


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Large Discussion Groups’ Impact on Engagement and 

Community 

Jane Costello
1
 & Linda E. Rohr

2* 

1
 Centre for Innovation in Teaching and Learning, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, 

NL, Canada 

2
 Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada 

*
 Linda E. Rohr, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada 

 

Received: January 14, 2024     Accepted: January 24, 2024    Online Published: February 5, 2024 

doi:10.22158/fce.v5n1p1                URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v5n1p1 

 

Abstract 

To address the solitary nature of online learning, asynchronous micro discussion tools can be 

implemented to enrich students’ learning experiences by encouraging interaction among students, 

nurturing social presence, and facilitating community development. Students’ experiences using an 

asynchronous micro discussion tool in online learning were investigated, with a focus on engagement 

in learning with peers, sense of community, and technology’s effectiveness. Survey data was analyzed 

from two sections of an online introductory course from 458 postsecondary university students. As part 

of the course evaluation, students were asked to participate in three, intentionally designed discussions 

using an asynchronous micro discussion tool. In each instance, the discussion topic was tightly linked 

to course content, promoting collaborative, reflective learning. Results indicated that while students 

felt that learning through asynchronous micro discussions was effective, they did not feel a strong 

sense of community using this method. However, students who experienced increased engagement also 

reported having a better understanding of the course material, fewer technological issues, and felt a 

stronger peer-to-peer connection. Importantly, collaborative learning that increases engagement does 

not appear to be negatively influenced by large group size in higher education. Given the prevalence of 

the online learning environment this is valuable course design information. 

Keywords 

online learning, asynchronous micro discussion, engagement, community 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1. Introduction 

As the use of technology in post-secondary education for learning evolves, so too does the popularity 

of online learning (Chen et al., 2018; Jan & Vlachopoulous, 2018; Wang, 2019). While many students 

are opting to take online courses out of convenience, more courses are routinely offered exclusively 

online in response to market demands (Jan & Vlachopoulous, 2018; Osborne et al., 2018). Notably, 

COVID-19 has dramatically altered learning environments, further elevating online learning as a 

common course delivery method (Lockee, 2021). One residual outcome is high enrollment online 

courses. Careful consideration of the pedagogical challenges of these high enrollment courses which, 

ultimately impacts student learning is needed. One such challenge is determining the best size of 

asynchronous discussion groups in high enrolment higher education courses which foster community, 

engagement and student learning. The literature points to contrasting views on the optional size of 

discussion groups. For some, small groups benefited from high instructor involvement, guided 

discussions, (Chen et al., 2018; Peddibholta & Jani, 2019). In large group discussions, the presence of 

the instructor with structured discussions tended to stimy participation (Chen et al., 2018). Increased 

social presence, connection, feelings of community and engagement were found in smaller sized 

groups (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016; Qui & McDougall, 2015). With a moderate group size of 30 and 38, 

respectively, Chen and Liu’s (2020) and Lou et al.’s (2023) works revealed similar results. Many 

online courses have higher enrolment rates of 60+ students. Little research investigating the impact of 

large groups on student learning, engagement and community have been reported. This is an area our 

current work explored, with class sizes of 80 divided into groups of 80, 40 and 20 students.  

Online learning offers many benefits to students. These range from flexibility of location and time, 

scheduling ease, access to courses at other institutions, an opportunity to review and reflect on 

discussion content, positive educational experiences, and overall strong assessment results and 

achievement (Alzahrani, 2017; Delahunty, 2018; Koszalka et al., 2021; Massey et al., 2019; Niinivaara 

& Vaattovaara, 2018; Ronto et al., 2021; Wang, 2019). Facilitators should work toward establishing a 

collaborative learning space wherein frequent interaction, meaningful discussion and interactions 

among the group, and enforcement of guidelines such as respectful conduct (Osborne et al., 2018) exist 

to promote a healthy online community that fosters student learning and success. Saraja et al. (2018) 

recommend having a clear understanding of the interface and course structure. The intentional design 

of this collaborative learning space, routed in social constructivism Vygotsky (1968, 1978), supports 

knowledge development of all users through socially meaningful interactions. Additionally, Akpan, 

Igwe, Mpamah and Okoro (2020) suggest that this socially constructivist collaborative learning include 

opportunities for discussion and sharing among students.  

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Literature Review 

Careful pedagogical design considerations are needed to deliver a meaningfully successful online 

learning experience. Three such considerations include providing and supporting a sense of community; 

opportunities for positive engagement in learning; and successful integration and use of technology for 

educational purposes (Amry, 2018; Jones-Roberts, 2018). Each of these elements is explored, as they 

form the foci of the work presented in this paper.  

2.1 Community 

Community is a keystone aspect of online learning. Community in online learning may be defined as 

connection, social interaction with peers, and feeling a sense of belonging and has been shown to 

positively influence success of student’s learning and outcome (Jones-Roberts, 2018).  

According to Wang (2019), social interaction is “fundamental in human learning and development” (p. 

114). Delahunty (2018) reported that the quality of the educational experience increases when social 

interaction is promoted and supported, fostering a sense of belonging; furthermore, individuals who are 

actively engaged in discussion forums created a commitment to fostering community. Chen et al. (2018) 

echo this, noting that the quality of social interactions and discussions influenced the strength of a 

course’s sense of community and ultimately, the level of student success. Fostering community is a key 

component to a student’s academic success and ultimately meeting the learning outcomes behaviorally, 

cognitively and affectively (Busselli et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2018; Galikyan & Admiraal, 2019; 

Jones-Roberts, 2018; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019; Wang, 2019).  

A strong online community however provides a positive social presence, affirmatively impacting 

students’ motivation, engagement, participation, and overall success (Jones-Roberts, 2018). Social 

presence is identifiable through connection, group cohesion, and good communication; characteristics 

linked to helping students experience a feeling of belonging (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018). Students 

who experience a higher feeling of social presence, authentically representing their personal identity to 

their peers, are more likely to contribute quality content to discussions, participate in higher-level 

thinking, and are less likely to drop their course (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018; Jones-Roberts, 2018). 

Social presence aids in countering feelings of loneliness or disconnectedness imposed by technology. 

Like any learning environment, challenges may arise in online learning related to cultivating an 

environment that facilitates social interaction (Jones-Roberts, 2018; Niinivaara & Vaattovaara, 2018). 

Amry (2018) suggested that a tool’s usability and students’ habits influence their perceptions of social 

presence, which correlates with their participation levels. Strategies to support student’s improved 

academic performance and cultivate feelings of community include implementing an introductory post 

at the beginning of the course to help foster and encourage social presence, and holding regular, weekly, 

or bi-weekly discussions to provide opportunities for post-secondary students to express their 

personality to peers and learn about each other (Jones-Roberts, 2018). 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.2 Engagement in Learning 

Student engagement is meaningful student involvement throughout the learning environment and 

learning process (Coates, 2006; Osborne et al., 2018). Traditional learning environments often offer 

inadequate supportive opportunities for student engagement, potentially leading to feelings of isolation 

(Amry, 2018). Students in large classes can feel disengaged, hesitant to share in discussions, and are 

more likely to remain anonymous due to pressures and discomfort with class size (West et al., 2015).  

Creating a space of unity and maintaining social and teacher presence, as well as being appropriately 

competent with the digital tools used (Massey et al., 2019; Niinivaara & Vaattovaara, 2018) are 

meaningful ways to keep students engaged in the higher-education learning process. Quality 

engagement fosters students’ development of belonging and a strengthened identity (Delahunty, 2018; 

Korhonen et al., 2019). This, in turn, may lead to feeling accepted, encouraged, and valued by both 

peers and instructors (Delahunty, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2019). Ultimately, the online space allows all 

students to contribute to the learning environment, rather than only the most outspoken students 

(Busselli, Holdan & Rota, 2023). Further, better and improved quality of knowledge, career readiness, 

improved grades, as well as links to a better professional identity, overall well-being, a general 

satisfaction, and improved ethical qualities are also noted as positive outcomes of meaningful 

engagement (Jones-Roberts, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2019; Massey et al., 2019; Osborne et al., 2018).  

Osborne et al. (2018), investigating collaboration and participation among students and facilitators in 

discussion forums, noted many students posted the minimally required content or posted near the due 

date, hampering the opportunity for discussion and learning. These students suggested expectations for 

posts were not clearly communicated, contributing to poor assessment results, nor was it clear to these 

students how much opinion and personal reflection should be used versus academic literature. Students 

suggested that assessing discussion posts was counter-intuitive to promoting organic discussion and 

they found it difficult to create conversation and meaningful discussion online. Finally, students 

suggested having an instructor present hampered their ability to have candid discussions and suggested 

that smaller groups could better facilitate connection and meaningful discussion.  

For students to feel successful and to avoid ambiguity around expectations, facilitators must outline 

clear objectives and learning outcomes. Work by Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) promoted using targeted, 

specific prompts and examples to encourage students to think at a higher level and contribute in-depth 

responses while engaging in quality discussion. Facilitators should provide examples and model the 

qualities of a good post to set academic expectations and help students make well-informed judgements 

about their own and others’ posts. Creating structure within the discussion helps increase quality of 

engagement and overall learning (Sarja et al., 2018).  

There is an art to the facilitation of discussions, to finding the right balance of student autonomy versus 

interjection to help keep them on track. Conflicting research appears in relation to the optimal size of 

discussion groups and amount of instructor interaction. Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) noted that 

participation increased in smaller groups when the instructor was more involved, helping guide a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

structured discussion. These guided small group discussions revealed a diverse sample of students with 

varying experience and points of view, contrary to general preconceptions. Chen et al. (2018) concluded 

that high enrolment courses need small group-based discussions to help facilitate discussion in a more 

connected and meaningful way. In contrast, participation increased in larger groups when the facilitator 

was less engaged in guiding the discussion and there was less structure. The authors suggest that this was 

due to some individuals in a large group feeling motivated to take the lead in discussion (Peddibhotla & 

Jani, 2019). Regardless of group size, Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) demonstrated that students found 

structured discussion to be the most engaging for their learning. These findings influenced our design of 

course discussions as things of which to be mindful. 

2.3 Asynchronous Discussion Technology 

A common form of knowledge sharing and building in online learning is through asynchronous 

discussion tools or forums. Asynchronous discussions are a popular communication vehicle in online 

courses, across a wide variety of disciplines (Tang & Hew, 2017) as their flexibility helps facilitate 

stronger social interaction and overall learning (Kurnaz et al., 2018) while providing ample time to 

respond to posts in a thoughtful, organized manner.  

Discussion tools provide virtual community spaces for students to collaborate, share ideas and engage 

with one another, (Galikyan & Admiraal, 2019) while potentially reducing feelings of isolation 

(Delahunty, 2018). Additionally, their use has been shown to improve literacy skills, enhance learning 

and reflection, promote community, and facilitate exploratory learning (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018; 

Chen et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2018). Discussion participation creates social presence, which foster 

feelings of belonging (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018). Increases in student belonging and engagement are 

positively correlated with student success (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018). Shy or insecure students often 

perform better in asynchronous discussion as they can express their thoughts without the stunning 

spotlight sensation (Busselli et al., 2023; Kurnaz et al., 2018; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019) while having 

sufficient time to research appropriate responses. Discussion tools afford active learning wherein 

students are encouraged to participate collaboratively and equally, ultimately making them more 

accountable as their work is captured in a digital record (Alzahrani, 2017; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019). 

Opportunities for networking and creating other academic and professional connections is also a 

potential attraction. Students are more in charge of their learning and report positive influences on their 

studies (Amry, 2018) within flexible learning environments, such as discussion forums. 

Discussion-based tools enable students to connect with instructors in a semi-formal manner, which, for 

some students, is appealing (Ronto et al., 2021; West et al., 2015). Allocating grades to discussions 

motivates students to engage with one another and the course material (Osborne et al., 2018; Wang, 

2019).  

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Similar to regular discussion tools, micro discussions tools, like X (formerly Twitter), help facilitate 

engagement through increased communication among all class members, collaboration with peers and 

engagement with course material (Amry, 2018; Osborne et al., 2018; Rohr, Costello & Squires, 2023; 

Rohr, Squires & Peters, 2022; West et al., 2015). This engagement allows students to share their 

knowledge by connecting the course material and real-world events while negotiating understanding and 

co-constructing knowledge with their peers (Woods et al., 2023).  

Micro discussion tools, which employ concise posts (a couple of sentences long), are often adopted in 

hopes of increasing student participation, supporting a communal learning environment, and promoting 

collaboration (Kurnaz et al., 2018; Tang & Hew, 2017). Since 2007 Twitter has been one of the top 

user-friendly tools adopted by educators (Tang & Hew, 2017). From an academic perspective, the 

challenge of posting one’s thoughts within a tight character limit of 140 or 280 requires students to 

hone their critical thinking skills while focusing on the discussion topic. A similar experience may be 

achieved through other social networking or in-house discussion tools, configured with post length 

limits. In-house discussion tools see students communicating within controlled networks while 

maintaining a stronger degree of privacy than open micro discussion tools. This additional security 

fosters students’ comfort and connectedness to others within the course. 

Asynchronous discussions present some challenges in higher education. The threads of conversations 

are sometimes difficult to navigate, as posts can be disjointed, disorganized, duplicated, and not 

directly related to the original thread. Discussion forums may further divide stronger students from 

weaker students (Chen et al., 2018). Massey et al. (2019) suggests students may feel judged by their 

peers based on their thoughts and quality of their post. This is particularly true for international 

students who report feeling insecure when speaking in class due to language barriers (Zhang & Kenny, 

2010). Lurking behavior, wherein students read others’ posts but do not fully participate in discussions 

(Alzahrani, 2017; Delahunty, 2018), could also amplify this divide. Such behavior can negatively affect 

discussion quality and others’ learning due to the reduced interaction between students. 

As with any educational technology, micro discussions may both positively and negatively impact 

student engagement and learning (Charbonneau-Gowdy & Chavez, 2019; Massey et al., 2019). While 

the 2017 increase in Tweet characters from 140 to 280 provided learners more space to share their 

thoughts (Rohr, Costello & Hawkins, 2018), it is not clear how group size impacts learners’ 

engagement and social presence when interacting through micro discussions.  

2.3.1 Group Size 

It has been suggested that group size affects social presence and engagement in online learning 

(Akcaoglu & Lee, 2015; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019; Qui & McDougall, 2015) where discussion forums 

and other collaborative asynchronous tools are integrated. Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) found that a 

structured discussion within a smaller group was more effective for supporting student engagement and 

learning, while a less structured discussion was more effective for a large group. Qui and McDougall 

(2015) suggest that students in larger groups do not participate or contribute as actively when compared 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

to smaller groups. Higher quality and more frequent posts were found to be associated with smaller 

sized groups, as well as increased demonstration of engagement and community (Qui & McDougall, 

2015). Akcaoglu and Lee (2016) echoed that increased connection, social presence, and feelings of 

community were found in smaller groups. In a survey they gave to students regarding the small 

discussion group size, one student reported, “it was easier for them to get to know one another, engage 

in deeper conversations, and think more deeply” (p 11). More recently, Chen and Liu (2020) noted a 

similar pattern of engagement when group size was around 30 students. Though, some may consider 30 

to be a large discussion group size. 

2.4 Research Focus 

In our study, we investigated whether group size affected students’ perceived learning, engagement and 

sense of community while using asynchronous micro discussions. We looked at survey results from 

three sections of a high enrolment first-year university course. With a focus on pedagogy, each 

section’s intentional course design and delivery were similar except for the teaching assistant assigned 

to each section and the members of the discussion groups, which were of different sizes, with 80, 40 or 

20 students in each section.  

 

3. Methods 

3.1 Research Model and Procedure 

This research used survey data collected anonymously from postsecondary students enrolled in an 

introductory course at a comprehensive, mid-sized university in Eastern Canada over two semesters. 

Although sought, it was determined by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research 

(IRB) that ethics clearance was not required for this evaluative project of an instructional intervention. 

The survey instrument was validated in a previous study (Rohr, Costello & Hawkins, 2018; Rohr, 

Costello & Squires, 2023). 

In Fall 2019 and Winter 2020, 234 and 224 undergraduate students, respectively, completed a first-year 

online course focused on fitness and wellness. This course is a popular elective, offering students an 

opportunity to explore factors that may influence overall wellness and learn to identify strategies to 

maintain and potentially improve their own health.  

3.2 Research Context and Sample 

Although open to all undergraduate students, first year students, with limited prior online learning 

experience, typically register for this course. As students self-selected to register for all elective courses, 

our sample was one of convenience. For the purposes of management and organization, students 

self-selected one of three sections offered in each semester, each capped at 80 students. On average, 

students were 21.8 years of age with the majority of students identifying as first or third year. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

To explore the impact of cohort size on engagement and social presence, sections of the courses were 

organized in varying group sizes using the Learning Management System (LMS) supported by the 

university. One section remained as a cohort of 80 students (G80), another was separated into two 

groups of 40 students (G40), and the final section into four groups of 20 students (G20). This grouping 

was always indiscernible to students. The students were auto assigned to the groups using features of 

the LMS. 

