Passive Participation in Collaborative Online Learning Activities: A Scoping Review of Research in Formal School Learning Settings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3414Keywords:
passive participation, lurking, peripheral participation, free riding, scoping review, online collaborative learning activities, formal learning, school settingAbstract
This scoping review summarizes studies on passive participation in collaborative online learning activities that used computer-mediated communication tools in school settings. A total of 42 articles spanning about 20 years were explored. ERIC and three main journal indexes from Web of Science were used to locate articles. For each year searched, there were only one to five studies that investigated passive participation, indicating that not many researchers have examined this topic in general. Most studies used mixed methods and were conducted in higher education settings in asynchronous online discussions. Three terms have been used to discuss the notion of passive participation: lurking for read-only behavior, legitimate peripheral participation for low contribution, and free riding for no contribution. Studies on passive participation have mainly explored four topical areas: motivational factors and reasons, participation types and behavioral patterns, effect on learning outcomes, and pedagogical strategies for de-lurking. Most studies have investigated passive participation as one of the behavior patterns among various types of participation. A few studies have solely examined read-only behaviors. The notion of passive participation varies among researchers and should therefore be redefined. Overall, there have been few studies on the topic of passive participation and those that have been conducted reveal some inconsistencies in their findings, indicating the topic requires further investigation. Future studies on this topic are urgently needed due to the forced shift to online courses precipitated by the pandemic. While instructors are also responsible for supporting their learners in this unprecedented context, researchers should investigate ways to help instructors better understand passive participants and encourage active learner participation in collaborative online learning space.
References
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
*Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6
*Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2021). Writing private and shared annotations and lurking in Annoto hyper-video in academia: Insights from learning analytics, content analysis, and interviews with lecturers and students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 763-786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09984-5
Boateng, R., Mbarika, V., & Thomas, C. (2010). When web 2.0 becomes an organizational learning tool: Evaluating web 2.0 tools. Development and Learning in Organizations, 24(3), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281011037254
Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bonk, C. J., Wisher, R. A., & Lee, J. (2003). Moderating learner-centered e-learning: Problems and solutions, benefits and implications. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 54-85). Idea Group Publishing.
*Carr, T., Cox, L., Eden, N., & Hanslo, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00381.x
*Chen, C. M., Li, M. C., & Liao, C. K. (2022). Developing a collaborative writing system with visualization interaction network analysis to facilitate online learning performance. Interactive Learning Environments. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2028851
*Chen, F. C., & Chang, H. M. (2011). Do lurking learners contribute less? A knowledge co-construction perspective. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1145/2103354.2103377
Choi, H., Arslan, Ö., Adolfson, D, & Screws, B. (2021). The international other in online learning: Four stories from a graduate program. In Paul G. Nixon & V. Dennen (Eds.), Reshaping international teaching and learning in higher education: Universities in the Information (pp. 151-167). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429278075
*Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Invisible motivation of online adult learners during contract learning. Journal of Educators Online, 4(1), 1-22. https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2007_4_1/chyung
*Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624-1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003
Dennen, V. P. (2011). Facilitator presence and identity in online discourse: Use of positioning theory as an analytic framework. Instructional Science, 39(4), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9139-0
*Ebner, M., Holzinger, A., & Catarci, T. (2005). Lurking: An underestimated human-computer phenomenon. IEEE MultiMedia, 12(4), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2005.74
*El Massah, S. S. (2018). Addressing free riders in collaborative group work. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(7), 1223–1244. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-01-2017-0012
*Ghadirian, H., Fauzi Mohd Ayub, A., & Salehi, K. (2018). Students’ perceptions of online discussions, participation and e-moderation behaviours in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2017.1380695
*Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.712
*Guldberg, K. (2008). Adult learners and professional development: Peer-to-peer learning in a networked community. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701803591
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Handoko, E., Gronseth, S. L., McNeil, S. G., Bonk, C. J., & Robin, B. R. (2019). Goal setting and MOOC completion: A study on the role of self-regulated learning in student performance in massive open online courses. The International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4270
Hensley, L. C., Iaconelli, R., & Wolters, C. A. (2022). “This weird time we’re in”: How a sudden change to remote education impacted college students’ self-regulated learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S203-S218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1916414
Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L., & Koutropoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the periphery: Lurkers as invisible learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0012
Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2014). Excluded and avoided: Racial microaggressions targeting Asian international students in Canada. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035404
Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005
*Jones, D., Lotz, N., & Holden, G. (2021). A longitudinal study of virtual design studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(4), 839–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09576-z
*Kim, M., & Cavas, B. (2013). Legitimate peripheral participation of pre-service science teachers: Collaborative reflections in an online community of practice, Twitter. Science Education International, 24(3), 306-323. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1022310.pdf
