Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.

) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Supporting an Online Community of Inquiry Using VoiceThread
Fei Gao Yanling Sun

Abstract: Using the community of inquiry framework proposed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), this paper examines how to use a Web 2.0 tool – VoiceThread to support online learning communities for professional development in teacher education. In this paper, we discuss the unique features and affordances of VoiceThread, and propose possible learning activities to enhance social, cognitive and teaching presence in online learning communities.

Fostering a collaborative online learning community with multimedia is important for online professional development in teacher education, because "online communities provide continuous and self-generating professional development for teachers through flexible, authentic and personalized opportunities for learning" (Lloyd & DuncanHowell, 2009, p. 60). Educators and researchers in teacher education have been increasing their attention on building inquiry-based online communities for teaching in online and hybrid environments. The community of inquiry framework proposed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) has been applied to various online and hybrid practices to understand and improve online learning and community building. How to employ appropriate technologies and strategies to build and support an online community of inquiry, however, is a concern. This paper uses the community of inquiry as the theoretical framework, and explores how a multimedia presentation tool – VoiceThread can be used to support online professional development through community building. VoiceThread ( is a Web 2.0 tool that allows users to work collaboratively to create multimedia presentations and to have conversations around it. With VoiceThread, a user or multiple users can create a presentation with a combination of documents, images and videos. The presentation can later be shared with a selected group of people, who are able to participate by posting their text, audio or video-based comments on individual slides. Although VoiceThread was not originally intended for classroom, educators are enthusiastic about its power as a presentation and collaboration tool. Weir (2008) described how a 6th grade teacher, Bill Ferriter used VoiceThread presentations to “extend” his classroom. According to Ferriter, there were more students participating more actively in digital discussions than in the classroom. In VoiceThread library (, examples can be found on how VoiceThread were used to teach a variety of subject matters in both K-12 and higher education settings. Despite the educational potential of VoiceThread, limited research has been conducted on the use of VoiceThread for professional development in teacher education. Friedman and Lee (2009) cautioned us that “VoiceThread does not necessarily engage students in the way we had initially envisioned” (p.23). For example, asking learners to have debates by following the prescribed script on a VoiceThread “stifled creativity and forced ‘in the box’ thinking” (p.23), and could be less effective than a face-to-face debate. They, therefore, called for future research that unpacks the inherent pedagogies of VoiceThread.

Features and Affordances of VoiceThread
To design a learning experience that is educational, it is important to understand the features and pedagogical affordances of the tools used. The following table presents the key features and affordances of

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

VoiceThread. It is developed from Burden and Atkinson’s (2008) work, and includes features and affordances that were not specifically mentioned in their work. We focus on three categories of features: (a) presentation features, (b) collaboration features, and (c) moderation features.
Features I. Presentation Features   Ability to use a combination of pictures, documents, and videos to create presentations Ability to annotate a particular slide with text, audio or video-based comments     Ability to draw or write while commenting on a slide Presenters are able to combine files with multiple formats to present content. Presenters are able to add related comments, explanations, and interpretations to each slide. Presenters are able to direct readers’ attention to specific parts of a slide to increase concentration or to stress on important information Presenters are able to demonstrate or explain procedures, steps and so on by drawing or writing on the slides. Presenters are able to present for real audience. Presenters are able to get feedback easily from others. Viewers are able to control the pace of learning. Viewers are able to view a portion of the presentation for multiple times. Affordances

 

 

Ability to share a presentation online with others Ability (for viewers) to pause the presentation at any point, and jump to a particular slide at any time

  

II. Collaboration Features  Ability for a group of users to co-create or coedit a presentation Ability to allow a group of users to leave text, audio or video-based comments on each slide Ability for a group of users to draw or write while commenting on a slide Ability to view all the comments or discussions on one single slide around the slide      Learners are able to work on and present a project collaboratively. Learners can provide feedback or ask questions about a slide. Instructors are able to provide formative feedback on learner presentations. Learners and instructors can identify specific parts of a slide and make targeted comments. The entire learning conversation can be visually represented in one diagram rather than a long text thread.