As part of the course requirements, students were asked to complete three discussion events, scheduled 

during weeks 6, 10 and 12 of each semester. The asynchronous micro discussion tool was developed 

in-house and was designed to emulate the experience of a Twitter chat. The tool was pilot-tested for its 

usability with experienced and unexperienced microbloggers. Refinements were made to it prior to 

deployment in the course. The tool was embedded in the course home page and secured within the 

LMS. Unlike Twitter, the discussions were closed to anyone not enrolled in the course. Each of the 

three discussion events had a topic or question to which students were required to first, complete an 

original post, and second, complete a response post to a comment made by another student in their 

group. Students were free to contribute more to the discussions if desired. Students were required to 

type their posts in a designated area and submit for group members to review, effectively limiting the 

discussions to their respective groups of 80, 40 or 20 peers. Events were graded using the same rubric 

for consistency and provision of expectations. Students received instructions on how to use the tool and 

the university learning support help desk provided assistance as requested.  

Topics for the three discussion events were tightly linked to course content following work of (Rohr, 

Costello & Hawkins, 2015). The first event asked students to comment on the results of a 

student-completed survey that explored students’ relationships with different aspects of wellness. 

Survey aggregate data was posted, and students were specifically asked to link survey results to course 

content to complete their assignment. In the second discussion event, students were asked to share a 

recent (12-month-old or less) news story, related to course concepts of health and wellness. Students 

were asked to reflect critically on the news source and again link the story to course materials in their 

post. For the final discussion event, students were asked to reflect on the information they had learned 

from both monitoring their mood throughout the semester and reviewing course material. Specifically, 

students were asked to comment on how daily life events and daily routines effected their mood and to 

highlight any activities or thought processes, or both, that have positively impacted their mood. Students 

were also encouraged to share tips for improving mental health and wellbeing or comment on things to be 

aware of when observing friends and family members’ low moods, or both. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.3 Instrument Used 

An anonymous survey was administered in the final two weeks of each semester, through the LMS’s 

survey tool to all three course sections. The questions were developed based on existing literature, our 

research questions, and our earlier work on engagement in online learning environments (Rohr, 

Costello & Hawkins, 2018; Rohr, Costello & Squires, 2023; Rohr, Squires & Peters, 2022). All 

students were invited to complete the 24-question survey, containing almost exclusively close-ended 

questions, with one final open-ended comment question. The primary focus of the survey was to assess 

students’ experiences with the asynchronous micro discussion tool during the semester: Did students 

use the tool? Did the asynchronous micro discussion tool encourage interactions and engagement in 

learning, and did it contribute to a sense of community in the online environment?  

3.4 Data Analysis 

The post-semester survey covered a range of topics including feelings of belonging, sense of 

community, engagement in learning, and the use of the discussion technology. The results from two 

course offerings (six sections) are combined and presented here. For each of the areas under 

investigation, community, engagement in learning, and technology, the results are presented in tabular 

format, per section. Novel or key findings are highlighted. Student responses to the open-ended 

question are also presented, where novel or contradictory to the close-ended questions’ responses were 

found.  

 

4. Results 

Survey responses were received from 185 students, out of a possible 458; 99 from the fall semester and 

86 from the winter. This equates to a 40.4% response rate. From fall 2019 responses received per 

section were 26 from G80, 41 from G40 and 32 from G20. Winter 2020 received 26 from G80, 31 from 

G40, and 29 from G20. Although it was embedded in the course requirements, not all students 

participated in all three discussion events (G80, 74%; G40, 61%; and G20, 50%), with two out of three 

events being the next highly reported (G80, 18%; G40, 28%; and G20, 30%). No details about 

student’s ethnicity, gender identity or other demographic information was available or requested. 

4.1 Community 

Three survey questions focused on students’ perceptions of the sense of community stemming from 

their interactions within the discussion tool found in their respective sections. Results of these 

questions are shown in Table 1. Some findings of note are discussed here.  

In response to the question regarding feeling a sense of community, G80 reported the highest result for 

feeling “really connected”, and feeling “connected with a few individuals”, compared to G40 and G20. 

Fewer respondents indicated they did not feel connected to their classmates, but it would have been 

nice to feel connection when compared to those who felt some degree of connection. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

When students were asked how the discussion tool use compared to other online courses in terms a 

creating a sense of community and belonging, the results were similar across the groups. While some 

students reported feeling more connected in this course, most students across all three sections reported 

feeling the same degree of connectedness in this course as others. Small percentages, (G80, 6%; G40, 

21%; and G20, 22%), reported feeling less connected in this course than other online courses.  

Students were asked if they felt the use of the discussion tool helped bring them closer to their 

classmates. The majority (see Table 1) responded “no”. However, the written feedback reflected some 

positive experiences. One student responded, 

“I feel that the discussion events in […] allowed us students, as a class, to connect with 

one another and gave us a place to share our thoughts and opinions about the course 

material.” (Student P) 

 

Table 1. Percentages of Responses Regarding Sense of Community 

Question Focus Options provided G80 G40 G20 

feeling a sense of community as a 

result of the discussion tool use 

really connected 20 14 19 

feeling connected with a few 

individuals 
43 27 24 

did not feel connected to their 

classmates but it would have been 

nice  

24 31 36 

means to an end-communications and 

grades, period 
14 27 22 

how the discussion tool compares to 

other online courses in terms a 

creating a sense of community and 

belonging 

more connected 22 23 25 

the same degree of connectedness  57 40 44 

feeling less connected  6 21 22 

not applicable 16 16 8 

use of the discussion tool helped 

bring them closer to their 

classmates 

yes 49 42 39 

no 
51 58 61 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.2 Engagement in Learning 

Seven survey questions focused on students’ experience of engagement in learning. The results, shown 

in Table 2, show combined responses for strongly agree and agree, or strongly disagree and disagree.  

Overall, in terms of learning and understanding the course material, students reported gaining a 

stronger understanding of course material using the discussion tool. When asked whether the discussion 

events enhanced understanding of the course material, most students strongly agreed or agreed (G80, 

88%; G40, 64%; G20, 74%).  

While some students indicated they hoped they did not have to use the tool in another course, others 

indicated they wished more classes would integrate the discussion tool into course activities (G80, 64%; 

G40, 56%; and G20, 63%). Students were in favor of using the discussion tool as part of the course 

requirements (evaluation) with results (G80, 69%; G40, 54%; and G20, 64%) showing agreement.  

Students agreed the discussion events required a reasonable effort for the value of the assigned grade 

(G80, 82%; G40, 85%; and G20, 80%). Further, students indicated the discussion tool helped them 

engage more with real life examples and strongly agreed that the discussion event encouraged them to 

read the news and learn about current events in a way that they would not have otherwise (G80, 81%; 

G40, 67%, and G20, 67%). One student responded,  

“It created an informal environment to comfortably share thoughts and feelings as they 

related to course material.” (Student R) 

Discussion events were one aspect of assessment in the course. Students were asked how these events 

compared to in-class assignments in terms of workload. Though marginally, most students selected 

“less work” (G80, 62%; G40, 48%; and G20, 50%). Another student commented, 

“This was my first experience with this type of discussion tool and I really, really enjoyed 

it! I hope this type of tool is added to other online courses!!” (Student E) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 2. Percentages of Responses Regarding Engagement in Learning 

Question Focus Options provided G80 G40 G20 

if the discussion events enhanced understanding of 

the course material 

agree 88 64 74 

disagree 12 36 26 

if they would like to have other courses use the 

discussion in course activities 

agree 64 56 62 

disagree 36 44 38 

if they hoped they did not have to use the tool in 

another course 

agree 31 45 46 

disagree 69 55 54 

use of the tool helped them to understand the course 

material better 

agree 88 65 71 

disagree 12 35 29 

encouraged them to read the news and current events 

more actively 

agree 81 67 67 

disagree 19 33 33 

discussion events required a reasonable effort for 

value of assignment grade 

agree 82 85 80 

disagree 18 15 20 

how discussion events compared to in-class 

assignments 

more work 0 4 7 

about the same 30 39 32 

less work 62 48 50 

I don’t know 8 23 8 

 

4.3 Asynchronous Discussion Technology 

Four questions focused on students’ experience in using the discussion tool. The results are shown in 

Table 3. Some findings of note follow.  

Most students in each group agreed or strongly agreed that the discussion was a straightforward way to 

use information learned from class (G80, 92%; G40, 75%; and G20, 81%). Students’ thoughts on 

whether more classes should integrate discussions into course evaluations indicated high levels of 

agreement (G80, 69%; G40, 54%; G20, 64%). When compared to use of discussion forums in other 

online courses, students liked the discussion tool better or about the same (G80, 30%; G40, 43%; and 

G20, 38%). However, one-fifth, to one-quarter of the students could not say, as they had not 

participated in asynchronous discussions in other courses (G80, 8%; G40, 23%; and G20, 8%). 

When asked about communication challenges with the discussion tool, few students reported trouble 

with communicating through the tool. Some students reported having technological issues such as with 

hardware or their computer while other students reported having issues using the tool due to 

inexperience. In all groups, students identified “not having enough characters to express their thoughts” 

as the main issue in using the discussion tool (G80, 39%; G40, 38%; G20, 31%). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

When asked to select responses from a list of 12 options provided in relation to what they felt the 

discussion provided, students top responses included: interaction with classmates (G80, 12%; G40, 

15%; and G20, 13%), engagement with real-life examples (G80, 12%; G40, 14%; and G20, 13%), 

engagement with course material (G80, 12%; G40, 11%; and G20, 11%), a way to show my 

understanding of course material (G80, 13%; G40, 11%; and G20, 12%), and greater course 

participation (G80, 11%; G40, 10%; and G20, 11%). Responses to both interaction with the course 

instructor and the course did not promote any interaction were selected two percent or less of the time 

in all sections.  

Students were asked an open-ended question to provide final feedback on their experience with the 

discussion tool. The comments were broken down into themes, of which 12 were identified. G20 

students reported the most trouble with technology (G80, 25%; G40, 24%; and G20, 39%). One 

student’s response in relation to technological difficulties was, 

“I feel that it is a good concept, however, the technology used for it could have been 

better. Sometimes it can be slow, glitchy, and difficult to post. I only tried it on my laptop 

but I feel that it would likely be more difficult on a cell phone, if someone had to do that.” 

(Student K) 

Other suggestions noted by the G20 students included: the character limit was too small, they received 

a poor grade, they had difficulty finding the tool, and that notifications could be helpful. G80, the larger 

group size, reported having a good experience with no major issues (45%), whereas notably fewer 

students in the other two, smaller group-sized sections (G40, 22%; and G20, 6%) reported having a 

good experience with no major issues. In relation to the word count, one student’s feedback was, 

“The character limit did help in writing critically; however, it took me a great deal of time 

to try to word my post in fewer words while still getting my message across. I would 

spend a few hours just trying to refine my post, which makes me feel like perhaps they 

should be worth more.” (Student N) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 3. Percentages of Responses Regarding Technology Used 

Question Focus Options provided G80 G40 G20 

wish more classes would integrate 

discussions in course evaluation 

agree 69 54 64 

disagree 21 46 36 

events were a straightforward 

method to use information gained in 

class 

agree 92 75 81 

disagree 8 25 19 

sorts of issues, if any, experienced 

when using the discussion tool for 

the course 

I had no issues. 27 14 21 

I had issues with the character 

limitation of the discussion tool 
39 38 31 

I had software issues (first time using 

the discussion tool, etc.) 
14 28 26 

I had technology issues (hardware, 

computers, phone, etc.) 
20 20 23 

how discussion event compared to 

discussion forums in other online 

courses 

I like them better than discussion 

forum activities 
35 31 24 

I like them about the same than 

discussion forum activities 
25 24 22 

I like them less than discussion forum 

activities 
14 24 36 

I cannot say as I’ve never used the 

discussion forum in a course before 
25 20 19 

 

5. Discussion 

Participation among students is central to building connection in the online learning environment. 

Palloff and Pratt (1999) state, “without the support and participation of a learning community, there is 

no online course” (p. 29). 

In terms of engagement, community, and tool usability, the largest group, G80, responded more 

favorably, though not substantially so, in the majority of categories including feeling more connected to 

classmates, having fewer issues with the technology, and gaining a better understanding the course 

material. Interestingly, this contrasts Chen et al. (2018) who suggest smaller groups help facilitate 

discussion among students and Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) who demonstrated that larger and therefore, 

more unstructured groups were supportive of learning outcomes, but not necessarily student 

engagement or building community. Interestingly however, Luo et al. (2023) noted group sizes of 

approximately 38 students demonstrated enhanced student interaction compared to groups with three 

students.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

While many of our results mirror others (Amry, 2018; Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018; Delahunty, 2018; 

Jones-Roberts, 2018; Lou et al., 2023; Massey et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2018; West et al., 2015), a 

few were in notable contrast (Akcaoglua & Lee, 2016; Chen et al., 2018; Peddibhotla & Jani, 2019; 

Qui & McDougal, 2015). The discussion section is organized by the three primary points of interest: 

community, engagement in learning, and technology.  

5.1 Community 

Classroom and community connection received roughly half the responses to questions relating to 

community and connection, with feeling connected to other students being a top theme. This may be 

due to students’ interpretation of the term posed in the question; “interaction” versus “connection”. It is 

important to note the difference between “community”, and “engagement”, as students can be engaged 

and continue to learn, but not necessarily feel part of a community, or vice versa. Students felt the 

online discussion tool promoted interaction between peers, but not with instructors. Although the 

instructor accessed the discussion forum and was able to interact, there was very limited instructor 

contribution to the micro discussion. Intentional instructor interaction may be a key for community 

building (Chen et al., 2018). Furthermore, Peddibhotla and Jani (2019) demonstrated that larger and 

therefore, more unstructured groups were supportive of learning outcomes, but not necessarily student 

engagement or building community.  

Sixty-one percent of students in G20 responded “no”, when asked if the discussion tool brought them 

closer to their classmates. This aligns with Luo et al. (2023) who found that group sizes of 

approximately 38 students demonstrated enhanced student interaction compared to groups with three 

students. However, when asked what value the discussions provided, students indicated interaction 

with classmates (G80, 12%; G40, 15%; and G20, 13%). These findings are in alignment with most of 

the literature (Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018; Delahunty, 2018; Jones-Roberts, 2018; Kurnaz et al., 2018; 

West et al., 2015) that explores social connection and asynchronous discussions. Our results reinforce 

that the technological piece worked well; students were able to use the tool effectively, learn the course 

content and interact with one another. Where the data showed lower values was how the asynchronous 

micro discussion tool supported and influenced a sense of community among students. It has been 

generally supported that discussions enhance feelings of community and connection among students 

(Delahunty, 2018; Jones-Roberts, 2018; Wang, 2019), however, this was not reflected in our results. 

When compared to other online courses students undertook at this university, it was found that most 

students in all groups experienced approximately the same level of connectedness as within this course. 

Further exploration of the type and amount of interaction may reveal more about the sense and strength 

of community in a higher education online course. This is an area of potential further research. 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

5.2 Engagement in Learning 

Overall, in terms of learning and comprehending course material, students reported feeling they gained 

a stronger understanding of course concepts through use of the discussion tool, similar to Alzahrani 

(2017). Other researchers echoed this (Chen et al., 2018; Massey et al., 2019; West et al., 2015), by 

demonstrating that participation in online discussion tools enhanced learning and understanding of 

course material. 

Students in G80 indicated that the discussion tool provided greater course participation, overall, 

aligning with Amry (2018) who suggests that discussion tools can help enhance students’ learning 

through self-guided and self-motivated research and interaction, as well as a flexible learning 

environment that encourages students to take responsibility of their learning experience. This strategy 

was reflected in the course’s learning design. Similarly, Massey et al. (2019) found that students who 

participated in discussions felt encouraged to engage with peers as well as the material; resulting in 

enhanced interactions among peers and learning. Previous literature reported similar results 

(Baisley-Nodine et al., 2018; Delahunty, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2019; West et al., 2015). To increase 

engagement further, and to provide a better understanding of course outcomes, using a rubric and 

providing clear descriptions of assessment requirements when using an online discussion tool are 

needed for students to fully understand expectations (Massey et al., 2019); both of which were 

incorporated into this course’s design. 

5.3 Asynchronous Discussion Technology 

Students in all sections reported having varying degrees of technological difficulty, with significantly 

more complaints related to technological issues from the smallest group, G20 (39%). We are unable to 

explain this finding as group assignments were randomized by the LMS. Additionally, the survey did 

not define “difficulty with technology” which could have included challenges resulting from their 

devices, poor browser choice, the LMS or something else entirely.  

In their work, Niinivaara and Vaattovaara (2018) investigated technological challenges with discussion 

tools and confirmed students’ concerns included poor usability and a lack of tool understanding. Both 

complaints surfaced from students in all sections of the courses we investigated. Similarly, Massey et al. 

(2019) found students’ uncertainty around discussion tool use fostered disengagement, primarily due to 

lack of understanding or technological knowledge, as well as privacy concerns of the platform. They 

suggested tutorials might be an effective way to help bridge this gap for many students. While we 

provided instructions on how to use the discussion tools in the events, it is possible that some students 

did not refer to them when they encountered technological challenges.  

Many responses from our students, in all groups, voiced frustrations or concerns with the shorter 

character limit imposed with the discussion tool (280 characters), stating they were unable to fully 

express their thoughts and ideas with this constraint. Some students suggested using multiple posts to 

enhance communication, aligning with Tang and Hew (2017) where students reported the 

140-character limit was too short, limiting their opportunity to create in-depth posts and therefore 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

leading to misinterpretations and poor communication. Based on our data it is difficult to suggest an 

optimal character limit for micro discussion posts. Further inquiry about the specifics of character 

length optimization may be an area of future study. 

5.4 Implications  

The implications of this study relate to how asynchronous micro discussions are used in high enrolment 

undergraduate courses. Consideration for carefully designed intentional learning activities and 

assessments in a course’s design is paramount. Discussions need to be driven by the course learning 

outcomes. Micro discussions may be a way to increase and maintain connection, build community and 

foster engagement in learning. Smaller discussion groups respond well to structured discussions that 

involve instructor interaction. When larger groups are used for discussions, they should be loosely 

structured. Here, the instructor should take on a primarily observer role, interjecting to keep the 

discussion on track or clarify misunderstandings. Clear explanations of activities and expectations of 

participation, including assessment grading, must be explicitly stated. Selection of asynchronous 

discussion technologies should take into consideration the affordances the technology offers and desire 

to use an open or public tool versus a restricted or course-only discussion space. Consideration of the 

value of restricting students’ responses versus the development of critical thinking skills and 

disposition should be weighed. Potential rewards for thoughtful course design may reveal students who 

take responsibility for their learning, engagement in real-world activities, and provide opportunities for 

students to hone critical thinking through data analysis, introspection and concise reporting of results.  

5.5 Limitations and Future Research  

One limitation relates to the lack of demographic data gathered from participants. Convenience 

sampling was used wherein all students enrolled in the course were invited to participate in the survey. 

As we did not collect details about student’s ethnicity, gender identity or other demographic 

information, we were unable to analyze our results in relation to any of these factors. By consequence, 

without additional demographic data, we are restricted from generalizing the results beyond the 

introductory, online, high enrolment post-secondary environment. However, our focus did not include 

differentiating results based on demographic information, so its absence is less significant in this 

reporting. As the world evolves in its understanding of gender, it begs the question of whether bi-lateral 

gender-related differences in research remain relevant.  

Potential future research could focus on interaction type and community and character limits. For 

example, the relationship between interaction type in asynchronous micro discussions and its 

connection or prediction about the sense and strength of community in adult learning online courses is 

of interest. Here, students felt more engaged in their learning and connected to their peers, but did not 

feel a strong sense of community. Therefore, the relationship between community and engagement 

needs further exploration. Distinguishing between connection, cohesion and community could be 

explored more fully to determine which aspect is most at play in micro discussions and which more 

closely influences engagement in learning. Another area needing more study is determining the optimal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

group size to build community and provide engaged learning when using asynchronous micro 

discussions in online courses. This is an area which hails varying results in the literature. In other 

words, how small does a discussion group need to be to foster a sense of community while 

strengthening student engagement in learning? To this could be added the question of how frequent and 

of what nature should the group interaction be to best foster community.  

 

6. Conclusion 

This paper reported on a comparison of three course sections over two semesters, each with different 

discussion group sizes to determine whether and how asynchronous micro discussions affected 

students’ sense of community and engagement in learning in an introductory university course. 

Findings echoed others’ results relating to the impact of group size on sense of community, 

engagement in learning and use of asynchronous discussions in higher education (Qui & McDougall, 

2015; Luo et al., 2023). A notable result, little reported in the literature, was that our data reinforced 

that larger groups. In this instance a group size of 80 students, had the greatest positive impact on 

community and engagement compared to the smaller groups. Regardless of discussion tool type, be it a 

typical discussion forum with 300+ characters or a micro discussion tool with lower character limits 

(140 or 280+), student experiences are generally similar. These experiences ranged from enjoying and 

finding the activity interesting; technical issues that impeded discussion; the need for clear expectations 

to improve the likelihood of successful, appreciation of engaging discussion and co-creation of 

knowledge; and to the need to share of oneself and engage in supportive interaction with peers to foster 

a positive sense of belonging (connection) and community. These results emphasize the importance of 

pedagogical or instructional (learning) design, including clear instructions and expectations, degree of 

instructor participation in active discussions, mechanisms that foster student responsibility for their 

learning through active participation and collaboration, and learning to reflect on the opinions of others 

in micro discussions.  

Overall, the asynchronous micro discussion tool was generally effective in facilitating student 

interaction and engagement with course material in large groups. While students felt more engaged 

with and connected to their peers this did not, however, translate into a strong sense of community. It 

may be reasonable to say that community was burgeoning. Larger sized groups with structured activity 

and minimal instructor interaction seemed to exhibit stronger engagement in learning.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group 

discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 1-17. 

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293 

Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: Implications 

on teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 8(8), 49-56. 

Alzahrani, M. (2017). The effect of using online discussion forums on students learning. The Turkish 

Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 164-176. 

Amry, A. (2018). The effect of Twitter activities in a blended learning classroom guided by activity 

theory on students’ achievement and attitudes. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational 

Technology, 17(2), 143-157. 

