My DBR proposal

Design-Based Research Project

How to design interventions online, using NGL principles that will maximise the social interaction that is needed when learning how to write academically?

The following proposal outlines, through Phases 1 and 2 of Herrington et al.’s (2007) design-based research approach, how the use of new practices, tools and theories in Networked and Global Learning (NGL) can transform my teaching practice.

Phase 1: Analysis of practical problems by researchers and practitioners in collaboration

Background

The importance of learners developing writing skills has been well-established in the literature (Anderson and Hounsell, 2007; Greenlaw, 2003; Hansen, 1998; Mitchell and Evison, 2006; Wingate and Tribble, 2012). The role writing plays, according to Hunter and Tse (2013), in the generation of ideas and the construction of new knowledge is what makes writing an important skill for learners at any stage of their learning journey (p. 227). However, some learners in the higher education context, where “proficiency with written expression is critical for [their] academic success” (Alber-Morgan, Hessler and Konrad, 2007, p. 107), can “struggle to develop an effective voice with which to speak the discourse” and this process can be “long and difficult” (Northedge, 2003b, p. 250). For this reason, many seek help to develop these pivotal writing skills by seeking extra tuition or support (Fernstein & Reda, 2011). Although there are a range of online writing programs available, many learners find them ineffective for developing their writing skills (Bishop, 2002; Kim et al., 2011; Sapp & Simon, 2005), particularly citing the “lack of social presence” as problematic (Keengwe et al., 2013, p. 597).

My educational context

To develop an effective online writing program, Design-Based Research (DBR) has become one of the methodologies that educators can use to design and implement an “interactive and engaging online experience” (Parker, 2011). In line with McKenney and Reeves (2013) criteria for a DBR project I "depart[ed] from a problem" in my practice and then "pursue[d] both knowledge and interventions [to] address the issue of how to deliver my program online. Through a practitioner-oriented focus” (Herrington et al., 2007) a problematic area that I found was how to deliver an online writing program for my students that would provide them with the social interaction that is achieved in the face-to-face context of my practice (Young & Duncan, 2014).

Statement of problem

In my current practice I provide a personal writing program for university students who either want to attend university or who are already at university and want to improve their writing skills (Alber-Morgan, Hessler & Konrad, 2007, p. 107). However, due to time constraints, or the need to acquire further knowledge and skills in academic writing, many of my students have enquired about the provision of an online writing program to enable them to acquire the knowledge and skills in their own time rather than be required to attend face-to-face (Battlio, 2003; Young & Duncan, 2014). This reflects a trend in a “post-Web 2.0 interactive world” (Berthon et al., 2010, p. 195) where learners are increasingly learning online (Keengwe, Adjei-Boateng & Diteeyont, 2012; Kizilcec, Papadopoulos & Sritanyaratana, 2014).

To accommodate the growing trend for online learning, there are a range of on-campus writing programs that have been designed to improve writing ability, such as Learning Network Queensland’s Unilearn, and a range of preparatory programs or bridging courses provided by many universities (Sung & Mayer, 2012). A preview of the online courses and programs reveals that many do not maximise the “social presence” experienced in face-to-face contexts (Borup, West & Graham, 2012, p. 195). Social presence, as defined by Short (1974), is “the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of interpersonal relationships” (p. 158). Many online writing programs offer “static e-learning content that is designed to transfer knowledge” (Towards Maturity, 2003), with some tutor involvement, but not the “personal user experience” (Liu & Peng, 2013) combined with social connection (Keengwe, Adjei-Boateng & Diteeyont, 2012, p. 597) that enables learners to “transfer” their skills to other writing tasks, genres, and purposes (Alber-Morgan, Hessler, & Konrad, p. 107).

