You are here:

An Authentic Online Community of Learning Framework for Higher Education: Development Process

, Murdoch University, Australia

AACE Award

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, BC, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-24-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


A key challenge for higher education practitioners is to identify how to construct more engaging online environments that promote key learning skills and encourage self-directed learning. This paper discusses a study that investigated how online university courses could be designed to be more engaging. The study employed a design-based research approach in the form of an interpretive, qualitative study. A draft framework was developed to guide the design of the course and three iterations of the course were implemented and evaluated. Findings suggest that the framework was a successful alternative to models frequently used to develop online courses and provided learners with greater flexibility and control over their learning. The final model and the accompanying guidelines may provide both practical and scientific contributions to existing knowledge for designing and implementing sustainable online learning within a learning management system


Parker, J. (2016). An Authentic Online Community of Learning Framework for Higher Education: Development Process. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 26-34). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  2. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment: Computer referencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Doi:,B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  3. Gregory, J., & Salmon, G. (2013). Professional development for online university teaching. Distance Education, 34(3), 256-270.
  4. Hodges, C.B., & Repman, J. (2011). Moving outside the LMS: Matching Web 2.0 tools to instructional purpose. [ELI Brief]. Retrieved from Keppell, M. (2006). Authentic cases and media triggers for supporting problem-based learning in teacher education. In T. Herrington & J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic learning environments in higher education. London, UK: Idea Group Inc.
  5. Kim, K.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says. Educause Quarterley, 29(4), 22-30.
  6. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  7. Koh, J., Chai, C., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking and 21st Century Skills Design Thinking for Education (pp. 33-46): Springer Singapore.
  8. Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st-century teaching for 21st-century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 264-276.
  9. Lane, L.M. (2008). Toolbox or trap? Course management systems and pedagogy. Educause Quarterley, 31(2), 4-6. Http:// Maor, D. (2003). The teacher's role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 40(1), 127-138. Doi:
  10. Maor, D. (2007). The cognitive and social processes of university students' online learning. In R.J. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S.K.A. Soong, & C. Cheers (Eds.), ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (pp. 611-623).
  11. Maor, D., & Volet, S. (2007). Interactivity in professional online learning: A review of research based studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 269-290.
  12. McCombs, B.L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 15821600.
  13. McLoughlin, C., & Maor, D. (2005). Online professional development for e-learning: A critical overview of models and approaches. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 2606-2610). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  14. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technologial pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  15. Muirhead, B. (2004). Research insights into interactivity. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning and Instruction, 1(3), 65-70.
  16. Oliver, R. (2005). Ten more years of educational technologies in education: How far have we travelled? Australian Educational Computing, 20(1), 18-23.
  17. Omar, A., Kalulu, D., & Alijani, G.S. (2011). Management of innovative el-earning environments. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(3), 37-64.
  18. Parker, J. (2015). Designing authentic online community of learning experiences for higher education. (Dissertation/Thesis Doctorate of Education), Murdoch University. Retrieved from Pugliese, L. (2012). A post-LMS world. Educause Review Online, 47(1), 50-51. Retrieved from Retrieved from:
  19. Reeves, T.C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52-66). London: Routledge.
  20. Rotherham, A.J., & Willingham, D. (2010). 21st Century skills: The challenges ahead. Best of Educational Leadership 20092010, 67, 16-21. Doi:
  21. Stewart, C., Bachman, C., & Babb, S. (2009). Replacing professor monologues with online dialogues: A constructivist approach to online course template design. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(3).
  22. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  23. Weigel, V. (2005). From course mangement to curricular capabilities: A capability approach for the next-generation CMS. Educause Review, 40(3), 54-67.
  24. Wise, L., & Quealy, J. (2006). At the limits of social constructivism: Moving beyond LMS to re-integrate scholarship. In P. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australia Society for computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who's Learning? Whose technology? (pp. 899-907). Sydney: Sydney

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact