WattsSEL7003-8-3
0
Initial Challenges
Stephen W. Watts
Northcentral University
WattsSEL7003-8-3
1
Initial Challenges
As I have investigated and studied the literature involving e-learning, certain themes
consistently emerge. One of the major themes exposed in the literature demonstrates that online
learning provides both opportunities and challenges to students and teachers alike. The purpose
of this paper is to present a limited literature review of e-learning articles from the perspective of
challenges learners and teachers face when presenting an online class. These brief introductions
are followed by discussions of the more pressing challenges affecting learners and teachers,
while proposing solutions to surmount them, with examples from my own experience as
appropriate.
Learner E-Learning Challenges
In the literature many challenges for new students engaging in e-learning are identified.
Some of these challenges include; (a) feelings of isolation (Al-Fahad, 2010; “Challenges”, 2011;
Feguson & DeFelice, 2010; Haythornthwaite, Bruce, Andrews, Kazmer, Montague, & Preston,
2007; Ke, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008; Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 2011; Rhode, 2009; Shea,
Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2006; Strang, 2009; Thompson, Jeffries, & Topping, 2010; Vande
Poppe, 2011; Wright, Dhanarajan, & Reju, 2009), (b) the lack of face-to-face communication
(Al-Fahad, 2010; “Challenges”, 2011; Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Ismail, Idrus, Baharum, Rosli, &
Ziden, 2011; Lee, Redmond, & Dolan, 2008; Malik & Khurshed, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge,
2005; Vande Poppe, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), (c) issues of access or sufficient
throughput (Al-Fahad, 2010; “Challenges”, 2011; Haythornthwaite et al., 2007; Ke, 2010; Lam
& Bordia, 2008; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Pirani, 2004; Sinclair, 2009; Wright et al., 2009),
(d) ill matched presentation to learning style (“Challenges”, 2011, Omar et al., 2011), (e)
increased time requirements (“Challenges”, 2011; Archambault et al., 2010; Cercone, 2008;
WattsSEL7003-8-3
2
Donavant, 2009; Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki, 2009; Huang, Lin, & Huang, 2012; Ke & Xie,
2009; Pirani, 2004) or time conflicts (Antonis, Daradoumis, Papadakis, & Simos, 2011; Bhuasiri,
Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, & Ciganek, 2011; Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009; Martinez-Caro, 2011;
Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Park & Choi, 2009), (f) incomprehensible technical jargon (Omar et
al., 2011), (g) the need for students to take more responsibility (Al-Fahad, 2010; Allen, Crosky,
McAlpine, Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009; Cercone, 2008; Fidishun, 2011; Fletcher, Tobias, &
Wisher, 2007; Harlen & Doubler, 2007; Haythornthwaite et al., 2007; Hoic-Bozic, 2009; Kawka,
Larkin, & Danaher, 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; Martinez-Caro,
2011; McGlone, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Ruey, 2010; Segrave & Holt, 2003; Sinclair,
2009; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), (h) lack of experience or confidence with the necessary
technology (Anderson, 2008; Bhuasiri et al., 2011; Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot,
LaPointe, & Rao, 2010; Ke, 2010; Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; McGone, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge,
2005; Omar et al., 2011; Pirani, 2004; Vande Poppe, 2011), (i) a great need for self-motivation
and self-discipline to be successful (Al-Fahad, 2010; Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007; Diaz &
Entonado, 2009; Gunawardena et al., 2010; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Omar et al., 2011;
Pirani, 2004; Strang, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Vande Poppe, 2011), and (j) the emphasis on
the written versus the spoken word can hamper some students (Vande Poppe, 2011). Five of
these challenges are addressed, and solutions to them proposed, in greater detail below.
