Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Special Issue on Technology and Teacher Education
Special Issue

Exploring the Use of #Hashtags as an Easy Entry Solution to Enhance Online Discussions

Preeti Raman
University of Toronto
Teresa Avery
Clare Brett
Jim Hewitt

Published 2020-10-30

How to Cite

Raman, P., Avery, T., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2020). Exploring the Use of #Hashtags as an Easy Entry Solution to Enhance Online Discussions. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 35(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1167


Abstract: Growing interest in online learning has instructors looking for new ways to engage learners in asynchronous discussions. Building on experiences with hashtag use to connect on social media platforms, the purpose of this study is to investigate the contexts of hashtag use and its associated impact on learner engagement in asynchronous online discussions. In more detail, this mixed-methods case study will answer the following questions: 1) How and in what context do students use hashtags in online discussions? and 2) In what ways, if any, does the use of hashtags promote engagement in an online community? Findings suggest that while classifying and organizing course information was a strong motivator for tagging posts, hashtags were also used to connect to others in the learning community, express opinions, and encourage knowledge building. The results from our study contribute to a better understanding of engagement with and through hashtag use.


Keywords: engagement, social media, online learning, tagging


Résumé: L'intérêt croissant pour l'apprentissage en ligne incite les instructeurs à rechercher de nouvelles façons d'engager les apprenants dans des discussions asynchrones. S'appuyant sur les expériences d'utilisation du hashtag pour se connecter sur les plateformes de médias sociaux, le but de cette étude est d'étudier les contextes d'utilisation du hashtag et son impact sur l'engagement des apprenants dans les discussions en ligne asynchrones. Plus en détail, cette étude de cas à méthodes mixtes répondra aux questions suivantes: (1) Comment et dans quel contexte les élèves utilisent-ils les hashtags dans les discussions en ligne? (2) De quelle manière, le cas échéant, l'utilisation de hashtags favorise-t-elle l'engagement dans une communauté en ligne? Les résultats suggèrent que si la classification et l'organisation des informations sur les cours ont été un puissant facteur de motivation pour marquer les publications, les hashtags ont également été utilisés pour se connecter à d'autres membres de la communauté d'apprentissage, exprimer des opinions et encourager le renforcement des connaissances. Les résultats de notre étude contribuent à une meilleure compréhension de l'engagement avec et via l'utilisation du hashtag.