Although the Internet provides many forms of “DIY learning” that enables learners who are “willing to tackle acquiring” the needed knowledge, skills or dispositions with “minimal or no support” (Bigum and Rowan, 2013) these programs or courses lack the social interaction that is needed when acquiring writing skills (Harris, 2012; Maddux, Johnson & Willis, 1997). A problem with many online higher education learning programs or courses is many do not carefully scaffold the writing process with the guidance of a “learning coach” that makes explicit the “thinking of experts” (Stein, 2012, p. 79). Although they do deliver content that is subject-specific, their organisation and lack of social support cause many students to disengage from the process and seek in-person support, or face-to-face contact, to teach them how to write effectively (Borup, West & Graham, 2012; Keengwe, Adjei-Boateng & Diteeyont, 2012). Therefore, current online learning platforms can be problematic for novice writers, particularly those who feel unprepared to write at the required academic level, regardless of whether they have recently completed high school (Rovai, 2003) or have completed a tertiary preparation course (Kim et al., 2011). This poses the fundamental challenge of how to develop an online writing program that scaffolds writing skills but provides beginning writers with the feeling of social connection (Keengwe et al., 2012; Young & Duncan, 2014).

As highlighted by Hunter and Tse (2010) the development of an online writing program with a “co-present or virtual” tutor is necessary to support academic programs provided by universities (p. 4). In the current higher education climate, many lecturers or tutors do not have the “time to work with each student” to help develop understanding (Bigum and Rowan, 2013), or even the resources to provide timely and meaningful feedback (Hunter & Tse, 2010). Many of my students also outline the lack of support or engagement with online courses, reflecting Sapp and Simon’s (2005) “thrive or dive” phenomenon, where some may succeed but a “disproportionately high percentage” of students do not (p. 471). Hunter and Tse (2013) outline how there continues to be a lack of programs that are personalised to learner needs, such as is provided in university “study skills” workshops (p. 228).

Consultation with practitioners and researchers

Consultation with practitioners and researchers working in the university sector, or higher education realm, provided valuable insight into the perception of online learning and the social connectedness that is created online. In their initial engagement with online learning some were, like myself, initially “perplexed at the idea of not having personal contact with their students (McGovern, 2004), and believed that online learning would not be as productive as face-to-face teaching approaches. However, some practitioners have remarked, in alignment with McGovern’s (2004) research findings, that their experience of online learning is the “most satisfying” experience in their career to date (p. 1). They outline how they have felt socially connected to their students and how their students have actively collaborated with peers.

A practitioner who is working with an online university has outlined how she “feels connected” to her students. This is due to her students opportunity to communicate using synchronous and asynchronous tools, such as having weekly “chat sessions” using Blackboard’s Collaborate, or being provided with “immediate answers” through the Learning Management System (LMS) provided by the university. Another practitioner outlined how peer collaboration, such as writing projects, promotes social interaction between her students. However, this colleague also outlined that the effectiveness of online learning is also predicated on the “teacher’s enjoyment of the process,” rather than just what the students “want” or “need.” She reaffirmed Leinonen and Durall’s (2014) claim that a “utilitarian service approach” needs to be linked to theories in pedagogy, particularly if the research is to contribute to the field of pedagogical ideas (p. 114).

Research questions

The following outlines the primary and secondary research questions that are the focus on this DBR.

Primary research question

• How to design interventions online, using NGL principles that will maximise the social interaction that is needed when learning how to write academically?

Secondary questions

• What online educational practices and processes do learners find effective and enjoyable?
• What online educational practices and processes do teachers find effective and enjoyable?
• What support do online learners feel is most important for providing an effective educational experience?
• What are the design aspects for creating social presence in an online learning environment?

Literature review

An analysis of literature around the development of online writing programs illustrates a variety of issues, such as a lack of social interaction (Borup, West & Graham, 2012), poorly designed user-interfaces (Leinonen & Durall, 2013) and inadequate methodological approaches (Battlio, 2007; Leinonen & Durall, 2013). However, NGL practices and strategies, particularly using news ways to communicate (Young & Duncan, 2014) and promoting connection amongst learners and the tutor or coach (Borup, West & Graham, 2012), have been found to be effective in maximising social interaction in online writing programs.

Social interaction online

Despite the proliferation of online courses or programs, there are claims by students about the “sense of isolation” they experience in online academic environments (Borup, West & Graham, 2012, p. 195). This isolation, disconnectedness and loneliness can often lead them to withdraw early from an online program (Young & Duncan, 2014; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). The current online writing programs do provide some tutor feedback and discussion with peers via a discussion board but, due to the predominance of asynchronous design, many create the potential for students to “feel a lack of social connection” with the teacher and other students (Sung & Mayer, 2012, p. 1738).

