Abstract

This systematic review examines contemporary research on online discourse in learning environments, exploring its theoretical foundations, structural characteristics, facilitation strategies, student engagement factors, learning outcomes, challenges, and technological innovations. Drawing upon social constructivism, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, and discourse analysis theories, the study highlights the critical role of discourse in shaping cognitive engagement and knowledge construction. The findings indicate that structured and multimodal discourse enhances learning experiences, while instructor facilitation remains pivotal in fostering meaningful interactions. However, barriers such as cognitive overload, the digital divide, and passive engagement persist, limiting discourse effectiveness. The review also underscores the transformative potential of emerging technologies, including AI-driven discourse analysis, learning analytics, gamification, and virtual reality (VR), in optimizing discourse quality. Despite these advancements, ethical considerations, accessibility challenges, and the need for human-centered facilitation remain key concerns. The study concludes by offering recommendations for enhancing discourse effectiveness, including instructor training, inclusive participation strategies, technological interventions, and policy improvements. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies, affective dimensions of discourse, and the evolving role of artificial intelligence in online education. By addressing these areas, institutions can foster equitable and interactive online learning environments that maximize discourse-driven learning outcomes.

Keywords:Online discourse; Digital learning environments; Student engagement; Instructor facilitation; Knowledge construction; Learning analytics; Artificial intelligence in education; Discourse analysis.

Introduction

Definition and Significance

Discourse in online learning environments encompasses the interaction within and between educational community members, facilitated mainly through digital platforms. This interaction is crucial as it is the primary vehicle for knowledge construction and collaborative learning, shaping educational outcomes and learner engagement [1]. Practical online discourse involves not just sharing information but also negotiating meaning through dialogues that engage participants intellectually and emotionally, leading to a deeper understanding [2]. The volume of discourse produced in these environments allows diverse perspectives to emerge, fostering a rich educational ecosystem [3].

The importance of discourse in knowledge construction within online learning contexts is rooted in social constructivist theories, which posit that knowledge is constructed through learner interactions [4]. Collaborative discourse enables learners to articulate their thoughts and understand diverse viewpoints, leading to the co-construction of knowledge [5]. Furthermore, such dialogues increase the likelihood of conceptual change by allowing learners to contest their pre-existing beliefs and integrate new knowledge into their frameworks [3].

Purpose and Scope

This literature review aims to synthesize various perspectives on online discourse, examining its theoretical foundations, types, features, and implications within learning environments. It provides an overview of how discourse influences individual and collective learning outcomes and the challenges practitioners face in optimizing these processes. By systematically analyzing existing research, this review seeks to delineate effective practices and highlight areas needing further exploration [6].

Research Questions

The research questions that guide this review are as follows:
 What theoretical frameworks explain the nature and function of discourse in online learning environments?
 How do different discourse types and structures affect student engagement and learning outcomes?
 What specific roles do instructors play in facilitating discourse and enhancing learning within digital contexts?
 What are the primary barriers and challenges in fostering practical online discourse?
 How do emerging technologies and pedagogical strategies enhance online discourse and learning efficacy?

Theoretical Foundations

Theoretical foundations of online discourse explain how learners construct knowledge, engage in meaningful interactions, and navigate digital learning environments. Social constructivism, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, and Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism highlight the social, cognitive, and dialogic dimensions of learning. In contrast, discourse analysis theories provide a lens for examining communication patterns and meaning-making in online spaces. Together, these frameworks offer a comprehensive understanding of how discourse shapes engagement, fosters critical thinking, and enhances collaborative learning in virtual education.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivist theories, particularly those proposed by Vygotsky, emphasize the social aspects of learning and cognition, positing that knowledge is co-constructed through interactions with others [7]. In online environments, rich textual and multimedia exchanges offset the lack of physical presence, facilitating collaborative learning [8]. These interactions enable learners to reflect on their understanding in dialogue with peers, constructing knowledge contextually [5].

Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework

The Community of Inquiry framework identifies three essential presences that support effective online learning: cognitive, social, and teaching presence [9]. Cognitive presence relates to the extent to which learners engage in critical thinking. In contrast, social presence emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships and the ability to project oneself socially within a digital context [10]. Teaching presence combines instructional design and facilitation, underscoring the instructor’s role in guiding discourse and promoting engagement among learners [1].

Dialogic Learning and Bakhtin’s Theory of Discourse in Digital Contexts

Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism highlights the significance of dialogue in understanding meaning-making processes and acknowledges that all utterances are influenced by prior discourses [11]. This dialogic interaction fosters a dynamic learning environment in online learning where students coconstruct knowledge through shared discourse processes [12]. Dialogic learning encourages learners to utilize their cultural capital and individual experiences, enriching the discourse and making it more inclusive [5].

Role of Discourse Analysis Theories in Understanding Online Communicatio

Discourse analysis theories provide critical tools for understanding the complexities of online communication, highlighting how language shapes social realities [2]. These frameworks allow researchers to investigate interactions in online forums, identifying patterns, themes, and dynamics inherent in digital discussions [13]. Such analyses contribute nuanced insights into how discourse influences teaching and learning in online environments [14].

Methodology

This systematic literature review employs a rigorous methodology to analyze contemporary research on online learning discourse. By applying structured selection criteria, thematic synthesis, and quality appraisal, the study ensures that the review presents an evidence-based understanding of how discourse influences online education. The findings provide valuable insights for educators, instructional designers, and policymakers seeking to optimize digital discourse practices.

Research Design

This study adopts a systematic literature review (SLR) approach to synthesize existing research on discourse in online learning environments. The systematic review method ensures a structured, replicable, and transparent approach to collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing research findings from peer-reviewed sources. The review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure rigor in selecting and analyzing literature.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the selection of studies to ensure relevance and quality.

Inclusion Criteria
 Relevance to Online Learning Discourse: Studies must focus on discourse practices, interaction patterns, or communication frameworks in digital learning environments.
 Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Articles: To ensure the credibility of sources, we included only peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and book chapters.
 Publication Date: The review included literature published between 2010 and 2024 to capture recent developments in online discourse research.
 Empirical and Theoretical Studies: Both qualitative and quantitative studies and theoretical frameworks were included.
 Language: Only studies published in English were considered to maintain consistency in analysis.

Exclusion Criteria

 Studies primarily focused on face-to-face learning environments without explicit connections to online discourse.
 Opinion papers, blog posts, and non-scholarly sources.
 Research not accessible through institutional subscriptions or open-access databases.

