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

Instructor Perspectives on Building Community in Online Discussion-Based Courses : Issues of Pedagogy and Functionality

Kimberley Mackinnon
Assistant Professor, Teaching Stream, OISE
Alexandra Makos
Lesley Wilton
Clare Brett
Taru Malhotra
Ph.D. Candidate in the Faculty of Education at York University
Teresa Avery
Preeti Raman

Published 2020-10-30

How to Cite

Mackinnon, K., Makos, A., Wilton, L., Brett, C., Malhotra, T., Avery, T., & Raman, P. (2020). Instructor Perspectives on Building Community in Online Discussion-Based Courses : Issues of Pedagogy and Functionality. 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/1169


Abstract: Education in this digital age is at a pivotal moment, as technological capability, accessibility, and increased financial pressure on educational institutions make online courses particularly attractive for both students and institutions. The growing pervasiveness of online learning across educational sectors brings forth the need to carefully identify the most promising opportunities and widespread challenges for maximizing student experience in online learning environments (Brett, 2016). In this study, three expert practitioners will analyze their research using PeppeR, a web-based collaborative workspace designed to promote learning within an online community. The analysis is meant to elicit recommendations that may be useful for building online courses in which collective meaning-making is an intentional goal. Analyses provide a practical synthesis of research-based insights gained from the daily challenges of over a decade of teaching and learning online. Several themes emerged from the review and emphasize the importance of different aspects of pedagogical design, communication, and evaluation. Different forms of modalities, strategies, and customization in the learning management system are discussed, including personalized messaging, instructor videos, and use of hashtags.

Keywords: interaction, design, online learning, presence

Résumé: L'éducation en cette ère numérique se trouve à un moment charnière, car la capacité technologique, l'accessibilité et la pression financière accrue sur les établissements d'enseignement rendent les cours en ligne particulièrement attrayants pour les deux étudiants et les établissements. L'omniprésence croissante de l'apprentissage en ligne dans les secteurs de l'éducation met en avant évidence la nécessité d'identifier soigneusement les opportunités les plus prometteuses et les défis les plus répandus pour maximiser l'expérience des étudiants dans les environnements d'apprentissage en ligne (Brett, 2016). À l'aide de PeppeR, un espace de travail collaboratif basé sur le Web conçu pour promouvoir l'apprentissage au sein d'une communauté en ligne, dans cette étude, trois praticiens experts analyseront leurs recherches et leurs pratiques en ordre de obtenir des recommandations qui pourraient être utiles pour construire des cours en ligne dans lesquels la prise de sens collective est un objectif intentionnel. Les analyses fournissent une synthèse pratique des connaissances basées sur la recherche tirées des défis quotidiens de plus d'une décennie d'enseignement et d'apprentissage en ligne. Plusieurs thèmes se dégagent de la revue et soulignent l'importance de différents aspects de la conception pédagogique, de la communication et de l'évaluation. Différentes formes de modalités, de stratégies et de personnalisation dans le système de gestion de l'apprentissage discuté, y compris la messagerie personnalisée, les vidéos de l'instructeur et l'utilisation de hashtags, etc.