Learning models, particularly situated cognition and social constructivist paradigms, emphasise the necessity of social interaction in the learning process (Battalio, 2007; Garrison, 2000; Gilbert & Moore, 1998; Kim, Kwon & Cho, 2011; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Swan et al., 2002; Tu & Corry, 2002). Educators who operate from this paradigm emphasise the critical importance of interaction among people, including learners and teachers, in the learning environment (Kim et al., 2011; Maddux, Johnson & Willis, 1997). Downes (2005) and Siemens (2005) connectivist theory - a theory that emphasises the importance of learners connecting with one another, or a network, to gain knowledge, also assert the importance of “networking,” where learners are like “nodes” (Siemens, 2001), connecting with each other to develop “sense-making skills” (Pollard, 2012, p. 24). Therefore, student learning and satisfaction with online courses is believed to be “enhanced by peer-to-peer interaction” (Bruce, Young & Kennedy, 2012; Horspool & Lange, 2012).

However, online collaborative activities, such as group projects or peer feedback, can be "negatively perceived" by students who believe them to be either an "add on" or not as productive as tutor feedback (Washington University in St. Louis, 2014). In Keengwe, Adjei-Boateng, Diteeyont (2012) study on online learning, students perceived collaborative tasks as "not useful" or a "waste" of their time (p. 603). Petrakou (2010) also found that social interaction is only perceived as beneficial by students when it "allows for non-task specific interaction" (p. 1020). For this reason, assessment of group collaboration can be a deterrent for online learners.

In the current online climate, to encourage collaboration, learners are mostly graded, as assessment of interaction is seen to be a “good enforcer” that will provide “more chances for social interaction” to occur between learners (Kim et al., 2011, p. 1517). However, in non-graded contexts, such as online writing programs that are designed to teach “form, structure, and disciplinary writing conventions” rather than complete assessment tasks, the enforcement of collaboration is not appropriate and can be counterproductive (Fernstein & Reda, 2011, p. 173). Borup, West and Graham (2012) highlight that when technology is “balanced with the human touch” of a real person, students will feel the emotional connection (p. 195) that is needed to motivate them to interact with peers and complete assignments (Young & Duncan, 2014).

User-experience online

There is an assumption that effective online courses must “replicate [their] live counterpart” by including a variety of interactions among student, instructor, and computer (Battalio, 2007, p. 339; Coppola, 2005; Gilbert & Moore, 1998). For this reason many online writing programs have tried to duplicate the experience of on-campus programs by providing written lectures, tests, and quizzes, class discussions, in-class exercises, all within the Learning Management Systems (LMSs) that are modelled on their “brick-and-mortar” ancestors (p. 340). These traditional methodological approaches can lead to “loss of the student’s attention, boredom, information overload, and frustration” (Battalio, 2007, p. 339).

According to Redmond (2011) current teaching online practices “do not capitalise on the dynamic nature of a technologically enhanced teaching and learning environments” (Redmond, 2011, p. 1051). They tend to be designed for teachers, with the integration of several levels of functionality rather than the needs of the learner (Lambropoulos, 2007). Herrington et al. (2007) write how the “...physical verisimilitude to real situations” is not as important as “cognitive realism,” where students are immersed in engaging and complex tasks with the guidance of a co-facilitator and peers (p. 82). For example, Open University’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) brings together different kinds of learning materials for students to study on a week-by-week basis, such as practical skill development activities in combination with commentary by experts (Lloyd, 2012). Through asynchronous communication students can also present and discuss their work through a Adobe’s Elluminate Live (p. 758). Pennsylvania’s Open Learning courses that are available through the MOOC Coursera use videography that enables students to communicate asynchronously via discussion forums and listen to videos that are made on location by practitioners in the field (Kizelicic et al., 2014).

However, even when programs create social presence, a poorly designed user interface (UI) can negate the effect. A “cluttered” or “cumbersome” UI has been found to “frustrate and anger” learners, regardless of what or how they are learning (Rosario and Widmeyer, 2009, p. 292). According to Rosario and Widmeyer (2009) an effective interface must possess the following characteristics: ease of use, consistent, non-intrusive, flexible, and navigable (p. 292). Unilearn is an example of an UI that is learner friendly. It has an easy to use UI that is intuitive and provides a mechanism for users to interact with the environment logically (Rosario and Widmeyer, 2009, p. 292). Therefore, unnecessary complexity is avoided and program design is “rendered simple and intuitive” (Elias, 2011, p. 150).

