logo

Articles

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023): Activity theory in technology enhanced learning research

Analysis of tensions in the published literature into why ‘lurkers’ do not post in asynchronous discussion boards in higher education contexts

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21428/8c225f6e.2c84fe80
Submitted
9 August 2026
Published
15-08-2026

Abstract

Asynchronous discussion boards are widely used as effective ways of facilitating learning and building online learning communities within online programmes in higher education (Levine, 2007; Lunsford et al., 2015). Large numbers of lurkers (non-posting students) are often considered problematic within these programmes for a variety of reasons. However, their non-posting behaviour means that it is difficult for practitioners to identify their reasons for lurking. This paper provided an integrative review of the main reasons identified in empirical research as to why some students lurk. Viewing these through an activity theory lens, tensions between the elements of the discussion board activity system were identified. These point to possible areas for intervention as well as suggesting a need for more qualitative research to examine the dynamic nature of lurking and investigate how tutors are responding to lurkers. It also identified institutional drivers which promote the tracking and monitoring of how much and how often students post and suggested that ways of tracking and capturing the less visible learning activity be explored.

References

  1. Ardichvilli, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 541 – 554.
  2. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K. and Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture and Activity. 9(2): 76–107.
  3. Beaudoin, M.F. (2002). Learning or lurking?: Tracking the “invisible” online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147-155.
  4. Beaudoin, M.F. (2008). Reflections on seeking the ‘invisible’ online learner. In Visser, J. and Visser-Valfrey, M. (Eds.) Learning in a Changing Learning Landscape: Reflections from a Dialogue on New Roles and Expectations, (pp. 213-226). London: Springer.
  5. Bligh, B. and Flood, M. (2015). The change laboratory in higher education: research-intervention using activity theory. In Huisman, J. and Tight, M. (Ed.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 141-168.
  6. Bullen, M. (1998). Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 13(2)
  7. Chen, F-C and Chang, H-M. (2011). Do lurking learners contribute less? A knowledge co-construction perspective. In C&T ’11 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, June 29-July 02 2011, 169-178
  8. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: a guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.
  9. Creelman, A. (2017). NVL: Silent learners—a guide. Available online at http://lnu.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1171709/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  10. Dawson, S. (2006). The impact of institutional surveillance technologies on student behaviour. Surveillance & Society, 4(1/2), 69-84.
  11. Dennen, V.P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: student engagement in non-posting discussion behaviour. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(4), 1624-1633.
  12. Ebner, M., and Holzinger, A. (2005). Lurking: An underestimated human-computer phenomenon. IEEE, 12(4), 70-75. https://doi:10.1109/MMUL.2005.74
  13. Ellaway, R. H. (2014). Panoptic, synoptic, and omnoptic surveillance. Medical Teacher, 36(6), 547–549. https://doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.914680
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
  15. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19–38.
  16. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
  17. Foot, K., and Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6). Available online at http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3479/2983/
  18. Fung, Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135-149. https://doi:10.1080/0268051042000224743
  19. Harting, K., and Erthal, M., J. (2005). History of distance learning. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 23(1), 35‒43.
  20. Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L. and Koutropoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the periphery: lurkers as invisible learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 20(1).
  21. Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online participation? A literature review. Computers and Education, 51, 1755-1765.
  22. Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  23. Kee Man, C. (2014). Luring the lurkers: increasing participations in the online discussions of a blended learning course. International Journal on E-Learning Practices, 1(1), 49-58.
  24. Knowlton, D. (2005). A taxonomy of learning through asynchronous discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 115-178.
  25. Küçük, M. (2010). Lurking in online asynchronous discussion. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 2260–2263.
  26. Lapadat, J. (2002). Written interaction: a key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 1–21
  27. Lee, J. (2015). The lurker majority: why you're not weird for reading and never posting. MakeUseOf. Available at: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/lurker-majority-youre-not-weird-reading-never-posting/
  28. Lee, K. (2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: a historical review. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 15-23.
  29. Lee, Y-W, Chen, F-C and Jiang, H-M (2006). Lurking as participation: a community perspective on lurkers’ identity and negotiability. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS): Making a Difference.
  30. Levine, S.J. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 113, 67-74.
  31. Lunsford, L., Whitehouse, B.S. and Lovvorn, J.F. (2015). Online discussion boards in the constructivist classroom. In T.L. Heafner, R. Hartshome and T. Petty (Eds.) Exploring the Effectiveness of Online Education in K-12 Environments. IGI Global. 325-340.
  32. Maltby, A. and Mackie, S. (2016). Virtual learning environments – help or hindrance for the ‘disengaged’ student? ALT-J, 17(1), 49-62.
  33. Muller, M., Shami, N., Millen, D. and Feinberg, J. (2010). We are all lurkers: consuming behaviours among authors and readers in an enterprise file-sharing service. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on supporting group work, 07 November 2010, pp. 201-210.
  34. Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., and Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37-51.
  35. Nonnecke, B. and Preece, J. (2003). Chapter 6: Silent participants: Getting to know lurkers better. In C. Lueg, and D. Fisher (Eds.) From Usenet to CoWebs: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 110-132.
  36. Orton-Johnson, K. (2007). The online student: lurking, chatting, flaming and joking. Sociological Research Online, 12(6).
  37. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B. and Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone, Computers in Human Behaviour, (20)2, 201-223.
  38. Ramirez, A., Zhang, S., McFrew, C. and Lin, S.F. (2007). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction revisited: a comparison of participant-observer perspectives. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 492-516.
  39. Romiszowski, A. and Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  40. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online London: Kogan Page.
  41. Salmon, G. (2002). Warp speed or snail's pace. In Pathways into the future of E-Learning land (understanding the potential of Virtual Learning Environments VLE Conference 24th June 2002, The Way Forward with VLEs: Lessons Learned, University of Bristol.
  42. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. UK: Routledge.
  43. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. and Emden, C. (1997). Focus on qualitative methods: Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 365-371
  44. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B. (ed.), Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, Chicago: Open Court, pp. 67-98.
  45. Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C. and Dillow, S.A. (2019). Digest of Education Statistics 2018. National Center for Education Statistics. Available online at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020009.pdf
  46. Soroka, V. and Rafaeli, S. (2006). Invisible participants: How cultural capital relates to lurking behavior. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 163-172).
  47. Sun, N., Rau, P.P.-L. and Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: a literature review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 38, 110-117.
  48. Uysal, E. and Bayyurt Y. (2005). Analysis of student participation in classroom and bulletin board discussions in an EFL context. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 22, 1-13.
  49. Walsh, D. and Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 2014-211.
  50. Whitemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 546-553.
  51. Williams, B. (2004). Participation in on-line courses - how essential is it? Educational Technology and Society, 7 (2), 1-8.
  52. Wilton, L. and Brett, C. (April 2015). Broadening our conceptions of online engagement: adding to the conventional measures. In Proceedings of American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference. Chicago, IL
  53. Wise, A. F., Perera, N., Hsiao, Y., Speer, J., and Marbouti, F. (2012). Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 108-117.
  54. Wise, A.F., Speer, J., Marbouti, F. and Hsiao, Y.T. (2013). Broadening the notion of participation in online discussions: examining patterns in learners’ online listening behaviours. Instructional Science, 41(2), 323-343.
  55. Yang, D., and Richardson, J. (2008). Students’ online interaction styles: Can they change? Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 1(1).
  56. Zhang, W. and Storck, J. (2001). Peripheral members in online communities. In Proceedings of AMCIS 2001, Boston.