Even when plunging into the ‘black hole’ of the online, the basic rule of thumb to follow is the same as offline,  to remember the human (from an article on netiquette). Despite the tech element, it is still all about interaction and building relationships. Transferred into the educational context, the classroom might be swapped for a VLE, accessible at any time and place, but technology should not supersede pedagogy. And the learning theories that I have in mind here are blend of humanistic approaches and social constructivism, a balance of individualism and collaboration.

For that to work, the students need to be instructed what they are using the technology for and what is expected of them in terms of input (content plus assessment criteria) if they are to treat the online component seriously and not as a fancy (and probably clumsy) add-on. The purpose of different tools and choice of online activities should also be made clear so that students do not develop wrong expectation. This would refer especially to self-study courses where the student is left altogether to their own devices. To illustrate what I mean, I will refer to the first story ‘The black hole’. There is perhaps a natural tendency for people to moan and groan or exchange views on topics unrelated to the course but that can be done on a separate, non-learning, forum, e.g. ‘virtual cafe’ and the purpose of such a forum should be clearly spelt out and differentiated from that of learning forums and this is what happened in the story about ‘the black hole’. The message got ignored, sucked into a vacuum, leaving the student distressed and disappointed. It’s possible, however, that it was the course design that was to blame rather than the self-absorbed cat-loving fellow students. Namely, the design could be summarized as ‘laissez faire’, the students were let to get on and in doing so the cat group opted not to respond to the other student’s call for help. For obvious reasons (age, different outlook and priorities) she hadn’t engaged in interaction with them and so she might have been perceived as an outsider and intruder, somebody they did not care about.

To develop a sense of community and add dynamics to the course, many online courses introduce groupwork. Things might go wrong though, especially when individuals present different views on how to go about the task. In order to facilitate smooth collaboration and get students more involved and perhaps become watchdogs themselves, a working agreement could be devised at first which could describe in detail how they are going to collaborate and behave towards each other. The students could regularly reflect on the effectiveness of the agreement, refining it if need be. 

Creating rubrics specific to groupwork could perhaps encourage more active participation from quieter or idler students. It is true that, similarly to a traditional classroom, there will be an array of learning styles on an online course, with some students sharing their ideas publicly more readily while the more reflective types might lurk in the shadows of online back channels but certain mechanisms need to be put in place which will squeeze the minimum from the latter, especially in the case of groupwork. Assigning a leading role to a quieter student, putting them in a position of responsibility might spur more activity on their part too. Collaboration could also be subject to anonymous peer assessment, something one presenter in the workshop I recently went to  had introduced on their course. What is more, the peer assessment could influence the final mark, which kept all the potential idlers on their toes!

Since the online overly relies on the written word, there is much more permanency. Once you write something on an online forum, it's frozen there and irremovable (unless there is a good reason to take it off, e.g. abuse, indecency, etc.). So, greater care needs to be taken when posting messages but, on the other hand, there needs to be more forgiving  of other people's mistakes, being it spelling, grammar, a silly question or a daft contribution. Sometimes, the computer screen creates a buffer or a distance; you cannot see the recipient, their face or gestures, you deal with lone words, making the one who typed them become somehow disembodied and dehumanised. This might induce more assertiveness in you, make you feel more vociferous and bold in your opinions, putting forward criticisms. I think it's always worth asking yourself a simple question ‘Would I say something like this to the person face-to-face?’ (the flamer story).

The online might exert an interesting influence on how people present themselves and how much of personal info they decide to disclose, and how much of it they tamper with, embellish, distort and how fast they allow the truths to trickle into the open. This is particularly interesting in the case of people who are perceived as 'different' by the society at large, for example due to their disability or people who have experienced some misfortune in their life. In order to receive equal treatment, some of them will choose to hide the fact of their otherness. This way the online might promote inclusion more effectively than face-to-face.