Current state-of-the-art practices in online learning

With the rapid proliferation of available online courses there are some that facilitate experiences that offer “maximum learning and satisfaction” (Kizilcec et al. 2014). These “digitally-enhanced” programs encourage “positive affective responses” in learners by providing a feeling of “being there” with the instructor and other learners (Dawley & Dede, 2014, p. 20). They achieve this by including the use of multimedia and virtual learning technologies, such as videos and avatars, to create social presence (Kim et al., 2011). They also include effective instructional design, combined with the assistance of a tutor to scaffold the learning process in an environment that is easy to use.

Multimedia and virtual technologies

A number of successful online learning programs, such as the Institute of Play's Quest to Learn and online courses provided through the largest MOOC provider Coursera (Kizilicec et al., 2014), use online learning tools, like video and anthropomorphic agents, and social networking tools, such as wikis, Facebook, and blogs (Huang et al., 2010), to provide students with a feeling of social connection (Burdick & Willis, 2011). Recent ethnographic findings suggest that these types of video-based courses facilitate richer interaction between learners and the instructor, who reportedly seem more present to the learners (Sung & Mayer, 2012). Some learners have claimed that they find the experience of seeing their instructors on video, either in person or in avatar form, to be “...similar to face-to-face instruction” (Borup et al., 2012, p. 195). High fidelity asynchronous tools, such as audio feedback, also help establish a sense of connection and social presence (Borup et al., 2012, p. 196).

Virtual learning technologies that include the use of avatars, or similar human-like agents, have been found to help generate social presence – they give the learner a sense of “being there” (Dawley & Dede, 2014). There is significant evidence that the social influence of anthropomorphic agents is comparable to that of humans (Baylor 2007; Baylor, 2014; Ebbers 2007; Kim and Baylor 2007). This is because an agent can be available when it is most convenient and timely for the learner (Baylor, 2014; Petrakou, 2010). Learners who worked with a “pedagogical agent” who has a “human voice” have been found to perform better on knowledge transfer tests than those working with a “less humanoid agent” (Mayer & DaPra, 2012 as cited in Kizilcec et al. 2014). However, research by Borup, West & Graham on improving social presence online reveals that when given the choice, learners prefer interacting with "real people" rather than avatars or any anthropomorphic agents (Borup, West & Graham, 2012).

Instructional design

In line with Garrison, Anderson and Archer’s (2010) categories and indicators for creating an online presence, the instructional design of effective online courses encourage social interaction. These methods include an online tutor who facilitates discourse to encourage, acknowledge and reinforce student learning and assess their progress (Kumar, 2005). The programs also scaffold student learning through direct instruction, whilst providing explanatory feedback and response to any technical concerns or issues (Young & Duncan, 2014). Embedded metacognitive prompts are also used as scaffolds to enhance learners’ awareness of their ongoing thinking processes, and the need to plan their course of action, such as appropriate time parameters, including the ability to check their accuracy as they progress through any problem solving task (Osman, 2010).

Externalising the “expert’s mental activities” to students can be an effective scaffolding strategy in guiding students’ attention to specific aspects of their learning processes, and engaging them in self-assessment of their own learning and understanding (Osman, 2010). Scaffolding has been identified as the “most productive way to help students construct their own meaning” (Kumar, 2005, p. 23). The sequencing of each step of the writing process provides learners with an expert to model their own writing (Alber-Morgan et al., 2007). For this reason, one-on-one guidance has become an “attractive option” to learners (Kumar, 2005, p. 23).

Virtual tutoring environments provide an online environment that consists of both synchronous and asynchronous environments (Petrakou, 2010). They include different metacognitive scaffolds that also create social presence: expert modelling on digital online video (i.e. Youtube); online tutoring, co-present or virtual (i.e. via Skype); access to procedural, and self-assessment prompts (i.e. use of rubrics to critique their own work or online quizzes); and, collaborative interaction among teachers and students on a WebCT platform, such as Blackboard (Osman, 2010). Synchronous technology tools, such as Wimba and Elluminate, or Skype, enable educators to interact with their students at the “same time in the same virtual space” (Redmond, 2011, p. 1051), thus enabling learners to feel more like participants rather than isolated individuals (Hrastinski, 2007).

Tutoring or coaching is also seen as integral to effective instruction in an online learning environment (Keengwe, Adjei-Boateng & Diteeyont, 2013). This is because the coach or tutor, as facilitator of the learning, helps learners to progress towards mastering a higher level of knowledge and skill acquisition, application and construction (Osman, 2010). Online tutoring that provides not only “process displays” and “process models” but also metacognitive prompts helps students realise the need to carefully plan and organise their learning, and develop their expertise (Osman, 2010, p. 4). The coach can also establish trusting relationships and foster community building between students (Young & Duncan, 2014).

Phase 2: Development of solutions informed by existing design principles and technological interventions

Proposed design guidelines to guide the intervention

A review of the literature facilitated the creation of the following design guidelines that will inform the design and development of an academic writing program in Phase II of this DBR (Herrington et al., 2007).

Design principle 1 - Social presence principle

Online academic writing programs should enable students and instructors to establish social presence.

Writing programs that foster social presence through encouraging learner interaction with both the tutor and peers (Kim et al., 2011) have provided the most effective learning experiences (Holliday, 2010).

Design principle 2 - Community of learners and support principle

Online academic writing programs should encourage learners to support and learn from each other.

Effective online learning programs have revealed that learners who encourage and support one another (Elias, 2011, p. 152) achieve successful outcomes. Applications that encourage collaborative knowledge building lead to increased social presence and long-lasting learning (Leinonen & Durall, 2014; Young & Duncan, 2014).

Design principle 3 - User-centred principle

Online academic writing programs should be designed to meet learner needs and wants.

An online writing program needs to be designed according to user needs (Lambropoulos, 2007). This is because a human-centred designed interface encourages participation (Leinonen & Durall, 2014) as it fulfils learner needs and wants (Dawley & Dede, 2014).

Design principle 4 - User interface ease of use principle

Online academic writing programs should be user friendly and the system should be easy to navigate.

The provision of learning resources and activities that have been provided in a format that is user-friendly and easy for learners to manoeuvre around results in greater learner satisfaction with the learning process (Sulcic & Sulcic, 2007).

Description of proposed intervention

In alignment with the design guidelines above, the intervention will aim to maximise social interaction through providing learners with a user-centred platform that carefully scaffolds tasks and resources, combined with opportunities to collaborate with peers in an online writing task.

Students will be provided with an online platform where they can access all their learning materials. However, instead of reading all of the material, videos will be provided that illustrate many aspects of the writing process. The inclusion of videos, both with and without avatars, will also be used to help create a social presence online, particularly the provision of virtual lectures and interactive live video opportunities (Lippas, 2014). The students will also use social media to interact with one another and the tutor.

The intervention will also entail learners co-constructing writing pieces in an online format. These writing pieces will be accessible for students and the tutor. Each individual will be able to contribute to the development of the writing piece - called a writing challenge - but also provide feedback on peer contributions. The intention is to help learners learn from one another through encouraging peer discussion about their writing process, and development of knowledge and skills (Pollard, 2012).

Students will be encouraged to collaborate throughout the writing process. They will be provided with explanations about the usefulness of interactivity, and how communicating with each other helps promote learning and prevents feelings of loneliness and isolation during the writing process (Kim et al., 2011). Learner feedback will also be sought throughout the process to garner the effectiveness of the program, particularly if it is meeting learner needs, and as part of the ongoing iterative process (Parker, 2011).

Plan for implementation

The following outlines the implementation plan for the delivery of a writing program in an online format. In alignment with the design principles, learners will have access to learning materials online, including access to multimedia and virtual technologies to scaffold the writing process and develop social presence. To encourage social interaction, learners will interact with one another to further develop their writing skills.

Phase 1 - Creation of online writing program

The first phase of the intervention will involve the creation of an online writing program that provides students with carefully sequenced activities and resources. Through the learning platform Udemy learners will have access to course program and content. This will include the provision of resources and access to a variety of tools, particularly writing scaffolds and online referencing tools.

Phase 2 - Development of social presence online

In phase two the program content will be delivered in both text-based and media formats, including Youtube videos of each step of the writing process. The students will communicate via a social media platform (i.e. Facebook), where they can discuss their learning experience and connect with others in the program. This platform will also be utilised for sharing resources that have been found on the Internet or comment on any aspects of the program.