Search Strategy and Data Sources

A systematic search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including:
 Web of Science
 Scopus
 ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
 Google Scholar
 IEEE Xplore (for technology-related discourse studies)
 SpringerLink
 JSTOR

The following search terms and Boolean operators were used to refine results:
 (“online discourse” OR “digital discourse”) AND (“online learning” OR “e-learning” OR “virtual classrooms”)
 (“student engagement” OR “collaborative learning”) AND (“discussion forums” OR “chat-based learning”)
 (“instructor discourse” OR “teacher facilitation”) AND (“asynchronous learning” OR “synchronous discussions”)

To further refine results, filters were applied to limit studies to scholarly peer-reviewed sources and studies published in the last 14 years (2010–2024).

Data Extraction and Analysis

The extracted studies were analyzed systematically using a thematic coding approach. The process involved:

Initial Screening:

 Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were reviewed to determine relevance.
 Studies that met the inclusion criteria were shortlisted for full-text review.

Full-Text Review and Data Extraction:

 A detailed review of each selected study was conducted to extract key findings.
 Data was organized under key themes, including:
• Theoretical frameworks for online discourse
• Discourse types and engagement strategies
• Instructor Roles and Facilitation Techniques
• Technological interventions in discourse analysis
• Student participation trends and barriers

Thematic Synthesis:

 Thematic analysis was employed to identify patterns and trends in discourse research.
 Findings were categorized based on their contribution to the study’s research questions.

Quality Appraisal:

 The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of selected studies.
 Studies with weak methodology (e.g., small sample sizes and lack of empirical evidence) were excluded from the final synthesis.

Ethical Considerations

Since this is a secondary research study, no human subjects were involved, eliminating the need for institutional review board (IRB) approval. However, ethical considerations were maintained by:
 Proper Citation: All sources are cited following APA 7th edition guidelines.
 Avoiding Bias: A structured search process was followed to reduce selection bias.
 Transparency: The review process and selection criteria are documented for replicability.

Findings

Table 1 and Figure 1 depict the findings of the thematic synthesis yielded by this systematic review.

Interpretation of the Summary Table

Table 1 presents a detailed breakdown of the research categorized under six primary themes in online discourse: Types and Features of Discourse, Role of Instructors, Student Participation, Learning Outcomes, Challenges, and Technological Innovations. The total number of citations analyzed is 74, distributed across 24 sub-themes, each contributing 3 to 4 citations. The percentage contribution of each primary theme to the overall citations allows for a comparative assessment of the research focus.

Types and Features of Discourse in Online Learning

This category accounts for 18.92% (14 citations) of the total references, making it the most heavily cited theme. Within this category:
• Structured vs. Unstructured Discussions and Characteristics of Effective Online Discourse received four citations (5.41%), the highest within this theme.
• Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Discourse and Text- Based, Video-Based, and Multimodal Discourse each received 3 citations (4.05%).

This pattern suggests that discourse structure and effectiveness are prominent research areas, with slightly more emphasis on structured discussions than communication modalities. The relatively lower emphasis on synchronous and asynchronous discourse suggests that research has already wellestablished these areas, shifting focus toward discourse depth and engagement quality.

Role of Instructors and Facilitation in Online Discourse

The second category represents 16.22% (12 citations) of the total. The four sub-themes within this category have an equal number of 3 citations (4.05%) each, covering:
• Instructor Presence and Engagement Strategies
• Scaffolding and Guiding Student Discourse
• Impact of Teacher Discourse Moves on Student Engagement
• Automated Facilitation Using AI and Chatbots

The balanced distribution across these sub-themes highlights instructors’ diverse roles in facilitating online discourse. While traditional instructor-led strategies (e.g., presence, engagement, and scaffolding) remain crucial, the emergence of AI-driven facilitation signals an increasing interest in automation and AIbased discourse management.

Student Participation and Engagement in Online Discourse

This category also comprises 16.22% (12 citations) of the total literature, evenly distributed across four sub-themes (each with three citations, 4.05%):
• Factors Influencing Student Participation
• Gender, Cultural, and Linguistic Differences
• Peer-to-Peer Interactions and Collaborative Knowledge Building
• Challenges Related to Lurking, Passive Engagement, and Lack of Interaction

The equal citation allocation indicates a balanced research focus on both individual and social factors affecting participation. Lurking and passive engagement are as critical as peer collaboration and identity-based factors, reflecting the persistent challenge of low engagement in online discourse.

The Impact of Online Discourse on Learning Outcomes

This category contributes 16.22% (12 citations) to the total literature, evenly distributed across four sub-themes (each with three citations, 4.05%):
• Relationship Between Discourse Quality and Critical Thinking Skills
• The Role of Discourse in Knowledge Construction and Conceptual Change
• Measuring Discourse Effectiveness
• Case Studies and Empirical Findings on Discourse and Academic Performance

The uniform distribution across these topics strongly emphasizes discourse as a learning tool. Measuring effectiveness remains a key focus, suggesting researchers are interested in empirically validating discourse theories.

Challenges and Barriers in Online Discourse

This theme also accounts for 16.22% (12 citations), covering:
• Cognitive Overload and Information Fragmentation
• Social and Emotional Barriers
• Technical and Accessibility Issues Affecting Participation
• Digital Divide and its Impact on Discourse Equity

Each sub-theme received three citations (4.05%), indicating equal recognition of technical, social, and psychological barriers. The equal weight suggests that no single challenge dominates; multiple factors hinder practical online discourse.

Technology and Innovations in Online Discourse

This final category holds 16.22% (12 citations), with the same even distribution across four sub-themes (each three citations, 4.05%):
• AI-Driven Discourse Analysis and Natural Language Processing (NLP)
• Role of Learning Analytics in Tracking and Improving Discourse Quality
• Gamification and Interactive Discussion Platforms
• Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) for Immersive Discourse Experiences

The equal allocation of citations reflects the growing interest in technological enhancements to discourse. Including AI-driven discourse analysis and VR/AR-based discussions indicates a research trend toward emerging technologies transforming online communication.

Overall Interpretation and Key Insights

1. The most heavily cited theme is Types and Features of Discourse (18.92%), indicating that discourse structure and modalities are central to research.
2. All other five categories contribute equally (16.22% each), signifying a well-balanced research focus across instructors, participation, learning outcomes, challenges, and technology.
3. No sub-theme exceeds 5.41%, suggesting that research is broadly distributed rather than concentrated on a few dominant topics.
4. Themes related to student engagement, barriers, and technology adoption are equally important, highlighting a multifaceted approach to understanding online discourse.
5. The equal weightage of technological innovations (AI, VR, and Gamification) with traditional teaching methods (Instructor Presence, Engagement Strategies) suggests that educators are incorporating new digital tools alongside humandriven facilitation.

The balanced distribution of research citations across various themes highlights the comprehensive nature of online discourse research. While structural and qualitative aspects of discourse are slightly more emphasized (18.92%), instructor roles, student participation, learning outcomes, challenges, and technological interventions receive equal attention (16.22% each). This equitable distribution suggests that scholars view online discourse as a multi-dimensional phenomenon requiring pedagogical, psychological, technical, and empirical considerations. The increasing focus on AI-driven facilitation, VR-based discussions, and analytics-driven discourse quality suggests that future research will likely prioritize the intersection of technology and discourse dynamics.

Results

Theme 1 - Types and Features of Discourse in Online Learning

Discourse in online learning environments encompasses various forms of interaction that shape engagement, comprehension, and knowledge construction. The effectiveness of these interactions depends on multiple factors, including whether discourse is synchronous or asynchronous, the medium used, the degree of structure in discussions, and the cognitive depth of exchanges. Understanding these elements provides insight into how different discourse strategies influence learning outcomes and student participation in digital education settings.
• Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Discourse: Online discourse is categorized as synchronous (real-time) or asynchronous (delayed) [15]. Synchronous discourse, such as live chat or video conferences, promotes immediate interaction and allows for rapid feedback, enhancing engagement [16]. However, asynchronous discourse in forums or discussion boards affords participants the luxury of reflection and thoughtful response, thereby deepening analysis [17].
• Text-Based, Video-Based, and Multimodal Discourse: The medium of discourse—text-based, video, or multimodal—shapes how students engage and the richness of their communication. Text-based discourse often relies on literacy skills and requires participants to articulate their thoughts precisely [4]. In contrast, video and multimodal discourse incorporate visual and auditory elements that facilitate more expressive communication, catering to diverse learning preferences [5]. Integrating multimodal elements enhances student engagement and comprehension by appealing to various senses and learning styles [18].
• Structured vs. Unstructured Discussions: Discourse in online learning also be divided into structured discussions, which follow specific guidelines or prompts, and unstructured discussions, which are more open-ended [19]. Structured discussions provide a clear framework for interaction, ensuring that learning objectives are met [10]. Conversely, unstructured discussions foster creativity and spontaneous dialogue, allowing learners to explore topics more freely [2]. Both forms have merits in developing critical thinking and collaborative skills, depending on the learning goals [15].
• Characteristics of Effective Online Discourse: Effective online discourse is marked by high interactivity, coherence, and cognitive depth [9]. High interactivity encourages participants to respond to one another, thereby enhancing engagement and discourse richness [17]. Coherent discourse allows for logical connections between ideas, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject [20]. Finally, cognitive depth signifies the degree of critical thinking and analysis in discussions, with effective online discourse prompting learners to evaluate, synthesize, and apply knowledge [21].

Theme 2 - Role of Instructors and Facilitation in Online Discourse

• Instructors play a crucial role in shaping online discourse by fostering engagement, guiding discussions, and ensuring meaningful interactions among learners. Their presence and facilitation strategies, including scaffolding techniques, discourse moves, and feedback mechanisms, significantly influence student participation and critical thinking. While emerging technologies such as AI-driven chatbots offer new possibilities for automated facilitation, the human element remains essential in creating a supportive and interactive online learning environment.
• Instructor Presence and Engagement Strategies: Instructor presence is vital in facilitating discourse and setting the tone for a supportive learning environment [22]. Effective instructors employ various engagement strategies, such as prompting discussions with open-ended questions, providing timely feedback, and modeling discourse behaviors [23]. Additionally, their active participation in discussions demonstrates the value of collaboration and encourages learners to engage more fully with one another [24].
• Scaffolding and Guiding Student Discourse: Instructors play a key role in providing scaffolding that aids learners in navigating complex discussions and constructing knowledge collectively [25]. This support could provide templates for discussion, modeling effective response practices, or guiding students in reflective thinking [2]. Instructors enhance student understanding and engagement by employing structured support, ultimately facilitating more profound learning experiences [26].
• Impact of Teacher Discourse Moves on Student Engagement: The nature of teacher discourse, including the types of questions and comments made, significantly impacts student engagement in online discussions [27]. Teachers who utilize open-ended questions or encourage students to elaborate on their ideas create opportunities for more in-depth discourse, promoting critical thinking and active participation [3]. Teachers’ discourse “moves” foster an environment where learners feel valued and heard, thus facilitating higher levels of commitment and interaction [28].
• Automated Facilitation Using AI And Chatbots: Integrating AI and chatbots into online learning environments offers innovative approaches to discourse facilitation [29]. Automated systems manage routine inquiries, prompt discussions, and encourage participation, particularly in large online classes [30]. However, while these technologies supplement human educators, they cannot fully replace the nuanced understanding and emotional intelligence that human instructors bring to discourse facilitation [31].

Theme 3 - Student Participation and Engagement in Online Discourse

Student participation in online discourse is shaped by a complex interplay of personal, social, and structural factors influencing engagement levels. While intrinsic motivation, digital literacy, and social presence encourage active involvement, differences in cultural background, gender, and language impact communication styles and participation dynamics. Addressing challenges such as passive engagement and lurking requires intentional strategies that promote inclusivity, peer collaboration, and a strong sense of community within online learning environments.
• Factors Influencing Student Participation: Student participation in online discourse is influenced by various factors, including intrinsic motivation, digital literacy, and perceived social presence [32]. Motivated students are more likely to engage actively in online discussions, while those with higher levels of digital literacy possess the skills to navigate complex online environments [19]. Furthermore, the sense of social presence— feeling connected to peers—enhances participation by creating an environment where students feel comfortable sharing their thoughts [33].
• Gender, Cultural, and Linguistic Differences: Cultural, gender, and linguistic differences significantly impact students’ engagement levels and their manner of participation in online discourse [34]. For instance, some cultural backgrounds may prioritize collective discourse over individual contributions, affecting how students interact in discussions [35]. Researchers have found that understanding these differences informs instructional design and engagement strategies, helping to create an inclusive online environment that respects diverse voices [36].
• Peer-to-Peer Interactions and Collaborative Knowledge Building: Peer-to-peer interactions in online discourse are essential for collaborative knowledge building, where learning emerges through shared dialogues and mutual understanding [29]. Discourse thrives in environments where learners actively engage with one another, challenging and building upon each other’s ideas [5]. This collaborative effort allows for integrating diverse perspectives, often enriching the learning experience and enhancing learner retention [1].
• Challenges Related to Lurking, Passive Engagement, and Lack of Interaction: A significant challenge in online discourse is the phenomenon of “lurking,” where students read discussions without participating [37]. This passive engagement limits the richness of discourse and may inhibit individual learning experiences [38]. Efforts to encourage participation, such as establishing clear expectations, creating engaging prompts, and fostering a sense of community, are crucial for mitigating these challenges and promoting active involvement [39].