*Kim, M. K., & Ketenci, T. (2019). Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.02.002
Koutropoulos, A., Honeychurch, S., & Singh, L. (2019). Rethinking lurking. eLearn, 2019(5). https://doi: 10.1145/3329488.3331169
*Küçük, M. (2010). Lurking in online asynchronous discussion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2260–2263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.319
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
*Mazuro, C., & Rao, N. (2011). Online discussion forums in higher education: Is ‘lurking’ working? International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(2), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2011.0051
*Mikum, S., Suksakulchai, S., Chaisanit, S., & Murphy, E. (2018). Students’ participation in peer-to-peer communication supported by social media. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9628-8
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649109526758
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
*Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701501028
Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), 294. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/294/
*Norman, H., Nordin, N., Din, R., Ally, M., & Dogan, H. (2015). Exploring the roles of social participation in mobile social media learning: A social network analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(4), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2124
*O'Bannon, B. W., Beard, J. L., & Britt, V. G. (2013). Using a Facebook group as an educational tool: Effects on student achievement. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.805972
Oh, E. G., Huang, W. H. D., Hedayati Mehdiabadi, A., & Ju, B. (2018). Facilitating critical thinking in asynchronous online discussion: Comparison between peer-and instructor-redirection. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9180-6
*Orton-Johnson, K. (2008). The online student: Lurking, chatting, flaming and joking. Sociological Research Online, 12(6), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1615
*Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. H. (2019). The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12647
*Ouyang, F., Chen, S., & Li, X. (2021). Effect of three network visualizations on students’ social‐cognitive engagement in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2242–2262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13126
*Öztok, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing the pedagogical value of student facilitation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.817440
*Palmer, S., Holt, D., & Bray, S. (2008). Does the discussion help? The impact of a formally assessed online discussion on final student results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00780.x
*Park, J. 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
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
Phirangee, K., & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: An examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Education, 38(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
Popovac, M., & Fullwood, C. (2018). The psychology of online lurking. In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology. Oxford University Press. http://doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.013.18
*Prestridge, S., & Cox, D. (2021). Play like a team in teams: A typology of online cognitive-social learning engagement. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787421990986
*Rubio, F., Thomas, J. M., & Li, Q. (2018). The role of teaching presence and student participation in Spanish blended courses. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 226–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1372481
*Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.8.1.54
*Ruthotto, I., Kreth, Q., Stevens, J., Trively, C., & Melkers, J. (2020). Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education, 151, 103854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103854
*Soroka, V., & Rafaeli, S. (2006). Invisible participants: How cultural capital relates to lurking behavior. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, 163-172. http://www2006.thewebconf.org/programme/files/pdf/1018.pdf
*Srba, I., Savic, M., Bielikova, M., Ivanovic, M., & Pautasso, C. (2019). Employing community question answering for online discussions in university courses: Students’ perspective. Computers and Education, 135, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.017
*Tsai, A., Burrell, M. H., Sturm, S., & Garbett, D. (2021). Rethinking the carrot and the stick: A case study of non-grade-bearing learning activities to enhance students’ engagement and achievement. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56, 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00197-1
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
*Wijekumar, K. K., & Spielvogel, J. (2006). Intelligent discussion boards: Promoting deep conversations in asynchronous discussion boards through synchronous support. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740610674229
Williams, B. (2004). Participation in on-line courses – how essential is it? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 1–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.7.2.1
*Wilton, L. (2018). Quiet participation: Investigating non-posting activities in online learning. Online Learning, 22(4), 65-88. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1518
Wise, A. F., Hausknecht, S. N., & Zhao, Y. (2013). Relationships between listening and speaking in online discussions: An empirical investigation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 534-541. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/1960
*Wise, A. F., & Chiu, M. M. (2014). The impact of rotating summarizing roles in online discussions: Effects on learners’ listening behaviors during and subsequent to role assignment. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.033
*Wise, A. F., Hausknecht, S. N., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9192-9
*Wise, A. F., Marbouti, F., Hsiao, Y. T., & Hausknecht, S. (2012). A survey of factors contributing to learners’ “listening” behaviors in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.4.f
*Wise, A. F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F., & Hsiao, Y. T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: Examining patterns in learners' online listening behaviors. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9230-9
Zhou, H. (2015). A systematic review of empirical studies on participants' interactions in Internet-mediated discussion boards as a course component in formal higher education settings. Online Learning, 19(3). http://olc-wordpress-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/private/jaln_full_issue/Online-Learning-19.3-Full-Issue-pdf1.pdf#page=181
*Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x
*Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