Phase 3- Encourage sense-making online

In phase 3 learners will be have the opportunity to collaborate online in a writing challenge. They will each have access to the same Google Doc. This Doc will have a writing activity that requires learners to participate in the co-construction of a writing challenge.

Conclusion

This DBR has illustrated, through the application of NGL principles, and research by practitioners in my field, including consultation and collaboration with practitioners, clients and peers, the strategies that help maximise social presence in an online learning environment. To achieve a purposeful change in my practice an “ongoing iterative process to monitor the effectiveness” of the writing program will be necessary to provide “immediate (and accumulating) feedback” on the viability of its ‘learning theory’” (Parker, 2011, p. 105), and the development of each phase (Leinonen & Durall, 2014).

References

Agosto, D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the benefits of blended education: Using social technology to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing in face-to-face LIS courses. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(1), 94-107.

Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Hessler, T., & Konrad, M. (2007). Teaching Writing for Keeps, Education and Treatment of Children, 30(3), 107-128.

Bakker, A. (2014). Research Questions in Design-Based Research (pp. 1–6). Retrieved from http://www.fi.uu.nl/en/summerschool/docs2014/design_research_michiel/Research Questions in DesignBasedResearch2014-08-26.pdf

Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction Online: A Reevaluation, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 339-352.

Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298-312.

Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2013). Ladders, Learning and Lessons from Charlie: exploring the potential of public click pedagogy (No. 2).

Bishop,Wendy. (2002).Wendy Bishop on teaching with technology. Interview by Sonja Bagby. Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, 7(3). Retrieved March 4, 2004 from <http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/7.3.htm>

Borup, J., & West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video, Internet and Higher Education, 15, 195-203.

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf

Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking, California, USA: Elsevier Ltd.

Burton, L., Lawrence, J., Summers, J., Gibbings, P., Noble, K. (2013). Developing DART: a digital learning tool to facilitate equity and access in the contemporary higher education context. In: Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia Distance Education Summit (ODLAA 2013): Education Across Space and Time: Meeting the Diverse Needs of the Distance Learner, 4-6 Feb 2013, Sydney, Australia.

Dawley, L., & Dede. C. (2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In J.M. Spector, M.D Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.), The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.

Diaz, D. P. (May/June 2002). Online drop rates revisited. The technology source archives. Retrieved on Aug. 20, 2010 from. http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_ rates_revisited/

Dickey, M. D. (2004). The impact of web-logs (blogs) on student perceptions of isolation and alienation in a web-based distance-learning environment. Open Learning, 19(3), 279–291.

Downes, S. (2011). Connectivism and “Connective” knowledge, Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/connectivism-and-connecti_b_804653.html

Downing, J., Pittaway, S., Osborne, P. (2014). Guidelines for online facilitation, University of Tasmania, Retrieved from http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/202748/Online-facilitation-and-the-role-of-the-Tutor.pdf

Elias, T. (2011). 71. Universal Instructional Design Principles for Mobile Learning, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 143-156.

Fernstein, L. A., & Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing, Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 171-182.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.

Harris, M. (2012). Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer- Response Groups, College Composition and Communication, 13(3), 369-383.

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4089-4097). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Holliday, T. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of tutoring: as easier way, Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 21-32.

Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: Student perceptions, behaviours and success online and face-to-face. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 73-88.

Hu, P. Y. (2007). Book review: Interactions in Online Education. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 228-229.

Hrastinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning course: How is participation affected? The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 117–131.

Hrastinski, S. (2007). Participating in synchronous online education. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Informatics, Lund University, Sweden. Retreived from https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=599311&fileOId=600490

Huang, H., & Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach, Computers and Education, 55, 1171-1182.

Hunter, K. and Tse, H. (2013). Making disciplinary writing and thinking practices an integral part of academic content teaching, Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(3), 227-239.

Jarche, H. (2011). PKM - Personal Knowledge Mastery, Retrieved from http://jarche.com/pkm/

Jarche, H. (2012). Seek Sense Share, Retreived from http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/seek_sense_share.pdf  

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(2), 34–37.

Kim, J., & Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education, Computers & Education, 57, 1512-1520.

Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K., Sritanyaratana, L. (2014). Showing Face in Video Instruction: Effects on Information Retention, Visual Attention, and Affect, Retrieved from http://rene.kizilcec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/final_version2.pdf

Keengwe, J., & Adjei-Boateng, E., & Diteeyont, W. (2013). Facilitating active social presence and meaningful interactions in online learning, Education and Information Technology, 18, 597-607.

Kim, J., & Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education, Computers & Education, 57, 1512-1520.

Kumar, A. (2005). Results from the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of an Online Tutor on Expression Evaluation, Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE '05, p. 216-221.

Laffey, L., & Lin, G. Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163–177.

Lambropoulos, N. (2007). User-Centred Design of Online Learning Communities, Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leinonen, T., & Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and Collaborative Learning, Media Education Research Journal, 42, 107-116.

Lippas, S. (2012). Use and benefits of Avatars in virtual learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.aspinelearning.com.au/content/Use-and-benefits-of-Avatars-in-virtual-learning

Liu, P. and Peng, Z. (2013). Gamification interaction design of online education, 2013 2nd International Symposium on Instrumentation and Measurement, Sensor Network and Automation (IMSNA), Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IMSNA.2013.6742825

Llyoyd, P. (2012). Embedded creativity: teaching design thinking via distance education, International Journal of Design Education, 23, 749-765.

Maddux, C. D., Johnson, D. L., & Willis, J. W. (1997). Educational computing, learning with tomorrow’s technologies (2nd ed.). Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McGovern, G. (2004). Teaching Online vs. Face-to-Face, CLENExchange, 20(4), p. 1-7.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic Review of Design-Based Research Progress: Is a Little Knowledge a Dangerous Thing? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97–100. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463781

Northedge, A. (2003b). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1): 17–32.

Oliver, R. (2000). When teaching meets learning: Design principles and strategies for Web-based learning environments that support knowledge construction. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2000, Coffs Harbour.

Osman, M. E. (2010). Virtual Tutoring: An Online Environment for Scaffolding Students’ Metacognitive Problem Solving Expertise, Turkish Science Education, 7(4), 3-13.

Parker, J. (2011) A design-based research approach for creating effective online higher education courses. In: 26th Annual Research Forum: Educational Possibilities (Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc), 13 August 2011, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5566

Petrakou, A. (2010). Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education, Computers and Evaluation, 54(4), 1020-1027.

Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Redmond, P. (2011). From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. (pp.1050-1060).

Reiners, T., Teräs, H., Chang, V., Wood, L. C., Gregory, S., Gibson, D., Petter , N. & Teräs, M. (2014). Authentic, immersive, and emotional experience in virtual learning environments: The fear of dying as an important learning experience in a simulation. In Transformative, innovative and engaging. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2014. Perth: The University of Western Australia. http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/professional_development/conferences/tlf/tlf2014/refereed/reiners.pdf

Rosario, R. A. M. & Widmeye, G. R. (2009). An Exploratory Review of Design Principles in Constructivist Gaming Learning Environments, Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289-300.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Rovai, A. P., & Wighting, M. J. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 8,97–110.

Short, J.A. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27 (3), 325-334.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Stein, D. S., & Wanstreet, C. E., & Slagle, P., & Trinko, L. A., & Lutz, M. (2013). From ‘hello’ to higher-order thinking: The effect of coaching and feedback on online chats, Internet and Higher Education, 16, 78-84.

Sulcic, V. & Sulcic, A. (2007). Can online tutors improve the quality of e-Learning? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4, 201-210.

Sung, E. and Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education, Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 1738-1747.

Taylor, P. (2014, October 20). Seeking feedback on my research proposal [Blog comment]. Retrieved from http://lifechanginglearning.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/seeking-feedback-on-my-research-proposal.html#comment-form

The Future of State Universities. (2011). Research on the Effectiveness of Online Learning: A Compilation of Research on Online Learning, Retrieved from http://www.academicpartnerships.com/sites/default/files/Research%20on%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Online%20Learning.pdf

Washington University in St. Louis. (2014). Using Peer Review to Help Students Improve Writing, Retrieved November 1, 2014 from http://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/strategies/Pages/peer-review.aspx#.VGqlPfmUeSp

Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219-230. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no2/young_0611.htm

Young, S., & Duncan, H. (2014). Online and Face-to-Face Teaching: How do students ratings differ? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 70-79.