Mots-clés: engagement, médias sociaux, apprentissage en ligne, marquage



  1. Abel, F., Bittencourt, I. I., Costa, E., Henze, N., Krause, D., & Vassileva, J. (2010). Recommendations in online discussion forums for e-learning systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.40
  2. Avery, T., Sarguroh, W., & Sheehy, A. (2019). #Hashtags: Towards understanding the student experience in online discussion-based learning environments. INTED2019 Proceedings. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/94673
  3. Barone, D. (2011). Case study research. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methods (2nd ed., pp. 7–27). Guilford Press.
  4. Collins, M. P. (1999). I know my instructional technologies: It’s these learners that perplex me! American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649909527011
  5. Collins, M. P., & Berge, Z. L. (1994, September-October). Guiding design principles for interactive teleconferencing [Paper presentation]. Pathways to Change: New Directions for Distance Education and Training Conference, Augusta, ME, United States.
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.
  7. Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2019). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i1.1885
  8. Dennen, V. P., Bagdy, L. M., & Cates, M. L. (2018). Effective tagging practices for online learning environments: An exploratory study of approach and accuracy. Online Learning, 22(3), 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1471
  9. Ding, Z., Zhang, Q., & Huang, X. J. (2012). Automatic hashtag recommendation for microblogs using topic-specific translation model. In M. Kay & C. Boitet (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2012: Posters (pp. 265–274). The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C12-2027.pdf
  10. Dringus, L. P., & Ellis, T. (2005). Using data mining as a strategy for assessing asynchronous discussion forums. Computers & Education, 45(1), 141–160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.05.003
  11. Dwivedi, P., & Bharadwaj, K. K. (2012). e-Learning recommender system for learners in online social networks through association retrieval. In CUBE '12: Proceedings of the CUBE International Information Technology Conference (pp. 676–681). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2381716.2381846
  12. Ellis, T. J., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). Forums and wikis and blogs, oh my: Building a foundation for social computing in education. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2009.5350845
  13. Erz, A., Marder, B., & Osadchaya, E. (2018). Hashtags: Motivational drivers, their use, and differences between influencers and followers. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.030
  14. Gao, F., Ulyshen, T., & Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
  15. Garrison, D. R. (2018, September 29). Validity of CoI. The Community of Inquiry. http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial15
  16. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  17. Gil, S. (2014). Exploring the benefits of tagging forum posts based on a hierarchical domain model of the course content in online forums [Thesis, University of Guelph]. Semantic Scholar. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9de/7f5470205705c8b69b5d79d0bbefd3230c64.pdf
  18. Hamer, J., Purchase, H. C., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Sheard, J. (2011). Tools for “contributing student learning.” ACM Inroads, 2(2), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963533.1963553
  19. Hewitt, J. (2001). Beyond threaded discourse. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 207–221. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/26522
  20. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4) (2005), 567–589. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4
  21. Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (1999). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Online Learning, 4(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v4i2.1904
  22. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1985). Structuring computer-mediated communication systems to avoid information overload. Communications of the ACM, 28(7), 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1145/3894.3895
  23. Ioannou, A. (2011). Online collaborative learning: The promise of wikis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(3), 213–223.
  24. Jeong, A. C. (2003) The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3
  25. Johnston, R., & Badley, G. (1996). The competent reflective practitioner. Innovation and Learning in Education, 2(1), 4–10.
  26. Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210. http://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0023
  27. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934603
  28. Kalloubi, F., & Nfaoui, E. (2019). Learning to suggest hashtags: Leveraging semantic features for time-sensitive hashtag recommendation on the Twitter network. In M. D. Lytras, N. Aljohani, E. Damiani, & K. T. Chui (Eds.), Semantic web science and real-world applications (pp. 302–325). IGI Global.
  29. Kear, K., & Heap, N. (2007). ‘Sorting the wheat from the chaff’: Investigating overload in educational discussion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00212.x
  30. Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947
  31. Li, Y., Liu, T., Jiang, J., & Zhang, L. (2016). Hashtag recommendation with topical attention-based LSTM. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 943–952). ACL Anthology. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C16-1284
  32. Makos, A. (2017). The like button: A way to explore social interaction in threaded discourse [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
  33. Makos, A., Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Use of a “like” button in a collaborative online learning environment. American Educational Research Association (AERA). http://hdl.handle.net/1807/74934
  34. Marbouti, F., & Wise, A. (2016). Starburst: A new graphical interface to support purposeful attention to others’ posts in online discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 87–113. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9400-y
  35. Marks, A. (2011). Electronic group collaboration in higher education. In Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (pp. 742–747). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2011.5960201
  36. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845
  37. Morris, M. G., & Dillon, A. (1997). How user perceptions influence software use. IEEE Software, 14(4), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.595956
  38. Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1863
  39. Oztok, M., Wilton, L., Lee, K., Zingaro, D., Mackinnon, K., Makos, A., Phirangee, K., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2014). Polysynchronous: Dialogic construction of time in online learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(2), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.2.154
  40. Patel, J., & Aghayere, A. (2006). Students’ perspective on the impact of a web-based discussion forum on student learning. In Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th annual conference (pp. 26–31). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2006.322600
  41. Peters, V. L., & Hewitt, J. (2010). An investigation of student practices in asynchronous computer conferencing courses. Computers & Education, 54(4), 951–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.030
  42. 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. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870.
  43. Qiu, M., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2012). Online class size, note reading, note writing and collaborative discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 7(3), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9151-2
  44. Raman, P., Avery, T., & Brett, C. (2020). #Learningtogether: exploring the use of hashtags in building a knowledge community online. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martínez, & C. Torres (Eds.), INTED2020 proceedings (pp. 7611–7617). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2020
  45. Rennie, F., & Smyth, K. (2019). Digital learning: The key concepts (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  46. Robinson, J. (2011). Assessing the value of using an online discussion board for engaging students. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 10(1), 13–22.
  47. Rohden, F., Kullenberg, C., Hagen, N., & Kasperowski, D. (2019). Tagging, pinging and linking – User roles in virtual citizen science forums. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 19. http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.181
  48. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48. http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474
  49. Sani, M. R. F., Kardan, A. A., & Cohan, A. (2013). A supporting tool in online learning forums based on multi-documents summarization. In 4th International Conference on e-Learning and e-Teaching (ICELET 2013) (pp. 30–35). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICELET.2013.6681641
  50. Sarker, S., & Nicholson, J. A. (2005). Exploring the myths about online education in information systems. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.28945/486
  51. Schellens, T., Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discussion groups: Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701651757
  52. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.
  53. Teplovs, C. (2008). The knowledge space visualizer: A tool for visualizing online discourse [Paper presentation]. CSCL Interaction Analysis Workshop at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  54. Thomas, M. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x
  55. Tu, C.-H. (2013). Strategies for building a Web 2.0 learning environment. Libraries Unlimited.
  56. Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782485
  57. Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y.-T. (2012). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9230-9
  58. Zhang, A. X., & Cranshaw, J. (2018). Making sense of group chat through collaborative tagging and summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274465
  59. Zhao, F., Zhu, Y., Jin, H., & Yang, L. (2016). A personalized hashtag recommendation approach using LDA-based topic model in microblog environment. Future Generation Computer Systems, 65, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2015.10.012
  60. Zhao, K., & Chan, C. (2014). Fostering collective and individual learning through knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(1), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9188-x