 

III. Moderation Features  Ability to invite a selected group of users, and keep the thread private or public Ability to moderate comments (i.e. Creators can pick which comments are shown to others)     The learning conversation can be managed to ensure it is open to the appropriate audience. Instructors can delete inappropriate comments before they are shown. Instructors are able to decide whether and when to let learners see (and possibly be influenced by) others’ comments.

Table 1: Features and Affordances of VoiceThread

Supporting an Online Community of Inquiry Using VoiceThread
To conceptualize how VoiceThread can be used to support online learning and professional development, we use the community of inquiry framework proposed by Garrison et al. (2000). It is a framework that captures the

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

complexities of online learning from the perspective of collaborative learning occurring in online communities. This model has been widely cited (Meyer, 2004; Shea & Bidjerano, 2009; Swan, 2003), and examined with promising results by a considerable number of researchers (Conrad, 2005; Redmond & Lock, 2006; Shea, 2006). The framework consists of three elements – social, cognitive and teaching presence, and provides categories and indicators that define each presence (see Figure 1). Based on the analysis of the features and affordances of VoiceThread, we discuss, in this section, why and how VoiceThread can be used to support the three types of presence, and therefore support various stages of community building.

Figure 1: Garrison et al.’s (2000) Community of Inquiry Framework.

Social Presence Social Presence is described as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally, thereby being perceived as ‘real people’ in mediated communication” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 159). The three categories of social presence are affective expression, open communication and group cohesion. Social presence has been reported as positively correlated to perceived learning (Richardson & Swan, 2003; So & Brush, 2008), and it has the potential to afford learning by setting a convenient environment for critical discourse to develop (Caspi & Blau, 2008). VoiceThread can be used in multiple ways to establish affective communication and develop social bonds.

Using Audio and Video The degree of social presence varies depending on the medium used for communication. Aragon (2003) indicated that text-based communication alone may not be enough for online courses, and proposed that audio helps to create social presence “by reflecting the emotions of instructor to the students” and it also helps “establish the formality of the environment and the friendliness of the instructor and can encourage participation” (p. 62). This is supported by Bente and colleagues’ (2008) study, where they found that the levels of perceived intimateness, copresence and emotionally-based trust were significantly lower in text chat than audio or audio-video chat. With VoiceThread, every participant can leave an audio or video comment on a particular slide. Audio and video can be used to replace the text-based communication when necessary. For example, at the initial stage of building an online learning community, it is important for learners to be able to introduce themselves and get to know each other (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). This is commonly done in a threaded discussion forum. With Voicethread, learners can upload their own pictures and introduce themselves via video or audio.

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Sharing Personal Stories and Experiences Two fundamentally related concepts to social presence are intimacy and immediacy (Rice, 1993). They refer to a sense of closeness or the psychological distance between people involved in a conversation (Wise, Chang, Duffy, & Valle, 2004). Both focus on the feeling of knowing each other. Researchers have recommended personal stories/experiences sharing as a way to increase social presence (Aragon, 2003; Lowenthal, 2009), probably because it enhances the sense of intimacy and immediacy, and establishes group cohesion and social relationships. The VoiceThread’s capability of creating stories with multimedia files has made it a powerful tool to share personal stories. Both learners and instructors can use VoiceThread to create and share personal stories that help to develop and maintain social presence. Such activities can take place either at the beginning of the course to help learners and instructors get to know each other, or within a learning unit to enhance group cohesion as well as to encourage learners to make personal connections to the learning materials. In the latter case, the activity goes beyond “open communication” towards “purposeful academic exchange” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 160).

Sharing Norms, Expectations, and Guidelines Before learners in online communities can reach deep levels of interaction, they need to gain a shared sense of expectation of learning and commitment in addition to a sense of belonging and trust (Anderson, 2004). It is imperative to set up clear norms, expectations, and guidelines at early stages of the class to provide structure around the communication (Beaudin, 1999; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). VoiceThread allows for easy sharing of documents of guidelines or expectations. And more importantly, with VoiceThread, learners can highlight an item, and ask a specific question clarifying their understandings. This allows instructors to interact with the learners, find out their needs and tailor the instruction accordingly (Chen, 2007).

Cognitive Presence Cognitive presence refers to the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001). It involves a four-phase process that includes (a) a triggering event, (b) exploration, (c) integration, and (d) resolution. Cognitive presence is crucial in online learning because it is “reflective of the purposeful nature of collaborative knowledge construction inherent in constructivist educational experience” (Arbaugh et al., 2008, p. 134). In this section, we explore how VoiceThread can be used to design activities that enhance learner cognitive performance or foster deep understanding of learning materials.

Designing Collaborative Activities A high level of cognitive presence requires well designed learning activities (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007; Murphy, 2004). Online learning researchers have found that emerging technologies offer new possibilities of designing collaborative activities that engage learners in learning (Chai & Tan, 2009; Cress & Kimmerle, 2008). VoiceThread, similar to other social software technologies, allows users to instantly edit, annotate, or create content and share with others. Such tools support collaboration, knowledge sharing and customization, and provide instructors with “significant opportunities for creating socially engaging tasks that require active student participation and knowledge building instead of memorization” (Cole, 2009, p. 141).

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Having Focused Discussions Researchers who are interested in anchored discussion found that when learners were visually presented with an artifact and asked to comment on it, learners are more likely to make artifact-related and focused comments (Brush, Bargeron, Grudin, Borning, & Gupta, 2002; Gao & Putnam, 2009; Marshall & Brush, 2004). With VoiceThread, the artifacts or content are presented on each slide at the center of the screen. Learners can highlight a specific part of the text or a specific video segment, and make comments beside it. This allows for “to-the-point” discussions (van der Pol, Admiraal, & Simons, 2006, p. 353). In addition, learners can concentrate and comment on one particular slide at a time, which reduces the cognitive load involved and can be beneficial to learning (Sweller, 1988).

Providing Peer Feedback Peer evaluation has been identified as one of the most effective online assessment strategies (Gaytan & McEwen, 2007). Researchers have found that peer evaluation has a positive effect on learning attitude and learning performance, and suggested that multiple rounds of peer assessments is necessary for learner to improve their work (Sung, Chang, Chiou, & Hou, 2005; Topping, 1998; Tseng & Tsai, 2007). The unique features of VoiceThread have made it a good tool to support multiple-round peer assessments. The project, once created on VoiceThread, will be continuously broadcast live, allowing the authors to edit it and others to view it at any time. Feedback and assessments can be then provided at any stages of the projects. Learners can edit, delete, and add content based on the feedback, and instantly share revisions with peers. Therefore, it offers an easy platform for frequent and multiple rounds of feedback. In addition, because people can leave feedback on every slide, feedback is likely to be specific and targeted to the specific content on each slide.

Teaching Presence Teaching presence is described as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 163). Three components of teaching presence are: (a) instructional design and organization, (b) facilitating discourse, and (c) direct instruction. Garrison and Arbaugh (2007) argued for the need of teaching presence in online community because social and content-related interactions among learners are not sufficient for effective learning. Researchers have agreed that instructors play crucial roles in supporting the learning processes in online collaborative learning (Resta & Laferrière, 2007). We discuss below how to use VoiceThread to design learning experiences with enhanced teaching presence.

Creating Interactive Content As compared to the teacher-dominated, unidirectional discourse in traditional classrooms, online learning opens up more opportunities for multi-directional conversations (Lapadat, 2002). But sometimes, when designed inappropriately, online courses could stifle multi-directional conversations. For example, delivering the course content with video/audio lectures or PowerPoint presentations has made the learning become a unidirectional and passive process. Delivering lectures using VoiceThread enables instructor-learner and learner-learner conversation at any point of the lecture. After instructors upload the narrated presentations, learners can watch it online, posting a question or comment at any point of the lecture. Instructors, in return, can provide feedback to learner’s questions and comments. With the moderating function, instructors can also control whether and when to let learners see others’ comments.

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Engaging Different Types of Learners Presenting content using multiple modes of representation allows learners to code and elaborate information in multiple channels, and enhances the effectiveness of learning (Mayer & Moreno, 1998). Using multimedia, in this sense, may offer learning opportunities for different types of learners (Gardner, 1983), which would not be possible if instructors use text alone. With VoiceThread, instructors can create presentations that make wise use of different media formats, and engage learners in content learning. In addition, learners can control the pace of presentation, spending as much or as less time as they like on a slide, which is important for effective learning (Mayer & Chandler, 2001; Mayer, Hegarty, Mayer, & Campbell, 2005).

Providing Scaffolding and Ongoing Feedback Swan and Shih (2005) pointed out that the perceived presence of instructors could be a more influential factor than the perceived presence of peers in determining learner satisfaction in an online course. To enhance learning, it is necessary to provide ongoing assessment of learner performance, immediate feedback and individualized instruction (Swan, 2003). When VoiceThread is used for learners to create projects, the instant sharing function of VoiceThread would allow instructors to access and comment timely on learner’s ongoing projects, something not possible if learners use such tools as PowerPoint.

Lieberman and Mace (2010) argued that the advent and ubiquity of new media tools and social networking resources provide a means for professional development to "scale up" (p.77). Teachers and teacher educators should keep up with the changing opportunities and demands created by new technologies (Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston, 2009). The problems facing us, however, are how to challenge a new technology to design and deliver a genuinely enhanced learning experience (Laurillard, 2009). To solve the problems, it is important to understand what is uniquely feasible with new technologies (Resta & Laferrière, 2007), and use learning theories to guide the design and use of the technologies for effective learning (Laurillard, 2009). By considering the affordance of VoiceThread, and its connections to educational theories and research on online learning, the paper suggested ways of designing meaningful learning activities with VoiceThread to support an online learning community for professional development. Used appropriately, VoiceThread could help establish a social bond for the community, and enhance learners’ cognitive learning and instructors’ online facilitation. Future research is needed to further examine the roles of VoiceThread in building online communities of inquiry.

Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 100, 57-68. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., et al. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133-136. Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41-53.

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avarta-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 171345. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7. Brush, A., Bargeron, D., Grudin, J., Borning, A., & Gupta, A. (2002). Supporting interaction outside of class: Anchored discussion vs. discussion boards. Paper presented at the CSCL, Boulder, CO. Burden, K., & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical affordances of media sharing Web 2.0 technology: A case study. Paper presented at the ASCILITE Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three concepts and their relations to perceive learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323-346. Chai, C. S., & Tan, S. C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported collaborative learning: A knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1296-1327. Chen, S. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 6(1), 72-86. Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers and Education, 52, 141-146. Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20. Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105-122. Friedman, A. M., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Using VoiceThread as a debate tool. Paper presented at the 2009 James F. Ackerman Colloquium on Technology and Citizenship Education: "Citizenship Education 2.0: Digital Media in a Networked World", West Lafayette, IN. Gao, F., & Putnam, R. (2009). Bring literacy research and perspectives into online discussion research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 1-37. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 1-19. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7-23. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-172. Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132. Gilbert, P., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18. Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(4). Retrieved from Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. P. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 77-88. Lloyd, M., & Duncan-Howell, J. (2009). Changing the metaphor: The potential of online communities in teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online Learning Communities and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery (pp. 60-76). Hershey, PA: Information Science (IGI Global). Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Social presence. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance and online learning (2nd ed.). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Marshall, C., & Brush, A. (2004). Exploring the relationship between personal and public annotations. Paper presented at the JCDL, Tucson, Arizona. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390-397.

Gao, F. & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. Maddux et al. (Eds.) Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 (pp.9-18). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).

Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256-165. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: Implications for Design Principles. Retrieved from Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 101-114. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 421-431. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Redmond, P., & Lock, J. V. (2006). A flexible framework for online collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 267-276. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83. Rice, R. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Shea, P. (2006). A study of students' sense of community in online learning environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35-44. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster "epistemic engagement" and "cognitive presence" in online education. Computers and Education, 52, 543-553. So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perception of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers and Education, 51(1), 318-336. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., Chiou, S. K., & Hou, H. T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45(2), 187-202. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Swan, K., & Shih, L. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1161-1174. van der Pol, J., Admiraal, W., & Simons, P. R. J. (2006). The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 339-357. Weir, L. (2008). VoiceThreads: Extending the classroom with interactive multimedia albums. Edutopia. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247-271.