Theme 4 - The Impact of Online Discourse on Learning Outcomes

The quality of online discourse plays a crucial role in shaping learning outcomes, particularly in fostering critical thinking and deeper cognitive engagement. Through meaningful interactions, students engage in knowledge construction and conceptual change, which enhances their ability to analyze and synthesize information. Empirical research and discourse analytics further validate the impact of structured discourse practices on academic performance, emphasizing the need for well-designed discussion strategies in online learning environments.
• Relationship Between Discourse Quality and Critical Thinking Skills: Research indicates a strong relationship between the quality of online discourse and students’ critical thinking skills [40]. High-quality discourse encourages students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information critically, thus enhancing their cognitive skills [36]. Moreover, cultivating these critical thinking abilities through discourse correlates with improved academic performance and deeper learning [12].
• The Role of Discourse in Knowledge Construction and Conceptual Change: Discourse plays a pivotal role in the processes of knowledge construction and conceptual change, providing the interactional context through which learners negotiate meaning [37]. The collaborative aspect of discourse allows for the critical examination of ideas, often leading to shifts in understanding and integrating new concepts [41]. This dynamic interaction is essential for effective learning in online environments [29].
• Measuring Discourse Effectiveness: Various methods are used to assess the effectiveness of online discourse, including content analysis and discourse analytics [42]. Content analysis examines discourse’s thematic and structural aspects, while discourse analytics utilizes computational approaches to evaluate interaction patterns and discourse quality [26]. These methods contribute to understanding how discourse shapes learning experiences and outcomes in online environments [30].
• Case Studies and Empirical Findings on Discourse and Academic Performance: Case studies have highlighted positive correlations between effective discourse practices and enhanced academic performance in online settings [2]. Empirical findings suggest that courses employing a structured discourse approach yield better student academic outcomes, reflecting deeper engagement levels and meaningful learning experiences [5]. Such evidence underscores the necessity of fostering robust discourse practices within online learning contexts to improve educational efficacy [3].

Theme 5 - Challenges and Barriers in Online Discourse

Despite the potential benefits of online discourse, several challenges hinder its effectiveness, ranging from cognitive overload to social, technical, and accessibility barriers. The overwhelming volume of information and fragmented discussions lead to disengagement, while social and emotional factors such as anonymity and lack of presence affect interaction quality. Additionally, disparities in digital literacy, technological access, and internet connectivity contribute to inequities in participation, highlighting the need for inclusive and well-supported online learning environments.
• Cognitive Overload and Information Fragmentation: Cognitive overload arises in online learning due to excessive information presented simultaneously, which hinders effective discourse [14]. Information fragmentation—where knowledge is dispersed across various platforms and discussions—exacerbates this challenge, making it difficult for learners to form coherent understandings [43]. When learners feel overwhelmed, they may disengage from discussions altogether, undermining the potential for collaborative knowledge construction [35].
• Social and Emotional Barriers: Social and emotional barriers obstruct participation in online discourse, impacting communication quality [20]. Anonymity, while providing freedom for expression, may also lead to miscommunication or inappropriate interactions that discourage participation [44]. Furthermore, a lack of social presence—feeling disconnected from peers—inhibits learners from actively contributing to discussions, affecting their overall learning experience [39].
• Technical and Accessibility Issues Affecting Participation: Technical challenges and accessibility issues remain critical barriers to effective online discourse [45]. Learners experience frustrations linked to software glitches, poor internet connectivity, or unfamiliarity with digital platforms [23]. Additionally, disparities in digital literacy levels impact learners’ ability to engage fully in online discussions, often privileging those with more excellent technological proficiency [3].
• Digital Divide and its Impact on Discourse Equity: The digital divide represents a significant challenge in ensuring equitable participation in online discourse, as socio-economic status affects access to technological resources [4]. Learners from underprivileged backgrounds may not have reliable internet access or up-to-date devices, limiting their ability to engage fully in discussions [26]. Addressing these disparities is essential for promoting inclusivity and equity in online learning environments [46].

Theme 6 - Technology and Innovations in Online Discourse

Technological advancements are revolutionizing online discourse by enhancing engagement, tracking discourse quality, and creating immersive learning environments. AI-driven discourse analysis and learning analytics provide educators with data-driven insights to refine discussion strategies, while gamification and interactive platforms increase student motivation and participation. Emerging technologies such as VR and AR further bridge the gap between digital and physical learning spaces, fostering more dynamic and interactive online discourse experiences.
• AI-driven discourse Analysis and Natural Language Processing (NLP): The advent of AI-driven discourse analysis using natural language processing (NLP) has transformed our understanding of online communication patterns [47]. These technologies enable the analysis of vast amounts of data, identifying trends, sentiment, and engagement levels within discourse [48]. As a result, educators harness these insights to improve discourse strategies and facilitate deeper learning experiences [49].
• Role of Learning Analytics in Tracking and Improving Discourse Quality: Learning analytics present a robust framework for monitoring online discourse and enhancing its quality [32]. Educators systematically collect and analyze student interaction data to ascertain engagement patterns and identify areas that require improvement [6]. Therefore, leveraging learning analytics fosters a data-informed approach to discourse facilitation, promoting the effectiveness of online learning [50].
• Gamification and Interactive Discussion Platforms: Gamification techniques—integrating game elements into learning activities—boost engagement and interaction in online discussions [20]. By introducing elements such as points, levels, and rewards, instructors motivate students to participate actively and collaborate [46]. Interactive discussion platforms, combining real-time polls and multimedia sharing features, further enhance engagement opportunities [34].
• Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR/AR) for Immersive Discourse Experiences: Innovations in VR and AR technologies enable immersive discourse experiences in online learning, fostering authentic interactions and presence [9]. These technologies replicate physical classroom environments, promoting student engagement by simulating real-life discussions [2]. As users navigate virtual spaces together, the possibilities for collaborative knowledge-building experiences are amplified, enhancing the richness of discourse [40].

Discussion

Discussion of Themes

This discussion highlights the multifaceted nature of online discourse and its implications for learning. While discourse structure, instructor facilitation, and student participation are key determinants of engagement, barriers such as cognitive overload and the digital divide must be addressed to ensure inclusivity. Technological advancements, including AI-driven analytics, gamification, and immersive environments, offer promising solutions for improving online discussions. However, balancing technological interventions and human-centered facilitation remains critical for fostering meaningful, equitable, and effective discourse experiences in online learning environments.

Theme 1 - Types and Features of Discourse in Online Learning

Online discourse manifests in various formats that shape student engagement and comprehension. The distinction between synchronous and asynchronous discourse highlights the trade-offs between immediate interaction and reflective analysis [17,15]. Additionally, text-based, video-based, and multimodal discourse each provide unique affordances for communication, with multimodal formats enhancing engagement through multiple sensory channels [18, 5]. The degree of structure in discussions further impacts participation, as structured discourse fosters clear objectives, whereas unstructured interactions encourage creativity and critical thinking [2,10]. Finally, effective online discourse is characterized by interactivity, coherence, and cognitive depth, all contributing to enriched learning experiences [9, 21]. These findings underscore the need for tailored discourse strategies that balance structure, modality, and interactivity to optimize learning outcomes.

Theme 2 - Role of Instructors and Facilitation in Online Discourse

Instructor presence and facilitation play a critical role in fostering productive online discussions. Engagement strategies such as prompting discussions, providing feedback, and modeling effective discourse help create a supportive learning environment [23,22]. Moreover, scaffolding techniques enable students to navigate complex discussions, reinforcing collaborative knowledge construction [2,25]. The specific discourse moves used by instructors, such as open-ended questions and elaborative feedback, significantly influence student engagement and critical thinking [27,3]. While AI-driven facilitation tools, including chatbots, offer scalable discourse support, they lack human instructors’ nuanced adaptability and emotional intelligence [31,29]. As online learning environments continue to evolve, balancing human and automated facilitation will be crucial for sustaining meaningful discourse.

Theme 3 - Student Participation and Engagement in Online Discourse

Personal, social, and contextual factors influence student engagement in online discussions. Intrinsic motivation, digital literacy, and social presence contribute to higher levels of participation, as students who feel connected to their peers are more likely to engage in meaningful discourse [32, 33]. However, gender, cultural, and linguistic differences affect communication styles, highlighting the need for inclusive discussion strategies [36, 34]. Peer-to-peer interactions are a foundation for collaborative knowledge building, encouraging deeper cognitive engagement through shared dialogue [1,29]. A key challenge remains lurking and passive engagement, which diminishes discourse richness and learning outcomes [38, 37]. Addressing these challenges requires intentional pedagogical strategies that foster community, provide participation incentives, and accommodate diverse communication preferences.

Theme 4 - The Impact of Online Discourse on Learning Outcomes

The effectiveness of online discourse directly correlates with cognitive development and academic performance. High-quality discussions facilitate critical thinking, enabling students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information [40, 36]. Through collaborative discourse, learners construct and refine knowledge, often experiencing conceptual change as they interact with diverse perspectives [36,41]. Measuring discourse effectiveness using content analysis and computational analytics has provided insights into how discussion structures impact learning outcomes [42, 26]. Empirical studies show that structured discourse models lead to better academic performance, emphasizing the importance of well-designed discussion frameworks [2,3]. These findings reinforce the necessity of fostering critical engagement in online discussions through structured, interactive, and cognitively demanding discourse practices.

Theme 5 - Challenges and Barriers in Online Discourse

Despite its advantages, various obstacles often hinder online discourse, including cognitive, social, and technological barriers. Cognitive overload and information fragmentation overwhelm learners, leading to disengagement and reduced knowledge retention [14, 43]. Social and emotional barriers, such as anonymity and lack of presence, negatively impact participation by creating an impersonal learning environment [39, 20]. Technical difficulties and accessibility concern further exacerbate inequalities in participation, disproportionately affecting students with limited digital resources or connectivity [3,45]. The digital divide remains a significant barrier, preventing equitable access to online discussions and marginalizing certain student populations [4, 26]. To mitigate these challenges, online learning environments must integrate inclusive and supportive discourse strategies, ensuring all students have the resources and social conditions necessary for meaningful engagement.

Theme 6 - Technology and Innovations in Online Discourse

Emerging technologies are reshaping online discourse by enhancing engagement and enabling personalized learning experiences. AI-driven discourse analysis and NLP tools provide valuable insights into communication patterns, sentiment, and engagement levels, allowing educators to refine discussion strategies [47,48]. Similarly, learning analytics tracks and improves discourse quality, identifying participation trends and optimizing student interactions [6, 32]. Gamification techniques and interactive discussion platforms enhance engagement by incorporating reward-based learning mechanisms, making discussions more dynamic and participatory [20,46]. Additionally, VR and AR technologies create immersive discourse experiences, fostering presence and engagement in virtual learning environments [2,9]. These innovations highlight the transformative potential of technology in online learning, suggesting that future research should continue exploring ways to integrate emerging tools for more effective discourse facilitation.

Future Directions and Research Gaps

As online discourse evolves, research must adapt to address emerging trends, unexplored areas, and the implications of technological advancements in digital learning environments. Investigating the role of emerging platforms, emotional dimensions, and the integration of large language models and generative AI will provide deeper insights into discourse practices and their impact on learning. Furthermore, identifying strategies to improve discourse quality will support educators in fostering more engaging and inclusive online learning experiences. • Emerging Trends in Online Discourse Research: Future
research in online discourse should continue to focus on emerging technologies and their impact on communication practices in educational settings [51]. As digital learning environments evolve rapidly, studies that investigate new platforms, tools, and pedagogical models are essential to understanding the implications for discourse and learning outcomes [50]. Additionally, exploring how social media shapes discourse practices offers avenues for innovative research [6].
• Unexplored Areas in Online Discourse: Significant gaps remain in understanding online discourse’s affective and emotional dimensions [52]. Future research should examine how emotional factors influence participation and engagement in digital contexts, contributing to a holistic understanding of discourse dynamics in online learning environments [53]. More significant consideration of these elements will assist educators in designing more inclusive and responsive learning experiences [13].
• Implications of Large Language Models and Generative AI: The rise of large language models and generative AI presents unique opportunities and challenges for online learning discourse [54]. As these technologies evolve, understanding their potential impact on how students engage, construct knowledge, and interact with their peers is crucial [34]. Research should explore both the benefits and ethical considerations surrounding the integration of AI into discourse practices [49].
• Recommendations for Improving Discourse Quality in Online Learning Environments: To enhance discourse quality, educational institutions should prioritize the development of clear guidelines for participation and engagement [55]. Training programs for instructors focusing on effective facilitation strategies and discourse analysis empower educators to create more interactive learning environments [9]. Moreover, leveraging technology to monitor discourse dynamics provides valuable feedback for continuous improvement in both teaching and learning [46, 56].

Suggestions for Policy and Practice

• By implementing the following policy and practice recommendations, institutions optimize online discourse to foster richer learning experiences, promote equity, and ensure meaningful student engagement in digital education environments.
• Enhancing Instructor Presence and Facilitation Strategies: Policymakers and institutions should prioritize faculty training programs emphasizing best practices in online discourse facilitation. Given the impact of instructor presence on engagement [23,22], training should focus on fostering social, cognitive, and teaching presence in virtual classrooms. Institutions should also develop standardized guidelines for discourse facilitation, ensuring consistency in online learning environments. Additionally, adopting AI-driven support systems, such as automated discussion prompts and chatbots [29], helps manage discourse effectively in large online courses.
• Promoting Student Engagement and Inclusive Participation: To address passive engagement and disparities in student participation, institutions should implement structured engagement strategies, such as mandatory discussion contributions, interactive assignments, and peer collaboration exercises [1,37]. Policies should encourage culturally responsive discourse practices, acknowledging gender, linguistic, and cultural differences in communication styles [36,34]. Moreover, developing clear participation rubrics helps set expectations and foster meaningful contributions in online discussions.
• Addressing Technological and Accessibility Barriers: Ensuring equitable access to digital learning environments requires targeted policies that bridge the digital divide [4, 26]. Institutions should invest in technology grants, subsidized internet programs, and device loan initiatives to support students from underprivileged backgrounds. Accessibility measures, such as captioned videos, screen-reader compatibility, and multilingual support, should be mandated to accommodate diverse learners [45]. Additionally, institutions should provide technical support services that assist students and instructors in navigating digital platforms effectively.
• Implementing Discourse Analytics for Continuous Improvement: Institutions should integrate learning analytics tools to track discourse effectiveness and engagement patterns [6,32]. These tools provide real-time insights into student interactions, allowing educators to adjust facilitation strategies accordingly. Policies should mandate periodic evaluations of online discourse practices, ensuring that learning experiences are data-informed and continuously optimized. Moreover, educators should receive training on interpreting discourse analytics to enhance their instructional approaches.
• Leveraging Emerging Technologies for Immersive Discourse: The adoption of emerging technologies such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) enhance discourse by creating more immersive and interactive learning experiences [2,9]. Institutions should explore funding opportunities for integrating VR/AR platforms into online education. Similarly, gamification techniques, such as discussion leaderboards and reward systems [20,46], are incorporated to motivate student engagement. Policymakers should establish guidelines for these technologies’ ethical and practical use, ensuring they complement pedagogical goals.
• Strengthening Policy Frameworks for Ethical and Inclusive Online Discourse: Institutions must establish ethical guidelines for online discourse, addressing issues such as misinformation, harassment, and digital citizenship [20,44]. Policies should outline clear codes of conduct, enforce respectful communication, and implement moderation mechanisms to prevent disruptive behaviors. Additionally, institutions should foster an inclusive discourse culture by ensuring diverse representation in course materials and discussions, enabling all students to engage meaningfully.
• Future Research and Development Initiatives: Policymakers and funding agencies should support further research into the evolving dynamics of online discourse, particularly in the areas of AI facilitation, affective engagement, and discourse-driven learning outcomes [48,54]. Collaborative efforts between researchers, educators, and technology developers should be encouraged to explore innovative discourse models that enhance learning effectiveness. Furthermore, funding should prioritize studies assessing online discourse practices’ long-term impact on academic performance and skill development.

Conclusion

Key Findings

This systematic literature review identifies six overarching themes related to online discourse: (1) Types and Features of Discourse, (2) Role of Instructors and Facilitation, (3) Student Participation and Engagement, (4) Impact on Learning Outcomes, (5) Challenges and Barriers, and (6) Technology and Innovations. Across these themes, the research highlights the importance of structured and multimodal discourse, instructor facilitation strategies, social and cognitive engagement, and the role of emerging technologies in shaping discourse quality. Challenges such as cognitive overload, accessibility issues, and the digital divide persist, requiring targeted interventions to foster equitable and effective discourse practices.

Answers to Research Questions

1. What theoretical frameworks explain the nature and function of discourse in online learning environments?
The review identifies social constructivism (Vygotsky), the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, Bakhtin’s dialogic learning, and discourse analysis theories as foundational perspectives. These theories emphasize knowledge coconstruction through interaction, cognitive and social presence, and the role of language in shaping digital discourse [1,9,5].

2. How do different discourse types and structures affect student engagement and learning outcomes?
Synchronous discourse facilitates real-time engagement but may limit deep reflection, while asynchronous discussions allow for thoughtful responses but risk lower interaction levels [17,15]. Multimodal discourse enhances engagement through varied sensory input, and structured discussions promote focused, goal-oriented exchanges that improve critical thinking and collaboration [2,4].

3. What specific roles do instructors play in facilitating discourse and enhancing learning within digital contexts?
Instructors influence online discourse through presence, engagement strategies, and scaffolding techniques. Active instructor participation enhances student motivation and interaction, while structured guidance fosters deeper cognitive engagement [22, 3]. AI-driven facilitation tools supplement instructor efforts but lack human facilitation’s adaptability and emotional intelligence [31, 29].

4. What are the primary barriers and challenges in fostering practical online discourse?
Key challenges include cognitive overload, information fragmentation, social and emotional barriers, technological accessibility, and the digital divide [14, 20, 4]. Passive engagement, such as lurking, further diminishes discourse effectiveness, necessitating strategies that promote active participation and inclusivity [39, 37].

5. How do emerging technologies and pedagogical strategies enhance online discourse and learning efficacy?
AI-driven discourse analytics, gamification, and VR/AR environments provide innovative ways to enhance engagement and discourse effectiveness [9, 47]. Learning analytics track student participation and facilitate personalized learning interventions, while gamification strategies incentivize interaction and peer collaboration [32,46]. However, ethical considerations and the balance between automated and human-driven discourse facilitation remain critical for future research.

These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of online discourse and the need for pedagogically sound, technologically integrated, and equity-focused approaches to optimizing digital learning environments.

Limitations of the Study

While this review provides a comprehensive synthesis of contemporary research on discourse in online learning environments, several limitations must be acknowledged. These limitations pertain to methodological constraints, scope restrictions, potential biases, and gaps in existing literature.
• Scope and Inclusion Criteria: This study primarily focuses on peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings published between 2010 and 2024. While this ensures the inclusion of recent and credible research, it excludes older foundational studies that may provide historical context to online discourse development. Additionally, studies published in non-English languages were not included, which may have omitted valuable insights from international research.
• Database and Source Limitations: The study relies on literature from major academic databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, SpringerLink, and JSTOR. While these databases encompass a broad range of disciplines, some relevant studies may exist in databases not included in the search strategy. Furthermore, conference papers and preprints—often containing emerging trends and experimental findings—were not systematically analyzed, potentially limiting insights into cutting-edge research.
• Challenges in Measuring Discourse Effectiveness: A key limitation in the reviewed literature is the variability in methodologies used to assess discourse quality and effectiveness. While some studies utilize content analysis and discourse analytics [42,26], others rely on self-reported data or observational methods, introducing subjectivity and measurement inconsistencies. The lack of a standardized framework for evaluating online discourse makes it difficult to compare findings across studies.
• Potential for Publication Bias: The reliance on peerreviewed literature may introduce publication bias, as studies with significant findings are more likely to be published than those with null or negative results. This may lead to an overrepresentation of studies that emphasize the benefits of online discourse while underreporting challenges or unsuccessful implementations. Future research should explore unpublished dissertations, technical reports, and case studies to provide a more balanced perspective.
• Generalizability Across Different Learning Contexts: Most reviewed studies focus on higher education settings, with limited research on K-12, corporate training, and informal learning environments. Online discourse in non-traditional settings, such as workplace learning and community-driven knowledge networks, remains underexplored. Additionally, cultural and institutional differences in online discourse practices may limit the generalizability of findings across diverse educational systems.
• The Evolving Nature of Technology in Online Discourse: With the rapid advancement of AI, VR/AR, and machine learning in education, the landscape of online discourse is constantly changing. Many reviewed studies focus on existing technologies and may not fully capture the impact of emerging innovations. Additionally, ethical considerations regarding AI-driven discourse facilitation, privacy concerns, and bias in automated moderation systems warrant further investigation.
• Limited Focus on Longitudinal Studies: Most studies analyzed in this review employ cross-sectional designs, focusing on the short-term impacts of discourse strategies. Longitudinal research examining the sustained effects of online discourse on critical thinking, retention, and long-term learning outcomes remains scarce. Future research should investigate how discourse practices evolve over extended periods and how they contribute to lifelong learning skills.

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable insights into the role of discourse in online learning and highlights critical areas for future research. Addressing these limitations through broader inclusion criteria, standardized assessment methods, and expanded research across diverse learning contexts will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of online discourse and its impact on education.

References

1. Fu ELF, van Aalst J, Chan CKK (2016) Toward a classification of discourse patterns in asynchronous online discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 11(4): 441-478.
2. Ramasamy SA, Zainal AZ (2023) Facilitating the construction of knowledge collectively through dialogic discourse: Teachers’ perspectives and practices in English language teaching. TEFLIN Journal-A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English 34(1), 79.
3. Panjaitan SM, Hutauruk AJB, Sitepu C, Gultom SP, Sitorus P, et al. (2023) Implementation of online learning and its impact on learning achievements of mathematics education students. Infinity Journal 12(1): 41.
4. Keller R (2011) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (skad). Human Studies 34(1): 43-65.
5. Imafuku R, Kataoka R, Mayahara M, Suzuki H, Saiki T (2014) Students’ experiences in interdisciplinary problem-based learning: A discourse analysis of group interaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 8(2).
6. Abdelwahab Y (2023) Power and metaphoric discourse in The Handmaid’s Tale. Helwan Journal of English Studies.
7. Fadyl JK, Payne D (2016) Socially constructed “value” and vocational experiences following neurological injury. Disability and Rehabilitation 38(22): 2165-2177.
8. McKenna S, Peticca‐Harris A (2016) Globalization, academic knowledge interests and the global careers discourse. Critical Perspectives on International Business 12(4): 331-347.
9. Iza Erviti A (2015) Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies 15(1): 71.
10. Wallmeier F, Helmig B, Feeney MK (2019) Knowledge construction in public administration: A discourse analysis of public value. Public Administration Review 79(4): 488-499.
11. Gloria E (2021) Of benevolence and unity: Unpacking China’s policy discourses toward Southeast Asia. Jas 9(1).
12. Tong Y, Yang C, Chen G (2024) A visual learning analytics approach for knowledge building: Impact on students’ epistemic understanding of discourse, productive inquiry and domain knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology 55(3): 992-1019.
13. Fors NO (2015) In other words, Counterdiscourses in the classroom. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 174: 3518-3522.
14. Bizjak D (2020) The role of discourse and text in the construction of organizational identity. Puntoorg International Journal, 5(2): 85-98.
15. Souto Pereira S, Becker S, Gardiner G (2017) Sensitive sexualities: Dichotomised discourse in the erasure of bisexuality. Psychology and Sexuality 8(1–2): 118-131.
16. Duschinsky R (2011) Ideal and unsullied: Purity, subjectivity and social power. Subjectivity 4(2): 147-167.
17. Calvo Martínez S, Morales Pachón A, Martín Martín JM, Molina Moreno V (2019) Solidarity economy, social enterprise, and innovation discourses: Understanding hybrid forms in postcolonial Colombia. Social Sciences 8(7): 205.
18. Handa A (2022) The politics of knowledge of medicinal plants in India: Corporations, collectors, and cultivators as constituents. Studies in Indian Politics 10(1): 93-106.
19. Brokensha S, Conradie T (2016) Facilitating critical enquiry about race and racism in a digital environment: Design considerations. South African Journal of Higher Education 30(1).
20. Jones M, Pietilä I, Joronen K, Simpson W, Gray S, et al. (2016) Parents with mental illness – A qualitative study of identities and experiences with support services. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 23(8): 471-478.
21. Kheovichai B (2014) Marketized university discourse: A synchronic and diachronic comparison of the discursive constructions of employer organizations in academic and business job advertisements. Discourse and Communication 8(4): 371-390.
22. Maciag R (2017) The Analysis of the Internet Development Based on the Complex Model of the Discursive Space. In Proceedings of the IS4SI 2017 Summit DIGITALISATION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY, Gothenburg, Sweden, 12–16 June 2017. MDPI.
23. Keller R (2018) The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse. In The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse. Routledge pp. 16-47
24. Kościańska A (2016) Sex on equal terms? Polish sexology on women’s emancipation and “good sex” from the 1970s to the present. Sexualities 19(1–2): 236-256.
25. Nkoane MM (2022) 3 – Sustainable Rural Learning Ecologies: A Pathway to Acknowledging African Knowledge Systems in the Arena of Mainstream of Knowledge Production? Journal of Higher Education in Africa 13(1–2).
26. Phillips LJ (2010) Producing knowledge in collaborative research about virtual worlds: Discursive constructions of second life. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research 2(5).
27. Fernández-Silva LA, Ulloa-Guerra O, Sartor-Harada A, Martínez-Sierra R (2025) Mujeres Magazine as a Classifying Space of the Performativities of Being a Woman in Cuba. Journalism Practice 19(1): 114-133.
28. Butcher DL, MacKinnon KA (2015) Educational silos in nursing education: A critical review of practical nurse education in Canada. Nursing Inquiry 22(3): 231-239.
29. Persson T, Löve J, Tengelin E, Hensing G (2023) Healthcare professionals’ discourses on men and masculinities in sexual healthcare: A focus group study. BMC Health Services Research 23(1): 535.
30. Bracewell DB, Tomlinson M, Wang H (2012) A Motif Approach for Identifying Pursuits of Power in Social Discourse. In 2012 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Semantic Computing IEEE pp: 1-8
31. Eagly AH, Antonakis J (2015) Leadership. In M Mikulincer, PR Shaver, E Borgida, JA Bargh (Eds). APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition. American Psychological Association pp: 571–592.
32. Kun Y, Canzhong J, Jiewei L (2015) Frame theory and its application to discourse-based English listening teaching. International Research in Education 3(1): 54.
33. Sjöberg L (2021) Pedagogic discourses in the Swedish primary teacher education programme from a subject perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 65(4): 537-551.
34. Fetzer A (2018) Our chief political editor reads between the lines of the chancellor’s budget speech. Internet Pragmatics 1(1): 29-54.
35. Hofer G, Eggler M, Sleptsova M, Langewitz W (2015) ‘I feel we don’t really understand each other’: Interpreting medication instructions for a Turkish-speaking diabetes patient. The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 7(3).
36. Esquinca A (2012) Tranfronterizos' socialization into mathematical discourse: Capitalizing on language and cultural resources or caught between conflicting ideologies? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15(6): 669-686.
37. Zhang H (2024) An inquiry into the factors influencing the role of Marxist Chineseization on the discourse system of Chinese-style modernization. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9(1).
38. Du L (2023) Construction of climate identity of Britain and America based on discourse-historical analysis. Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences 14: 507-517.
39. Ciccone V (2024) ‘Vulnerability’ at work: Instrumental vulnerabilities among software professionals. Sociological Research Online 29(4): 881–897.
40. Chan M (2012) The discursive reproduction of ideologies and national identities in the Chinese and Japanese English-language press. Discourse and Communication 6(4): 361-378.
41. Young K, Fisher J, Kirkman M (2019) ‘do mad people get endo or does endo make you mad?’: Clinicians’ discursive constructions of medicine and women with endometriosis. Feminism and Psychology 29(3), 337-356.
42. Khemlani S, Trafton J, Lotstein M, Johnson‐Laird P (2012) A process model of immediate inferences.
43. Gnanaseelan J (2021) English functions and ideologies in newspaper editorials. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Review 7(1): 12-28.
44. Fried M (2010) Constructions and frames as interpretive clues. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 83-102.
45. Peng B (2024) Subjectivity of discourse constructions in news discourse by integrating construction grammar and critical discourse analysis. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9(1).
46. Traugott EC (2021) A constructional perspective on the rise of metatextual discourse markers. Cadernos de Linguística 2(1): 1–25.
47. Ovchinnikova E, Montazeri N, Alexandrov T, Hobbs JR, McCord MC, et al. (2014) Abductive Reasoning with a Large Knowledge Base for Discourse Processing. In H Bunt, J Bos, S Pulman (Eds.). Springer Netherlands. 4: 107-127.
48. Rai N (2018) Discourse analysis: How Bhutanese issues are discussed online? Media Watch 9(2).
49. Simon N (2020) Investigating ethos and pathos in scientific truth claims in public discourse. Media and Communication 8(1): 129-140.
50. Wilk P (2017) The role of the cognitive model profile in knowledge representation and meaning construction: The case of the lexical item Europe. Revista de Lenguas para–Fines Específicos.
51. Forbes S (2023) The discursive organization of disability as a moral and epistemic construct within a university accommodations office. Journal of Disability Studies in Education 4(1): 50-74.
52. Nadhifah F, Sukarno S, Rahayu NWI (2024) Michel Foucault’s critical discourse analysis of controversy news in Islamic boarding schools. JIE [JIE] 9(1): 384-399.
53. Molenaar I, Van Boxtel C, Sleegers P (2011) The Effect of Dynamic Computerized Scaffolding on Collaborative Discourse. In CD Kloos, D Gillet, RM Crespo García, F Wild, M Wolpers (Eds.). Towards Ubiquitous Learning. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Pp: 461-466.
54. Hardman J, Set B (2021) Investigating the double-move in pedagogy in a grade 4 Namibian science classroom: A cultural historical analysis. Creative Education 12(2): 453-469.
55. Rai JK (2019) The representation of Limbus: A discourse analysis of Upendra Subba’s “dumb hill.” Prithvi Academic Journal 2: 95-105.
56. Yang X, Chen S, Chen X, Yang Y (2015) How distance affects semantic integration in discourse: Evidence from event-related potentials. PLOS One 10(11).