Summary

This chapter explores the opportunities and challenges of developing active, online learning. In recent years, the demand for online learning has increased; however, it often fails to live up to its full potential as an active, interactive and social experience. Teachers often struggle to apply their classroom practice effectively as online learning environments offer different affordances, opportunities and challenges than physical on-campus learning environments.

Moreover, many educators’ experiences of online teaching have often lacked sufficient support. The pandemic-induced pivot to online saw educators adopt an emergency approach that was stressful, poorly planned, and undertaken with little or no training.

Given this landscape, this chapter sets out to address several misconceptions that persist about online education and its ability to foster active approaches to learning.

Firstly, the chapter explores how a ‘pedagogy first’ approach can be limiting. Instead of viewing pedagogy or technology as the primary determining factor, we instead draw on ‘entangled pedagogy’ as a conceptual framework and approach to digital education where the reciprocal nature of technology, pedagogy and context is recognised.

The chapter also challenges the belief that asynchronous learning cannot be social. Drawing on the Community of Inquiry framework to highlight how educators might design and facilitate social, cognitive, and teacher presence in their courses, we provide a range of strategies to create meaningful interaction and sustained engagement among learners.

A further misconception concerns the difficulty educators find in teaching certain topics online. Often, these are more practical, competency-based subjects. The chapter presents practical online examples, such as lab work, and highlights that by focusing on the core underlying skills and the flexible and inclusive ways we can make those skills visible online, educators can effectively teach practical and performance-based subjects.

Finally, the chapter addresses a key practice of online teachers, who often struggle to gauge student engagement. Setting clear expectations, providing feedback, scaffolding the learning experience, and encouraging self-regulation are explored as a range of strategies that help develop students’ autonomy, confidence, and sustained engagement.

In conclusion, this chapter argues that designing and teaching active and social online learning activities requires a shift in how we think about, and approach, both teaching practice and the online learning environment. This can be challenging for educators used to teaching in on-campus environments, but the strategies outlined in this chapter aim to help educators reimagine online interaction and design richer, more authentic learning experiences to make active learning happen for all in online environments.

Introduction

There is increasing demand for online learning opportunities, whether as fully online courses or online elements of campus-based courses (MacNeill & Beetham, 2022). Student experiences are also increasingly ‘blended’ across physical and online learning environments, both on- and off-campus. Yet feedback from staff and students suggests that the provision of online learning often fails to deliver on its promise. Many online courses rely heavily on ‘hybrid’ classes or lecture recordings which do not offer the same opportunities for online students to interact with each other and the educator as on-campus students (Jisc, 2023a). Similarly, where flipped classroom approaches are used to blend online and on-campus learning, online elements often focus on students passively ‘acquiring’ information that they will then actively engage with in on-campus sessions (Kapur et al., 2022).

In Jisc’s 2022/23 Digital Insights survey, although most students experienced some online teaching and learning, only 49 percent found online learning materials engaging and motivating (Jisc, 2023a). Similarly, teaching staff responses suggest a perception of online learning as more didactic than active and interactive (Jisc, 2023b). Both staff and students have reported concerns about the reduction or loss of opportunities for social interaction in online learning (Jisc, 2023a; MacNeill & Beetham, 2022); distance learners have long reported higher rates of feeling isolated (Delahunty et al., 2014), which can impact their learning, satisfaction and course completion (Edwards & and Hardie, 2024). Despite these concerns, digital technologies were thought to allow greater interaction between students (Jisc, 2023b) suggesting that the issue may lie in the implementation and in staff capacity and confidence to utilise digital technologies to support active, interactive learning. Indeed, MacNeill and Beetham (2022) found that teacher confidence/skills was one of the key concerns about online teaching reported by UK higher education staff – the ability to teach practical skills, assessment issues, the use of digital media and a lack of support for teaching staff also featured in the list of concerns.

These concerns and the apparent shortcomings in current provision are perhaps unsurprising when we consider the change/s in approach, practice and even identity, required in any move to online learning. Teaching online, and designing for learning online, require different approaches to promoting and facilitating active engagement and discussion, and to understanding how students are engaging with the learning materials and each other (Stone & Springer, 2019). While some of teaching practices staff employ in an on-campus classroom might not work as well in an online environment, the online environment also creates opportunities for activities and interactions that cannot, or cannot as easily, occur on-campus (e.g. Bayne et al., 2020). Not only do these changes take time to understand, adjust to and incorporate into teaching practice, but as MacNeill and Beetham (2022) noted, changes in teaching and learning modes require changes in how teaching workloads are allocated, requiring time, investment and strategic consideration at institution-level, beyond individuals.

