Fostering Higher Levels of Learning Using Diverse Instructional Strategies with Internet Communication Tools



This chapter provides an evidence-based overview of pedagogical strategies that facilitate active and engaged learning through the use of diverse and innovative instructional strategies using text-based Internet communication tools. Research has shown that some pedagogical interventions can be effective at achieving higher levels of learning and thinking in using Internet communication tools. Pedagogical interventions explored in this chapter include the following instructional methods: debates, invited guests, reflective deliberation, webquests, and nominal group technique – all using text-based Internet group communication tools. The results drawn from this study reveal that webquests and debates are the most effective pedagogical interventions at moving students toward achieving higher levels of learning.


Pedagogical Intervention Ecological Validity Instructional Method Progressive Pedagogy Nominal Group Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Aviv, G. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email. How written English evolved and where it’s heading. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson, B. (1954). Content analysis. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology: Theory and method (Vol. 1, pp. 488–522). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, R. M., de Rubalcava, B. R., & St-Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based Instruction (pp. 167–178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books.Google Scholar
  9. Collett, D., Kanuka, H., Blanchette, J., & Goodale, C. (1999). Learning technologies in distance education. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  10. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. de Castell, S., Bryson, M., & Jenson, J. (2002). Object lessons: Towards an educational theory of technology. First Monday, 7(1). Retrieved August 5, 2005, from
  12. Dodge, B. (1995, 1997). Some thoughts about Webquests. Retrieved January 5, 2004, from
  13. Fahy, P. J., Crawford, G., Ally, M., Cookson, P., Keller, V., & Prosser, F. (2000). The development and testing of a tool for analysis of computer mediated conferencing transcripts. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 85–88.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 1–19.Google Scholar
  16. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.Google Scholar
  17. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunawardena, C., Carabajal, K., & Lowe, C. A. (2001). Critical analysis of models and methods used to evaluate online learning networks. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456159).Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, E., & Feenberg, A. (2005). The technical codes of online education. Techné, 9 (1), 97-123.Google Scholar
  20. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone. Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Kanuka, H. (2005). An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based Internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(3). Retrieved August 5, 2005, from
  23. Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). On-line social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  24. Kanuka, H., & Kreber, C. (1999). Knowledge construction in the virtual classroom. Proceedings of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education, June, 1999, Sherbrooke, Quebec.Google Scholar
  25. Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirkwook, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Kvalseth, T. O. (1989). Note on Cohen’s Kappa. Psychological Reports, 65, 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lacey, C. A., & Merseth, K. K. (1993). Cases, hypermedia and computer networks: Three curricular innovations for teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(6), 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.Google Scholar
  31. Lanza, A. (1991). Some guidelines for the design of effective hypercourses. Educational Technology, 31(10), 18–22.Google Scholar
  32. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marra, R. M., Moore, J. L., & Klimczak, A. K. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002), Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  36. Paulsen, M. F. (1995). Online report on pedagogical techniques for computer-mediated communication. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from
  37. Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. -F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119–140. [online]. Retrieved December 16, 2003, from Scholar
  38. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Renner, P. (1999). The art of teaching adults: How to become an exceptional instructor and facilitator. Vancouver, BC: The Training Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Rourke, L. (2005). Learning Through Online Discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta.Google Scholar
  42. Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14(21), 50–71.Google Scholar
  44. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating. The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  45. Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R. A. (1989). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.Google Scholar
  47. Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 227–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning with incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2005). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discussion. Special studies of the ACT Lab. Vancouver, BC: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  52. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation reason and order versus deindividuation impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations