This design-based research study examines how a collaborative annotation tool, Perusall, supported the development of community within an asynchronous online graduate course. Students read and engaged with assigned texts uploaded to Perusall each week, providing numerous opportunities for students to interact and collaborate with each other using the tool’s various sharing and communication features. Both text interactions and peer-to-peer interactions on Perusall increased throughout the course, with peer-to-peer interactions increasing at a greater rate, indicative of community growth within the course. Collaborative annotation tools capture students’ thinking and processing in the moment, more closely mirroring the learning that one might see in a face-to-face class when students discuss content with their instructor and/or classmates. This study offers insights for teachers, teacher educators, and school leaders about new approaches for developing community in online educational contexts, especially considering the drastic shift to online learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
AmielT.ReevesT. (2008).
Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
11(4), 29–40.
3.
AndersonT.RourkeL.GarrisonD.ArcherW. (2001).
Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
5(2), 1–17.
4.
AndersonT.ShattuckJ. (2012).
Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research. Educational Researcher,
41(1), 16–25.
5.
AndresenM. (2009).
Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology and Society,
12(1), 249–257.
6.
BarabS.SquireK. (2004).
Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13(1), 1–14.
7.
CalderwoodP. (2000). Learning community: Finding common ground in difference.
Teachers College Press.
8.
CarwileJ. (2007).
A constructivist approach to online teaching and learning. Inquiry,
12(1), 68–73.
9.
ChikhA.BerkaniL. (2010).
Communities of practice of e-learning, an innovative learning space for e-learning actors. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
2, 5022–5027.
10.
ConceiçãoS. (2007).
Setting directions for the future of online and adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
113, 87–91.
11.
ConoleG. (2014). The use of technology in distance education. In Zawacki-RichterO.AndersonT. (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 217–236).
AU Press.
12.
CovelliB. (2017).
Online discussion boards: The practice of building community for adult learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,
65, 139–145.
13.
DarabiA.ArrastiaM.NelsonD.CornilleT.LiangX. (2011).
Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
27(3), 216–227.
14.
deNoyellesA.ZydneyJ.ChenB. (2014).
Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions.Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
10(1), 153–165.
15.
FeldmanD. (2000). Forward. In John-SteinerV. (Ed.), Creative collaboration (pp. ix–xiii).
Oxford University Press.
16.
GarrisonD.ArbaughJ. (2007).
Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education,
10(3), 157–172.
17.
Hine, C. (2009). How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects? In A. Markham & N. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about methods (pp. 1--25). Sage.
18.
HealyA. (2009). Communities of practice as a support function for social learning in distance learning programs. In LytrasM., et al. (Eds.)., WSKS 2009, CCIS.
49 (pp. 49–56).
Springer.
19.
HolmesB. (2013).
School teachers’ continuous professional development in an online learning community: Lessons from a case study of an etwinning learning event. European Journal of Education,
48(1), 97–112.
20.
LevineS. (2007).
The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
2007(113), 67–74.
21.
MazzoliniM.MaddisonM. (2007).
When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education,
49(2), 193–213.
22.
ReevesT. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In Van den AkkerJ.GravemeijerK.McKenneyS.NieveenN. (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 64–78).
Routledge.
23.
RielM.PolinL. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical support. In BarabS.KlingR.GrayJ. (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16–50).
Cambridge University Press.
24.
RovaiA. (2002).
A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom community between higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
6(1), 41–56.
25.
TuC.CorryM. (2002).
Research in online learning community. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology,
5(1), 1–11.
26.
van TyronP.BishopM. (2009).
Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education,
30(3), 291–315.
27.
WengerE. (2000).
Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,
7(2), 225–246.
28.
WengerE. (2004).
Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal,
68(3). https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/knowledge-management-as-a-doughnut/
29.
Wilson, N., & Cardullo, V. (2018).
Beyond the app: Learning to teach digital literacy. Journal of Literacy Innovation,
3(2), 4–21.