A key influence on teaching practice is prior experience, whether as a teacher or as a learner (Richardson, 1990, 1996). The rapid pivot to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, better characterised as ‘emergency remote teaching’ (Hodges et al., 2020) meant that for many staff, their first experience of teaching online was stressful, poorly planned, undertaken with little or no training and bore little resemblance to what would usually be considered good practice in online learning (Guppy et al., 2022). Such an introduction to teaching online is hardly conducive to reflective and ongoing practice change, and an understanding of what online teaching and learning might be when undertaken in a planned, supported manner underpinned by appropriate pedagogies and knowledge of ‘what works’ online.

There is however evidence, from before the pandemic, that academic staff perceptions of online learning environments improve over time, alongside shifts in the perceived value or importance of particular uses or aspects of online learning environments. For example, Palmer and Holt (2009) found that in the first year following the implementation of a university-wide online/virtual learning environment, staff perceived the ability to access unit information and lecture notes as the most important purposes of the learning environments; in the following year, contributing to discussions and reading contributions to discussions were perceived to be of greater importance. Similarly, staff satisfaction with aspects of the online learning environment related to interaction with learning materials, other students and the teaching team improved over the year.

In this chapter, we set out to explore the genuine concerns and some misconceptions held, by educators in relation to active learning in an online environment. In doing so, we draw on critical digital pedagogies and offer practical strategies and design choices to address and overcome these challenges and concerns.

Our position and perspectives

We are academics, faculty leaders and learning designers who work in a specialist digital education team within a medical and dental faculty at a medium size, London-based, Russell Group University. Between us, we have previously worked in universities across the UK, Europe and Australia; in teaching, learning design and educational technologist roles; in both central and faculty-based teams. Throughout our combined careers, we have worked with academics in a range of disciplines, teaching at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and with varying levels of experience of teaching and designing for online learning. Our work together is focused on co-creating online learning experiences underpinned by principles of active, social and authentic learning, and inclusive education, and on building capacity for digital and online learning, at scale, within the higher education context. We take an evidence-based approach to this work, drawing on educational and learning science research, broader scholarship work and student evaluation, feedback and cohort data.

Our approach to this chapter is empirical and practice-based, informed by the co-creation and capacity-building work we do, by the concerns and questions shared with us by the educators, other staff and students we work with, and by the strategies and approaches we have employed together to address those concerns.

Challenges of, and misconceptions about, active learning online

‘Pedagogy first’: Limiting our understanding of the online learning environment

When considering the relationship between pedagogy and technology, many people still subscribe to the ‘pedagogy first’ principle. This continues to be a dominant paradigm, especially among traditional, classroom-based educators who have done considerable amounts of in-person teaching. While this philosophy was appropriate for its time and maintains its importance in thinking about student-centred learning, in the age of advanced and rapid technological developments, educational practice can no longer depend on this principle. If we approach online learning, or blended learning, for that matter, with the aim of doing what we do in physical classrooms online, then we are destined to fail (Morris & Stommel, 2018). The complexity of the online environment, the diverse needs of online learners, and the high levels of skills needed to purposefully combine technology and pedagogy mean that active online learning calls for its own pedagogy. It is no longer relevant or adequate to think ‘pedagogy first’, or in isolation, then to apply technology, in that rigid sequence. For example, during the educational design phase, educators need to understand the repertoire of technologies available to them upfront, so that they can adjust pedagogical strategies, and incorporate into their teaching, with its limitations and affordances. This is important because, often, active learning online is not simply about a ‘one-point-in-time’ type of engagement with students, but designed instead for a certain duration of learning that emerges in various places and modalities. Given this, Fawns (2022) challenges this deterministic dichotomy, and introduces a useful conceptual framework, ‘entangled pedagogy’. It is our view also that ‘recognising that technology and pedagogy are, inevitably, entangled, opens up possibilities for more meaningful analyses of educational activity’ (Fawns, 2022, p. 714). Importantly, Fawns’s work not only points to the artificiality of binary notions of pedagogy and technology, but highlights that educational activities, such as educational design, are also entangled with sociocultural constructs such as purposes, contexts and values. This is critical to recognise, especially for those educators designing and creating online environments and engagement; and works as a framing for what follows in this chapter to challenge this problematic space, that is the tension between active and online learning.