Baisley-Nodine, E., Ritzhaupt, A., & Antonenko, P. (2018). Exploring social presence within an online 

course using Twitter. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(5), 235-253. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018786004 

Busselli, A. A., Holdan, E. G., & Rota, D. R. (2023). Chapter 30: Applying Twitter as an educational tool 

for concept learning and engaging students. In I. M. Association (Ed.), Research Anthology on 

Applying Social Networking Strategies to Classrooms and Libraries (pp. 545-557). IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7123-4.ch030 

Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., & Chavez, J. (2019). 3M Model for uncovering the impact of multi-level 

identity issues on learners’ social interactive engagement online. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 

17(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.2.06 

Chen, B., Chang, Y., Ouyang, F., & Zhou, W. (2018). Fostering student engagement in online discussion 

through social learning analytics. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 21-30. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002 

Chen., L. T., & Liu, L. (2020). Social presence in multidimensional online discussion: The roles of group 

size and requirements for discussion. Computers in the Schools, 37(2), 116-140. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1756648 

Coates, H. (2006). Student Engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. 

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969465 

Delahunty, J. (2018). Connecting to learn, learning to connect: Thinking together in asynchronous forum 

discussion. Linguistics Education, 46, 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003 

Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The 

relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The 

Internet and Higher Education, 43, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692 

Jan, S., & Vlachopoulous, P. (2018). Influence of learning design of the formation of online communities 

of learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4). 

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3620 

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018786004
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7123-4.ch030
https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.2.06
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002
https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1756648
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969465
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3620


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Jones-Roberts, C. (2018). Increasing social presence online: Five strategies for instructors. Distance 

Learning, 15(2), 47-50. 

Korhonen, V., Mattsson, M., Inkinen, M., & Toom, A. (2019). Understanding the multidimensional 

nature of student engagement during the first year of higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 

1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01056 

Koszalka, T., Pavlov, Y., & Wu, Y. (2021). The informed use of pre-work activities in collaborative 

asynchronous online discussions: The exploration of idea exchange, content focus, and deep 

learning. Computers & Education, 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104067 

Kurnaz, F. B., Ergun, E., & Hgaz, H. (2018). Participation in online discussion environments: Is it really 

effective? Educational Information Technology, 23(4), 1719-1736. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9688-4 

Lockee, B. (2021). Online education in the post-covid era. Nature Electronics, 4(1), 5-6. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0 

Luo, H., Chen, Y., Chen, T., Koszalka, T., & Feng, Q. (2023). Impact of role assignment and group size 

on asynchronous online discussion: An experimental study. Computers & Education, 192. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104658 

Massey, D., Johnston, A. N. B., Byrne, J. H., & Osborne, D. M. (2019). The digital age: A scoping 

review of nursing students’ perceptions of the use of online discussion boards. Nurse Education 

Today, 81, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.013 

Niinivaara, J., & Vaattovaara, J. (2018). Learners’ and teachers’ voices in developing digital language 

learning environments: Insights from a survey. CercleS, 8(1), 133-156. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0007 

Osborne, D. M., Byrne, J. H., Massey, D. L., & Johnston, A. N. B. (2018). Use of online asynchronous 

discussion boards to engage students, enhance critical thinking, and foster staff-student 

collaboration: A mixed method study. Nurse Education Today, (70), 40-46. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.014 

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for 

the online classroom. Jossey-Bass. 

Peddibhotla, N., & Jani, A. (2019). How group size and structure of online discussion forums influence 

student engagement and learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(2), 225-254. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519877614 

Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2015). Influence of group configuration on online discourse reading. 

Computers & Education, 87(1), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.006 

Rohr, L. E., Costello, J., & Hawkins, T. (2015). Design Considerations for Integrating Twitter into an 

Online Course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 241-249. 

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2376 

 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01056
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104067
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9688-4
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104658
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.013
https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2018-0007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.014
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519877614
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.006
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2376


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 5, No. 1, 2024 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Rohr, L. E., Costello, J., & Hawkins, T. (2018). Does an increased character limit increase social 

presence and engagement in online learning? Paper presented at COHERE2018 Conference: 

Higher Education Reform in light of Blended & Online Learning, Université Laval, Quebec City, 

PQ. 

Rohr, L. E., Costello, J., & Squires, L. (2023). Exploring students’ Twitter use in the online classroom 

across 4 years. E-Learning and Digital Media, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231167644 

Rohr, L. E., Squires, L., & Peters, A. (2022). Examining the use of Twitter in online classes: Can Twitter 

improve interaction and engagement? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and 

Learning, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.10892 

Ronto, R., Bhatti, A., & Chau, J. (2021). The use of Twitter as an interactive learning tool within a 

postgraduate public health course: A pilot study. Pedagogy in Health Promotion. The Scholarship of 

Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379920978429 

Sarja, A., Janhonen, S., Havukainen, P., & Vesterinen, A. (2018). Towards practical reflexivity in online 

discussion groups. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 342-359. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1391197 

Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2017). Using Twitter for education: Beneficial or simply a waste of time? 

Computers & Education, 106, 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language (newly revised, translated, and edited by A. Kozulin). 

MIT Press. 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, 

V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. 

Wang, Y. (2019). Enhancing the quality of online discussion- assessment matters. Journal of 

Educational Technology Systems, 41(1), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519861416 

West, B., Moore, H., & Barry, B. (2015). Beyond the tweet: Using Twitter to enhance engagement, 

learning, and success among first-year students. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3), 160-170. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315586061 

Woods, K., Gomez, M., & Grandson Arnold, M. (2023). Chapter 3: Using social media as a tool for 

learning in higher education. In I. M. Association (Ed.), Research Anthology on Applying Social 

Networking Strategies to Classrooms and Libraries (pp. 35-49). IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7123-4.ch003 

Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. F. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three 

international students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 

11(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.775 

 

 

  

https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530231167644
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2022.1.10892
https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379920978429
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1391197
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519861416
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315586061
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7123-4.ch003
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.775