Mots clés: interaction, conception, apprentissage en ligne, présence


  1. Avery, T. (2018). Teacher Presence & Pedagogy: A thematic interview discussion about online learning. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Toronto.
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2016). “Good moves” in knowledge-creating dialogue. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 11(2), 12–26. http://www.ckbg.org/qwerty/index.php/qwerty/article/view/242
  3. Brett, C., Forrester, B., & Fujita, N. (2009). Learning journals as an instructional and self-assessment tool for epistemological growth in online learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(1), 1–18. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ880052
  4. Brett, C., Lee, K., & Oztok, M. (2016, May 9). Socialization and social capital in online doctoral programs. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster University, 264–268. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/74902
  5. Caskurlu, S. (2018, October). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.002
  6. Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). 20 years of the community of inquiry framework. Tech Trends, 64, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00491-7
  7. Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011, June). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x
  8. Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649609526919
  9. Demmans Epp, C.; Phirangee, K. & Hewitt, J. (2017). Student actions and community in online courses: The roles played by course length and facilitation method. Online Learning, 21(4), 53–77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1163530.pdf
  10. Dempsey, P. R., & Zhang, J. (2019). Re-examining the construct validity and causal relationships of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in Community of Inquiry framework. Online Learning Journal, 23(1), 62–79. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1419
  11. Dennen, V. P. (2008, July). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003
  12. Dewey, J. (1910, 1938). Experience and education. Collier Books.
  13. Dewey, J. (1998). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Houghton Mifflin.
  14. Dunlap, J., & Lowenthal, P. (2018). Online educators’ recommendations for teaching online: Crowdsourcing in action. Open Praxis, 10(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.721
  15. Fussell, S. R. (2002). The verbal communication of emotion: Introduction and overview. In S. R. Fussell (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives (1–15). L. Erlbaum Associates.
  16. Gao, F., Zhang T., & Franklin, T. (2013, May). 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
  17. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Rogers, P. L., Berg, G. A., Boettcher, J. V., Howard, C., Justice, L., & Schenk, K. D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning, Second Edition (p. 352–355). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
  18. Garrison, D. R. & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
  19. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000, September). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  20. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001, September 24). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
  21. Garrison, R. (2018, September 29). Validity of CoI. [Editorial] The Community of Inquiry Editorials. Athabasca University. http://www.thecommunityofinquiry.org/editorial15
  22. Hewitt, J. (2009, November 17). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4
  23. Hewitt, J, Brett, C. & Mackinnon, K. (2013, June). A study of private messaging within an asynchronous discussion environment. In Rummel, N., Kapur, M., Nathan, M., & Puntambekar, S. (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings Volume 2 — Short Papers, Panels, Posters, Demos & Community Events (pp. 46-49). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/1948
  24. Houtman, E., Makos, A., & Meacock, H.L. (2014, January). The intersection of social presence and impression management in online learning environments. Journal of E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(4), 419-430. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.4.419
  25. Hrastinski, S. (2009, January). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
  26. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
  27. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (2009, September 24). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885
  28. 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
  29. Kang, M & Im, T. (2013, June). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12005
  30. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. & Jochems, W. (2003, May) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
  31. Kumi-Yeboah, A., Yuan, G., & Dogbey, J. (2017). Online collaborative learning activities: The perceptions of culturally diverse graduate students. Online Learning, 21(4), 5–28. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1163472
  32. Lee, K., & Brett, C. (2015). Dialogic understanding of teachers’ online transformative learning: A qualitative case study of teacher discussions in a graduate-level online course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.001
  33. Lee, L. (2016, June). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language, Learning and Technology, 20(2), 81–97. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/2948
  34. MacKinnon, K. & Hewitt, J. (2014, April 3–7). Examining student note revising as a component of knowledge construction in discussion-centered online courses [Poster presentation]. American Educational Researchers’ Association (AERA)Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
  35. MacKinnon, K. & Hewitt, J. (2011, May 28–June1). Encouraging idea consolidation among graduate students in online courses [Paper presentation]. Canadian Society for Studies in Education (CSSE) Annual Meeting, University of New Brunswick.
  36. MacKinnon, K., Makos, A., Wilton, L., Hewitt, J., Brett, C., Dahtoo, M., & Birch, H. (2014, May 24–28). Understanding the meaning and value of online metrics: How assessment analytics can be used to support and evaluate collaboration and community in online courses [Panel presentation]. Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual Conference, St. Catherines, ON.
  37. MacKinnon, K. (2012, September). Context matters: The value of analyzing human factors within educational contexts as a way of informing technology-related decisions within design research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 379–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9149-9
  38. Makos, A. (2020, May 23). How to create online discussion posts [Blog post]. https://teachingonline.oise.utoronto.ca/how-to-create-online-discussion-posts/
  39. Makos, A. [Alexandra Makos] (2019, June 29). Dr. Alexandra Makos Introduction [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/VFv3CgN639Y
  40. Makos, A. (2017, June). The Like button: A Way to explore social interaction in threaded discourse [Doctoral Thesis, University of Toronto]. TSpace Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/79349
  41. Makos, A., & Birch, H. (2014). “My Impact” tool: Increasing student productivity in online discussions by providing private access to their participation data [Conference session]. 25th Annual Edward F. Kelly Evaluation Conference, Toronto, ON, November 7th, 2014.
  42. Makos, A., & Hewitt, J. (2013, March 21–22). Enhancing academic behaviour and personalizing student learning through the integration of an intelligent recommendation system in an online learning environment [Paper presentation]. Annual Dean’s Graduate Student Research Conference, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, .
  43. Makos, A., & Hewitt, J. (2014, September 27–28). The Like button: What a head-nod looks like in online collaborative discussions [Paper presentation]. Social Media and Society International Conference, Toronto, ON.
  44. Makos, A., & Kett, S. (2019, October 9). Optimal Learning in ANY Context. Online Learning 2019: Special Address. Toronto, ON..
  45. Makos, A., & Xu, Z. (2015, April 16–20). The Impact of a notification system on student behaviours in a collaborative online learning environment [Paper presentation]. American Education Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
