time factors associated with community formation and maintenance nor the events that support community as it shifts in purpose over degree progression, graduation, and beyond. Similar to the ideas regarding communication, research regarding scaffolding in community entrance and maintenance is needed.

Time also impacts the frequency of community interaction. As mentioned in several community models, participation can range from occasional to frequent (Oldenburg, 1989; Wenger et al., 2002). Because some relationships are formed through consistent interaction over time (Graves, 1992), requiring initial interaction by program faculty, especially among newly admitted students, might make sense (Aldosemani et al., 2016). Thus, activities may vary in formality. Membership and participation may be required or voluntary. Interactions may be strictly academic or expand to social interaction. Activities may have temporal restrictions or be unrestricted (e.g., group projects within a course versus weekly special interest groups). Other relationships are formed through association, hence develop with minimal interaction (e.g., introductions to alumni on a business trip). When considering experiences needed for community development and maintenance, institutions and programs should take student position and progression within the program into account. They also need to consider how to balance student and faculty member time and determine which activities best accomplish community goals.

Conclusion

Community development is important for students in higher education programs. Community involvement can support students academically and emotionally as they enhance their professional identity. Participation in community events provides opportunities for interaction, shared experience, and collaboration. It also sets expectations, norms, rules, and goals. Over time, these experiences bolster feelings of comfort, trust, and safety that lead to a sense of belonging and membership. These experiences may also open opportunities for sustained collaboration with program faculty and professional associations. Ultimately, they ease the transition from student to colleague as individuals progress through program milestones and beyond graduation—gaining reciprocal value, interdependence, and a deeper sense of membership in a broad, professional community. The IPP framework of community strives to articulate these layers in a higher education setting to facilitate community formation. It also highlights the need for research and scholarship that extend beyond course structures. More emphasis is needed regarding the connection and interdependence of institutional, program, and professional community layers, supports needed to sustain them, and approaches to demonstrate their importance to non-traditional students with limited time.