Many undergraduate and graduate courses have been recently converted to fully remote offerings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even within the remote structure, courses vary in their frequency of synchronous and asynchronous meetings. Fostering collaboration through students’ idea-sharing and supporting their learning is especially challenging in the asynchronous setting where it is challenging to replicate in-person communities of practice. This is especially the case in courses that are very theoretical and have traditionally relied on discussion boards for engaging students asynchronously. This paper aims to contribute to the research on technology-enhanced communities of practice by offering examples of digital discourse among peers that can be implemented asynchronously, including social annotations and jointly-developed slideshows with voice annotation. These methods allow for higher-quality interaction between learners, between learners and content, and between learners and the instructor.
AdamsB.WilsonN. S. (2020). Building community in asynchronous online higher education courses through collaborative annotation. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520946422
2.
AndresenM. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 249–257.
3.
BerryT.CookL.StevensK. (2010). An exploratory analysis of textbook usage and study habits: Misperceptions and barriers to success. College Teaching, 59(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.509376
4.
BharathD. M. N.BrownsonS. (2021). Perusall (www.perusall.com): Read, connect, discuss. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(3), 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2021.1929021
5.
BiroS. (2021). Reading in a time of crisis: Using Perusall to facilitate close reading and active discussion in the remote philosophy classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 44(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil202132137
6.
BonwellC. C.EisonJ. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049
7.
BowerM.DalgarnoB.KennedyG. E.LeeM. J.KenneyJ. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.0060360-1315
8.
CecchinatoG.FoschiL. C. (2020). Learning-teaching innovation of a university e-learning course [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the European conference on e-learning, Berlin, Germany (pp. 89–94). https://doi.org/10.34190/EEL.20.052
GarrisonD. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
11.
GernsbacherM. A. (2016). Five tips for improving online discussion boards. APS Observer, 29(9).
12.
GilliesD. (2008). Student perspectives on videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance. Distance Education, 29(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004878
13.
HanH. (2013). Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous virtual classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.837718
14.
HannansJ. (2019). Online clinical post-conference: Strategies for meaningful discussion using VoiceThread. Nurse Educator, 44(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000529
15.
HastieM.HungI.ChenN.Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525812
16.
HeinerC. E.BanetA. I.WiemanC. (2014). Preparing students for class: How to get 80% of students reading the textbook before class. American Journal of Physics, 82(10), 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4895008
KaminskiJ. (2016). Voicethread: Enhancing virtual interaction for dialogue and synthesis. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 20(2), 12.
19.
KaralH.ÇebiA.TurgutY. (2011). Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses through video conferencing about distance education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 276–293.
20.
KirbyE. G.HulanN. (2016). Student perceptions of self and community within an online environment: The use of VoiceThread to foster community. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 5(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v5n1.19411
21.
KothariC. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.
22.
LeeS.YeongF. (2018). Fostering student engagement using online, collaborative reading assignments mediated by Perusall. Asia Pacific Scholar, 3(3), 46–48. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2018-3-3/PV2000
23.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
24.
MartinF.BolligerD. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
25.
McFarlinT. J. (2020). Using open-source, collaborative online reading to teach property. St. Louis University Law Journal, 64(355).
26.
MerriamD.Hobba-GloseJ. (2021). Using VoiceThread to build a community of inquiry in blended RN-to-BSN education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 42(1), 44–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000655
27.
MillerK.LukoffB.KingG.MazurE. (2018). Use of a social annotation platform for pre-class reading assignments in a flipped introductory physics class. Frontiers in Education, 3(8). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00008
28.
NgoyiL.MpangaS.NgoyiA.SudhirV. V.MurthyA. S. N.RaniD. E.VikramP. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and social presence in online learning. International Journal, 3(4), 242–247.
29.
NieuwoudtJ. E. (2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5137
30.
ParkJ. Y. (2015). Student interactivity and teacher participation: An application of legitimate peripheral participation in higher education online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 24(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.935743
31.
PodolefskyN.FinkelsteinN. (2006). The perceived value of college physics textbooks: Students and instructors may not see eye to eye. The Physics Teacher, 44(6), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2336132
32.
PriceD. M.StrodtmanL.BroughE.LonnS.LuoA. (2015). Digital storytelling: An innovative technological approach to nursing education. Nurse Educator, 40(2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000094
33.
ShackelfordJ. L.MaxwellM. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(4), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1339
34.
SorcinelliM. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. In ChickeringA. W.GamsonZ. F. (Eds.), Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (pp. 13–25). Jossey-Bass, Inc.
35.
StampsA.OptonL. L. (2019). Utilizing VoiceThread technology to foster community learning in the virtual classroom. The Journal of Nursing Education, 58(3), 185–185. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20190221-12
36.
TsaiI. C. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for learning to teach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271–285.
37.
VygotskyL. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.
38.
WengerE. (2001). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In Supporting lifelong learning (pp. 170–189). Routledge.
39.
WengerE. (2004). Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal, 68(3).