  46. Makos, A., Lee, K., & Zingaro, D. (2015, October 15). Examining the characteristics of student postings that are liked and linked in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 46, 1281–1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12201
  47. Makos, A., Avery, A., Sargoruh, W., Raman, P., Brett, C., Hewitt, J. (2020). This is why we do it: Using a design-based approach to optimize student learning in an online discussion-based Course. Special Issue on Teacher Education in the International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde
  48. Malhotra, T., Mann, A., Avery, T., & Brett, C. (2019, July 1–3). Exploring the relationship between instructor created online video characteristics and pedagogy. In EDULEARN19 Proceedings 11th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Palma, Spain (pp. 3190-3198). IATED Academy.
  49. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
  50. Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667957
  51. Nordplus. (2017). Nordic Council of Ministers. Silent learners—A guide. Nordic Network for Adult Learning (NVL). https://nvl.org/Content/Silent-learners-a-guide
  52. Oztok, M. (2016). Cultural ways of constructing knowledge: The role of identities in online group discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9233-7
  53. Oztok, M., & Brett, C. (2011, May). Investigating the Value of Instant Messaging within Asynchronous Learning Environments [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Fredericton, NB.
  54. Oztok, M., Lee, K., & Brett, C. (2012). Towards Better Understanding of Self-Representation in Online Learning. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2012 (p. 256–262). Presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Montréal, QC. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/73517
  55. Oztok, M., Wilton, L., Lee, K., Zingaro, D., MacKinnon, K., Makos, A., Phirangee, K., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2014, January). Polysynchronous: dialogic construction of time in online learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(2), 154–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.2.154
  56. Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013, January). Exploring Asynchronous and Synchronous Tool Use in Online Courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007
  57. Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Makos, A., Hewitt, J., & Brett, C. (2014, April). Towards Understanding Threads as Social and Cognitive Artifacts for Knowledge Building in Online Learning [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/87665
  58. Raman, P., Avery, T., Brett, C. & Hewitt, J. (2020, June 1). #try Hashtagging for knowledge sharing in online discussions [Accepted paper]. Canadian Society for Studies in Education Annual Conference, Western University, London, ON.
  59. Raman, P., Hewitt, J., Alexander, P., & Wilton., L. (2020). Affective gamification: Understanding student behaviours and tones in online discussions using award badges [Conference session]. AERA Annual Meeting [cancelled], San Francisco, USA. https://www.aera.net/
  60. Redmond, P., Devine, J., & Basson, M. (2014, May 13). Exploring discipline differentiation in online discussion participation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.624
  61. Richardson, M., Bond, R., & Abraham, C. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
  62. Rodriguez, M. (2014, December 2). Content analysis as a method to assess online discussions for learning. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014559019
  63. 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.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/474
  64. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1(12), 8–22. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197319/
  65. Salazar, J. (2010). Staying connected: Online education engagement and retention using educational technology tools. Clinical Laboratory Science, 23(3 Suppl), 3–58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20803836/
  66. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In Encyclopedia of Education. (2nd ed., p. 1370–1373). Macmillan Reference, USA. https://ikit.org/fulltext/2003_knowledge_building.pdf
  67. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009, April). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers and Education, 52, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
  68. Shea, P., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2010, October). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 127–154. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ913864.pdf
  69. Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
  70. Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
  71. Swan, K., Garrison, D. R. & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks, 43–57. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-654-9.ch004
  72. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362. https://vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/continuum.pdf
  73. Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G., (2007, December). Teacher Professional Development and ICT: Strategies and Models. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00116.x
  74. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  75. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005, March). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X04273036
  76. Wilton, L. (2017). The Three Rs of Online Learning: Interpretive Views of the Social Practices of Reading, Rereading and Revisiting. [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Toronto..
  77. Wilton, L. (2019a, Nov. 29-Dec.2). Towards an Understanding of New Literacies and Social Practices in Online Learning [Paper presentation]. Literacy Research Association’s (LRA) 69th Annual Conference, Tampa, FL..
  78. Wilton, L. (2019b). Quiet Participation: Investigating non-posting activities in online learning. Online Learning Journal, 22(4), 65–88. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1518
  79. Wilton, L. (2020a, March 23). Start Here [Blog post]. https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/teachingonline/2020/03/22/start-here/
  80. Wilton, L. (2020b, April 14). Ice breakers – Starting the online discussion [Blog post]. https://wordpress.oise.utoronto.ca/teachingonline/2020/04/14/ice-breakers-starting-the-online-discussion-2/
  81. Wilton, L. & Brett, C. (2015, December 2). Literacy practices in online learning discussions [Paper presentation]. Literacy Research Association 65th Annual Conference, Carlsbad, CA
  82. Wilton, L. & Brett, C. (2016, April). Investigating Learner Perceptions and Entry Properties of Non-Posting Activity in Collaborative Online Courses [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Washington, DC.
  83. Wilton, L., & Brett, C. (2018, October 17) Why Reading and Rereading Matter in online learning discussions [panel discussion]. The Conversation is Online: Characteristics of successful online graduate courses and the pedagogy that support the conversation. Online Learning 2018, Toronto, Ontario. http://bit.ly/2AzHuI4
  84. Wilton, L., Khan, R., Brett, C., & Alexander, P. (2020). Private interactions in online learning discussions: Instructor perspectives. In Wilton, L. & Brett, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Online Discussion-Based Teaching Methods, (p. 351–379). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/private-interactions-in-online-discussions/254780
  85. Wilton, L., & Noël, T. (2011). Avatars: Usefulness in collaborative online learning environments. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, IV. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058785
  86. Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education,10(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005
  87. Xu, Z., & Makos, A. (2015, March). Investigating the impact of a notification system on student behaviours in a discourse-intensive online course [Paper presentation]. Learning Analytics Conference, Poughkeepsie, NY.
  88. Young, M. (2014). Curriculum theory: what it is and why it is important. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 44(151), 190–202. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/198053142851