‘How can we interact if we’re not together?’: Asynchronous learning can’t be social or interactive

This is a really common question when it comes to the design of digital education. Especially for those coming to digital approaches for the first time, it can be a particularly tricky shift in perspective. While we would argue we are ‘together’ in many senses, it doesn’t look like the togetherness of the classroom. Moreover, socialising online doesn’t feel like what many educators are used to in their on-campus teaching. However, this doesn’t make these connections any less valuable than those formed in person. In fact, users of platforms like Reddit and BlueSky regularly voluntarily form the types of connections and communities we want to see in our online classes.

While online students (or students engaging in online learning activities) may not be physically present, it is worth highlighting that presence and connection can be experienced in multiple ways (Bayne et al., 2020). Being in the same room at the same time might not be the only or most important element of feeling present with others. As Bayne and colleagues (2020) highlight, the student at the back of the room not participating is, in many ways, a distance student. They may be in the same place and time as their educators and peers, but are they embodying what is important about presence?

To understand presence and active learning in online environments, we can turn to the well-known framework, the Community of Inquiry (Biccard, 2022; Garrison et al., 1999). Community of Inquiry, originally developed by the philosopher C. S. Peirce, is a framework that stresses the educational process as one where students construct knowledge via active engagement in collaborative inquiry. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (1999) provide an adaptation of the framework specifically aimed at online (and text-based) learning. They propose three types of presence that are vital to developing a Community of Inquiry: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence.

Cognitive presence is experienced in the construction of meaning ‘through sustained communication’ (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 89). There are many options when it comes to facilitating cognitive presence in digital education: the online forum is often the go-to approach for discussion activities, but platforms like Padlet, Miro, and even Minecraft have been used as spaces for sustained communication. Garrison et al. (1999) highlight that asynchronous activities have unique affordances that help facilitate critical thinking. For example, there is more time for reflection as we are not limited to classroom time. Subsequent studies have further reinforced the role of these online spaces in fostering critical thinking (Aloni & Harrington, 2018; Covelli, 2017; Moore, 2011).

Social presence is experienced when participants in a course can ‘project themselves socially and emotionally, as “real” people’ (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 94). Garrison et al. focus on text-based communication and admit that this may seem a ‘lean’ form of communication when compared to the myriad non-verbal cues involved in face-to-face communication. However, this is no longer necessarily true: as technology has advanced, online platforms are no longer limited to just plain text. Students and educators can add videos, audio or images to their communications, and this has been highlighted as increasing feelings of connection and community (Covelli, 2017).

Teaching presence works to balance the other two presences. Regardless of the mode of teaching, educators choose what is taught, how it is presented, the ordering of learning materials and, in the case of online learning, what platforms to use. Through these choices, educators create a sense of their presence for students. This idea of teaching presence often requires a shift in perspective regarding what is considered ‘teaching’. Goodyear’s (2015) ideas around teaching as design are useful here, as he highlights all the planning and design activities that educators engage in that we should consider acts of teaching.

Design choices to address this concern

As educators and designers, there are many practical things that we can do to influence social and cognitive presence and subsequently encourage active learning within a Community of Inquiry:

• Picking the right platform: When designing online learning experience, it is important that educators consider how they want our students to engage and express themselves. Bayne et al. (2020) suggest that connection increases when technology becomes ‘invisible’ – in other words, when it doesn’t interfere with the ability to engage. Or, to reframe it in the language of Community of Inquiry, connection may increase when using technologies that intrude less on social, cognitive, or teaching presence. VoIP services like Teams and Zoom, in this sense, are actually quite intrusive technologies – many people will have experienced video calls with such poor connections that they have had to abandon them. Even ‘good’ calls often have audio drops or lags, impacting students’ ability to be present. Perhaps counterintuitively, simpler platforms such as forums and Padlets can be more ‘invisible’ and provide better feelings of connection for distance students.
• Valuing contributions but encouraging interaction: It’s very important in an online environment for educators to encourage the types of active learning that they want to see, ensuring that they don’t jump in too early. An educator’s response can sometimes be seen as the final word on the topic and discourage further engagement from other students (Aloni & Harrington, 2018). Instead, it is important to provide enough time for other students to chime in. When students are engaging, rather than providing answers, educators can respond with open questions or encourage students to speak to each other. Both these strategies continue the conversation and provide greater opportunities for social and cognitive presence.
• Creating valuable activities: Many common principles of active learning still apply online: learning activities should be constructively aligned (Biggs & Tang, 2011) to learning outcomes and make our students’ learning visible (Hattie, 2009). However, in online environments, there are additional considerations. For example, consider whether an activity produces one or two ‘correct’ answers or encourages more open responses. Activities which seek a single correct answer, or a limited set of responses, are less well-suited to social spaces like forums and are more valuable in self-directed spaces like practice quizzes. This is because once one student has provided the correct answer in the forum, there is little for other students to contribute. This lowers engagement (Aloni & Harrington, 2018) and, thus, lowers the possibility for cognitive and social presence. Having self-directed spaces like practice quizzes is by no means a bad thing; it is still active learning, and cognitive presence includes communication with the virtual learning environment and other platforms, not just with educators and other students. Moreover, these solo activities can help give students the confidence to engage more fully in social activities. Laurillard’s (2013) Conversational Framework, for example, highlights this, showing how students are engaged in conversation with their learning environment, and how knowledge constructed in this way is taken into collaborative conversations or conversations with educators.

‘You can’t teach my subject online’: Meeting the needs of different disciplines

A common concern amongst many of the educators we work with relates to the practical components of their programmes – how can students develop and demonstrate lab skills, clinical communication skills or other performance-based skills? (e.g. Attarbashi et al., 2021; Burke, 2020). Related concerns include effectively supporting collaboration and teamwork online (Burke, 2020), and facilitating exploration and discussion of sensitive or contentious topics. The online environment may also complicate the teaching of emotionally sensitive or controversial content due to educators’ inability to monitor students’ emotional responses in real time. This disconnect can amplify student discomfort, reduce engagement, and obscure the need for timely support. Price et al. (2025) noted that in online nursing education, especially on topics such as children’s palliative care, educators might find it difficult to provide the emotional responsiveness afforded by face-to-face interactions.

Such concerns invite a rethinking of how educational objectives can be met through alternative, innovative means. With flexibility, intentional learning design, and the strategic use of technology, online environments can become dynamic, collaborative spaces that foster deep learning and meaningful engagement across disciplines.

Innovative technologies in online learning environments, when grounded in sound pedagogical frameworks, can significantly enhance engagement, interactivity, and the effectiveness of practical skills training. Virtual simulations and AR/VR, when well designed, enable students to actively perform experiments or skill drills in a virtual setting, which keeps them engaged and motivated similar to (or even more than) traditional labs. Studies such as Alvarez (2021) show that well-designed online labs can promote engagement, motivation, and deep learning comparable to traditional settings. It is important to remember the success of these simulations lies not only in the technology itself, but in how it is embedded within a structured learning experience. For example, Klingenberg et al. (2020) found that pairing virtual simulations with generative learning strategies, such as peer teaching, can enhance students’ retention, self-efficacy, and ability to apply knowledge. These outcomes highlight the importance of scaffolding, reflection, and active learning methods in online education. When pedagogical considerations drive the selection of innovative technologies, online learning can be an effective and engaging tool for developing practical skills.

Adopting a learning design that prioritises collaboration, feedback, and shared meaning-making is crucial for fostering practical and interpersonal skills in online education. When the learning design encourages peer dialogue, cooperative tasks, and co-construction of knowledge, online learning can be an interactive environment that promote communication and teamwork. Burke (2020) show how arts educators employed ‘virtual praxis’ to foster reflective and relational learning by engaging students in live co-creation, dialogic critique, and the collective development of artistic identity. These strategies are readily adaptable across disciplines to support the development of collaboration and communication – for example, by fostering safe online spaces that encourage interaction, designing authentic and co-dependent tasks that require teamwork, and introducing open-ended discussion topics with scaffolding to stimulate reflective dialogue and peer exchange. Further, Junod Perron et al. (2020) demonstrated that structured synchronous seminars using role play, video analysis, and small-group discussions effectively supported students in practicing clinical communication and collaboration skills in realistic scenarios. When paired with findings from Townsend et al. (2025), who showed that student-led drop-in sessions provided flexible spaces for clarification, peer engagement, and mutual support, the evidence strongly refutes the notion that online learning hinders the development of communication and collaboration skills among learners.

Design choices to address this concern

Practical strategies we can use to effectively teach practical, collaborative, and emotionally responsive skills across disciplines include:

• Being flexible: Begin by clearly identifying the specific skills or knowledge students need to acquire from the learning experience. This clarity allows educators to design flexible and effective teaching methods tailored to these objectives. For instance, during campus closures in the pandemic, Schultz et al.’s (2020) ‘kitchen chemistry’ initiative enabled students to conduct experiments at home using household items, effectively developing observation skills and emphasising accurate measurement. Schultz et al. (2020) concluded that ‘relevant, engaging kitchen chemistry activities are useful for foundation level chemistry students.’ By first determining the desired learning outcomes, educators can create adaptable and innovative experiences that effectively meet educational goals in diverse environments including online ones.
• Making learning collaborative: Implementing collaborative learning activities in online education enhances student engagement and fosters active learning. For example, Holly et al. (2025) show that collaborative activities in online labs not only improve students’ understanding more effectively than independent work but also boost their confidence in expressing their ideas. To maximize these benefits, educators can grant students greater permissions to collaborate online, encourage structured teamwork, and incorporate communication features to support collaborative learning. Further, online synchronous role play in clinical communication training has proven both feasible and effective. Junod Perron et al. (2020) recommend the use of small, carefully-planned groups, setting clear protocols and ground rules for interaction, and requiring students to use their cameras to increase interactivity.
• Being supportive and inclusive: Providing emotional safety and space is critical when delivering sensitive topics in online education. The use of trigger/content warnings (Wyatt, 2016) is a useful starting point, and should be complemented by broader teaching strategies. Research suggests that offering students options for engagement, creating a supportive and inclusive environment, setting or negotiating ground rules for discussion and carefully framing sensitive materials can enhance student comfort and participation in emotionally charged discussions (Cebula et al., 2022). These approaches are echoed in online settings, where measures such as support rooms or breakout spaces – even when not used – are valued by students as signs of educator care and responsiveness (Price et al., 2025).

‘A sea of black screens’: How do we know if our students are learning and engaged?

In addition to online students reporting feelings of isolation, online educators have reported feelings of disconnection, and anxiety and uncertainty about whether their students understand and are learning (Regan et al., 2012). Indeed, a key challenge in online and blended learning is moving beyond passive content delivery to actively facilitating engagement, collaboration, and independent learning. Without physical cues, it can be difficult to gauge participation so many educators struggle with knowing how their students are progressing or whether they are engaging with the material. This uncertainty is compounded by the common experience of online sessions becoming a ‘sea of black screens,’ where students appear disengaged or reluctant to interact.

While high-quality digital resources are essential, as the Community of Inquiry framework shows, meaningful learning emerges from structured interaction, social presence, and formative guidance (Garrison et al., 1999). Simply making resources available does not ensure that students will critically engage with them, apply their learning, or sustain motivation. Instead, educators can enhance learning experiences by facilitating structured, interactive, and student-driven activities that support autonomy and self-regulation (Beetham et al., 2024; Covelli, 2017).

A critical element of facilitating independent learning is maintaining an active and visible teaching presence. The Community of Inquiry framework underscores that teaching presence – through clear communication, structured guidance, and active facilitation – is associated with engaging students in meaningful learning (Garrison et al., 1999). Research indicates that interaction and personalised feedback can support student persistence and engagement, while teacher presence, including regular announcements, appears to play a key role in maintaining student motivation (Stone & Springer, 2019).

Scaffolding plays an important role in guiding independent learners in online learning environments. Well-designed scaffolding strategies – such as educator guidance, structured prompts, and progressive task complexity – are associated with cognitive engagement and deeper learning (Cho & Cho, 2016). In online settings, adaptive scaffolding techniques, including formative feedback, discussion facilitation, and self-assessment opportunities, have been found to promote student independence and sustain motivation (Doo et al., 2020). This scaffolding should also include helping students develop their digital capacity, for example through providing instructions, guidance and opportunities to practice, critique and receive feedback on the use of digital tools and platforms. Although McGill, Beetham and Gray (2016) highlight that digital capability and proficiency alone are not sufficient to ensure success in online learning, they are necessary for this success.

Online learning can sometimes be perceived as isolating, yet well-facilitated environments have the potential to foster rich peer-to-peer engagement, collaboration, and a sense of belonging. Social presence – students’ ability to feel connected to peers and instructors – is a key factor in motivation (Garrison et al., 1999). Intentional design and active facilitation are essential for promoting this engagement and interaction. Online discussions may benefit from structured prompts that encourage debate, application, and co-construction of ideas (Darabi et al., 2011). In blended environments, online interactions can be purposefully integrated with face-to-face sessions to create a cohesive learning experience that extends engagement beyond the classroom (Beetham et al., 2024). Technologies such as collaborative platforms and asynchronous discussions can help bridge live and independent study, fostering continuity in learning. For self-paced learners, asynchronous forums, peer feedback, and optional study groups may provide structured opportunities for interaction and knowledge-building.

Timely, constructive feedback is fundamental to online facilitation, shaping student engagement and learning outcomes (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022; Price et al., 2011). Without immediate classroom cues, online learners may benefit from structured feedback mechanisms that provide clarity, encourage self-regulation, and sustain motivation. Research highlights that feedback can be more effective when it extends beyond corrective comments, fostering a dialogic exchange that supports critical thinking and active engagement (Price et al., 2011). Online learning environments may offer advantages here. Unlike face-to-face environments, where feedback may be limited to class hours, online learning platforms provide multiple asynchronous and synchronous feedback channels, with students reporting greater interaction with educators (Pentucci & Laici, 2023). Embedding feedback within learning activities – such as asking students to revise their work based on peer reviews or reflect on automated quiz outcomes – has been found to strengthen understanding and application of knowledge (Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022). By designing feedback processes that align with learning objectives and student agency, educators may facilitate a responsive and supportive online learning experience.

Beyond assessment, ongoing encouragement and progress tracking can support student motivation and allow educators to gain insights into student learning and engagement. Unlike traditional face-to-face settings, where gauging student understanding may depend on verbal cues, digital learning platforms provide detailed analytics on student interactions with learning activities and materials, and engagement with both formative and summative assessments. These insights allow educators to monitor student progress, provide individualised feedback and identify students who might be in need of intervention and support (Herodotou et al., 2020; Kew & Tasir, 2022). They can also be used to inform teaching and facilitation practices (Siemens, 2013). Once again, an intentional and considered approach to the use of learning analytics is important, including the identification of appropriate and relevant indicators, timing and actions.

Design choices to address this concern

Some of the strategies we can employ as educators and designers to facilitate and promote independent, self-regulated learning include:

• Setting clear expectations: Online courses tend to benefit from well-structured design and organisation, including explicit guidance on participation, learning objectives, and support options. Research highlights that structured teacher engagement, clear course navigation, and technological support are linked to cognitive and behavioural engagement in online learning environments (Wang, 2022). In practice, online courses often benefit from beginning with a structured orientation module that introduces independent learning strategies, fosters peer interaction, and provides essential support resources. Such orientation modules can play a critical role in ensuring students understand course expectations, technology requirements, and engagement strategies, thereby improving learner confidence and retention (Wengier, 2022).
• Scaffolding learning: Strategies for scaffolding may include breaking assignments into progressive tasks with formative feedback, providing worked examples, and offering structured templates. In blended learning, scaffolding can involve using face-to-face sessions for guided practice while reserving online time for exploration and problem-solving. In self-paced courses, adaptive release mechanisms may help ensure students master foundational concepts before advancing (Diep et al., 2017).
• Encouraging self-regulation: Educators may support students through goal-setting exercises, self-assessment tools, and reflective journals. Research suggests that students who engage in self-directed learning practices, such as planning their study approaches and evaluating their progress, are more likely to succeed in various educational contexts, including online and blended courses (Murad et al., 2010). Embedding structured self-regulation activities may enhance students’ ability to manage independent study.
• Being an active participant in discussions: Educators may facilitate discussions by guiding conversations, posing thought-provoking questions, and encouraging students to engage in critical thinking and reflection (Covelli, 2017). Research suggests that effective faculty facilitators use questioning techniques to model and promote critical thinking while allowing students to lead discussions and construct knowledge collaboratively (Schindler & Burkholder, 2014). A sense of community – whether through collaborative tasks, peer mentoring, or instructor-guided dialogue – may significantly contribute to independent learning effectiveness by fostering deeper engagement and critical discourse.

Conclusion

Designing and teaching active and social online learning activities requires a shift in how we think about, and approach, both teaching and the online learning environment. This can be challenging for educators used to teaching in on-campus environments and these educators frequently raise concerns about engaging students in active, social learning activities online. In this chapter, we have outlined and challenged some of these common concerns and misconceptions about teaching, and learning, online, drawing on critical digital pedagogies. Addressing these misconceptions and challenges surrounding online learning is not solely about increasing content availability but about reimagining how educators facilitate meaningful engagement in digital spaces. With this in mind, we have also proposed practical strategies educators and learning designers might use to incorporate active and social learning strategies in online learning, whether in fully online courses or within blended courses.

In Figure 1, we provide a practical summary of recommended strategies across each phase of creating an active distance learning experience, supporting inclusive, engaging, and iterative design considering the digital capability of learners and educators.

We also recommend that when designing online learning activities, educators and learning designers consider their own digital capacity and confidence, and those of their colleagues. It is likely to be more effective to ‘start small’ by incorporating digital platforms and online activities with which educators are familiar and comfortable, and to build up over time, than to make large-scale changes without adequate training and support. We encourage educators to make use of existing expertise and resources in their institutions, whether from academic colleagues, academic developers, learning designers or learning technologists. Professional organisations and networks, such as ALT and SEDA (UK) and HERDSA and ASCILITE (Australia), provide opportunities to connect with, and learn from, others outside one’s own institution. Jisc’s Building Digital Capability resources include a discovery tool to help educators reflect on and self-assess their digital capability, as well as practical advice and guidance. Other useful resources for educators exploring what may be possible online, include ABC Learning Design (UCL, n.d.-a) and UCL’s Learning Designer (n.d.-b), which provide a scaffolded approach to design, and examples and customisable activities developed by other educators.

The increased availability of online and blended courses offers many potential benefits for students, including in terms of inclusion and accessibility. However, delivering on the promise of online learning requires both individual educators and learning designers, and universities, to rethink how we approach the design and facilitation of online learning. We hope that this chapter provides a critical and practical contribution to this discussion.

Key takeaways

Online learning environments offer different affordances, opportunities and challenges than physical on-campus learning environments, requiring different approaches to the design and teaching of active and social learning activities. However, this does not mean these learning interactions are inferior.

Fostering teaching presence, social presence and cognitive presence is key to the creation of effective online learning experiences.

Pedagogies and technologies are inextricably linked and considering these ‘entanglements’ and the interplay between pedagogy and technology creates new opportunities for supporting students’ active learning and engagement.

 

References

Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121

Alvarez, K. S. (2021). Using Virtual Simulations in Online Laboratory Instruction and Active Learning Exercises as a Response to Instructional Challenges during COVID-19. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2503

Attarbashi, Z. S., Hashim, A. H. A., Abuzaraida, M. A., Khalifa, O. O., & Mustafa, M. (2021). Teaching Lab-based Courses Remotely: Approaches, Technologies, Challenges, and Ethical Issues. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 9(3), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v9i3.406

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., Sinclair, C., & Johnston, K. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11840.001.0001

Beetham, H., MacNeill, S., & McGill, L. (2024). Beyond blended: rethinking curriculum and learning design. Jisc. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/beyond-blended-rethinking-curriculum-and-learning-design

Biccard, P. (2022). A distributed perspective to the community-of-inquiry framework for distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2114826

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Burke, K. (2020). Virtual praxis: Constraints, approaches, and innovations of online creative arts teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103143

Cebula, K.,  Macleod, G., Stone, K., & Chan, S. W. Y. (2022). Student experiences of learning about potentially emotionally sensitive topics: trigger warnings arehttps://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103143 not the whole story. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(8), 1120-1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2055449

Cho, M.-H., & Cho, Y. (2016). Online Instructors’ Use of Scaffolding Strategies to Promote Interactions: A Scale Development Study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2816

Covelli, B. J. (2017). Online Discussion Boards: The Practice of Building Community for Adult Learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(2), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1274616

Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: a comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x

Delahunty, J., Irina, V., & and Jones, P. (2014). Socio-emotional connections: identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813405

Diep, N. A., Cocquyt, C., Zhu, C., Vanwing, T., & de Greef, M. (2017). Effects of core self-evaluation and online interaction quality on adults’ learning performance and bonding and bridging social capital. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.05.002

Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., & Heo, H. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Scaffolding Effects in Online Learning in Higher Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638

Edwards, C., & and Hardie, L. (2024). Fostering a sense of belonging through online qualification events. Distance Education, 45(2), 210-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2338716

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy – Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2(2), 27-50.

Guppy, N., Verpoorten, D., Boud, D., Lin, L., Tai, J., & Bartolic, S. (2022). The post-COVID-19 future of digital learning in higher education: Views from educators, students, and other professionals in six countries. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1750-1765. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13212

Hattie, J. (2009). The Black Box of Tertiary Assessment: An Impending Revolution. Higher Education.

Herodotou, C., Naydenova, G., Boroowa, A., Gilmour, A., & Rienties, B. (2020). How Can Predictive Learning Analytics and Motivational Interventions Increase Student Retention and Enhance Administrative Support in Distance Education? Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(2), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2020.72.4

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Retrieved 31 March 2025, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Holly, M., Hildebrandt, J., & Pirker, J. (2025). A Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environment for Computer Science Education. In J. M. Krüger, D. Pedrosa, D. Beck, M.-L. Bourguet, A. Dengel, R. Ghannam, A. Miller, A. Peña-Rios, & J. Richter, Immersive Learning Research Network Cham.

Jisc. (2023a). Student digital experience insights survey 2022/23: UK higher education (HE) survey findings. Jisc. https://digitalinsights.jisc.ac.uk/reports-and-briefings/our-reports/

Jisc. (2023b). Teaching staff digital experience insights survey 2022/23: UK higher education (HE) survey findings. Jisc. https://digitalinsights.jisc.ac.uk/reports-and-briefings/our-reports/

Junod Perron, N., Dominicé Dao, M., Rieder, A., Sommer, J., & Audétat, M.-C. (2020). Online Synchronous Clinical Communication Training During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 11, 1029-1036. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S286552

Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022). Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis [Systematic Review]. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.956416

Kew, S. N., & Tasir, Z. (2022). Learning Analytics in Online Learning Environment: A Systematic Review on the Focuses and the Types of Student-Related Analytics Data. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 405-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09541-2

Klingenberg, S., Jørgensen, M. L. M., Dandanell, G., Skriver, K., Mottelson, A., & Makransky, G. (2020). Investigating the effect of teaching as a generative learning strategy when learning through desktop and immersive VR: A media and methods experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2115-2138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13029

Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies (2 ed.). Routledge.

MacNeill, S., & Beetham, H. (2022). Approaches to curriculum and learning design across UK higher education. Jisc. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/approaches-to-curriculum-and-learning-design-across-uk-higher-education

McGill, L., Beetham, H., & Gray, T. (2016). What makes a successful online learner? Findings of the Digital Student Online learners’ expectations and experiences of the digital environment. Jisc. https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6505/1/JR0079_ONLINE_STUDY_FINDINGS_REPORT_AUG2016_WEB_ACCESSIBLE_v3.pdf

Moore, D. (2011). Using Collaborative Online Discussion Effectively for Teaching. Journal of Applied Learning Technology, 1(4).

Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy. https://urgencyofteachers.com/?ref=hybridpedagogy.org

Murad, M. H., Coto-Yglesias, F., Varkey, P., Prokop, L. J., & Murad, A. L. (2010). The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Medical Education, 44(11), 1057-1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03750.x

Palmer, S., & Holt, D. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of an online learning environment: Difference and development. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1140

Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416

Pentucci, M., & Laici, C. (2023). Feedback strategies in distance education: a survey of university students. Research on Education and Media, 15(2), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2023-0022

Price, J. E., Crighton, E., & Ooms, A. (2025). Teaching Sensitive Subjects Online: Lessons Learnt From the Pandemic and the Implications for Contemporary Nurse Education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 20(1), e54-e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.08.001

Price, M., Karen, H., & and Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879-896. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.483513

Regan, K., Evmenova, A., Baker, P., Jerome, M. K., Spencer, V., Lawson, H., & Werner, T. (2012). Experiences of instructors in online learning environments: Identifying and regulating emotions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.001

Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10-18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1176411

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). Macmillan.

Schindler, L. A., & Burkholder, G. J. (2014). Instructional design and facilitation approaches that promote critical thinking in asynchronous online discussions: A review of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.222

Schultz, M., Callahan, D. L., & Miltiadous, A. (2020). Development and Use of Kitchen Chemistry Home Practical Activities during Unanticipated Campus Closures. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2678-2684. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00620

Siemens, G. (2013). Learning Analytics:The Emergence of a Discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380-1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213498851

Stone, C., & Springer, M. (2019). Interactivity, Connectedness and ‘Teacher-Presence’: Engaging and Retaining Students Online. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 146-169. https://ajal.net.au/downloads/interactivity-connectedness-and-teacher-presence-engaging-and-retaining-students-online/

Townsend, M., Emma, C., & and Berndt, G. (2025). Case report: supporting students with assessment by replicating open-door tutorials in online distance education – the student experience. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 40(2), 214-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2024.2409796

UCL. (n.d.-a). ABC Learning Design – Sprint design your courses and programs in just 90 minutes. UCL. Retrieved 15 July 2025 from https://abc-ld.org/

UCL. (n.d.-b). Learning Design. UCL. Retrieved 14 July 2025 from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/learning-designer/

Wang, Y. (2022). Effects of teaching presence on learning engagement in online courses. Distance Education, 43(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2029350

Wengier, S. (2022). The Start Here Module: Creating a first-day impression in an online language class. Dimensions, 57, 35-56. https://www.scolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2_TheStartHereModule_2.pdf

Wyatt, W. (2016). The ethics of trigger warnings. Teaching Ethics, 16(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.5840/tej201632427

About the authors

Dr Jo Elliott (Reader, Learning Design), Thomas Hinks, Jorge Freire and Johnny Lee (Senior Learning Designers) work in a multi-disciplinary team led by Professor Chie Adachi (Dean, Digital Education) to co-design and build capacity for digital education in the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at Queen Mary University of London.

Corresponding author: Joanne Elliott, jo.elliott@qmul.ac.uk