Feelings of Isolation
The social interactions for an online class are different than those in a traditional
classroom because they do not have a face-to-face element. Because of this lack of interpersonal
associations, many e-learning students suffer feelings of isolation or disconnection in online
classes. Even as an instructor of live virtual classes, with an active audio line over the telephone
WattsSEL7003-8-3
3
there are times when I wonder if anyone is on the other end of the line. To overcome these
feelings of isolation in students the literature suggests the instructor elicit feedback and
encourage active participation in the class; allowing students to get to know each other through
“thoughts and ideas” (Omar et al., 2011, p. 31), resulting in connections and friendships that may
extend beyond class (“Challenges”, 2011).
Lack of Interactivity
In traditional settings, students can attend class and be the passive recipients of the
wisdom and knowledge dispensed by the expert at the lectern with little or no interaction with
either teacher or other students. In an online class, this passivity can result in a drop in interest
and motivation by the student often resulting in dropout. Studies show e-learning courses have
an eight time higher withdrawal rate than traditional classes (Al-Fahad, 2010). To combat this
passivity, instructors need to use and encourage the use of discussion boards, chats, and e-mail
between students and with the instructor (Vande Poppe, 2011). To facilitate student comfort in
interacting in the classroom, Yang and Cornelious (2005) proposed instructors provide
information about themselves through a short bio or personal web site. Encouraging interactivity
in online courses has been shown to foster deeper learning and higher-level critical thinking
skills (Malik & Khurshed, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005) and is a primary factor in student
satisfaction and learning (al-Fahad, 2010; Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010;
Gunawardena et al., 2010; Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009; Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Martinez-Caro, 2011).
Technical Issues
There are a number of technical issues an online student can face. The introduction to
student challenges identified some students have issues with access. This can be because they do
not have the necessary equipment to access an online class, or they do not have a means of
WattsSEL7003-8-3
4
connecting their computer to the Internet. Even when students can access the Internet, they may
not have sufficient band-width to utilize all of the features available for their particular class.
Omar et al. (2011) found some students are confused by, or ignorant of, the technical jargon used
in some online discussions and are consequently demotivated. Even with necessary access,
students may lack the experience or confidence to use the tools required by an online course. I
have not experienced this challenge in the classes I teach because the courses focus on enhancing
advanced knowledge of a technical nature and expect the student to have the prerequisite
knowledge and skill to participate in the online class. For online courses where this could be an
insurmountable challenge, it is suggested students “visit a course or take a demo course”
(“Challenges”, 2011) so they will know the technical expectations of the course and determine
whether they have the ability to succeed in this context.
Student Responsibility for Learning
From a constructivist view, the biggest challenge for the online student is to overcome
years of traditional experience and expectation and accept that learning should be student
focused. At the company where I work, students are students and teachers are teachers, and
teaching is “tightly structured” (Muirhead, 2004, Making Positive Online Learning Connections,
para. 3); meaning that while interaction is encouraged, it is not part of the pedagogy of the class.
Students should be informed at the beginning of the class they are to take responsibility for their
learning in an online class (Yang & Cornelious, 2005). To encourage students to take
responsibility, Ruey (2010) stated classes “should focus on learning about ‘why’ and learning
about ‘how,’ rather than conducting learning itself” (p. 707). By focusing on teaching students
how to learn, secure relevant information, and relate it to their life milieu, learning becomes
WattsSEL7003-8-3
5
more student centered, promoting higher-level critical thinking stills (Kilic-Cakmak, 2010; Omar
et al., 2011).
Self-discipline and Motivation
Lack of self-discipline and motivation in online classes has been demonstrated to increase
dropout rates (Al-Fahad, 2010; Cercone, 2008; Park & Cho, 2009) and decrease the possibility
students will take online classes (Donavant, 2009). Without self-discipline any attempts by the
instructor to increase motivation are likely to fail (Omar et al., 2011). Students in e-learning
courses are more likely to be successful if they are independent, self-directed, and task-oriented
(Yang & Cornelious, 2005). I have the advantage of teaching short classes involving five or
fewer business days. Because of the shortness of the class durations, I rarely have students who
do not complete. I do have experience with students, however, who are attending class because
their company is requiring attendance; in those instances it is not infrequent these students are
lacking in motivation. The key component of motivation is interest (Guilbaud & JeromeD’Emilia, 2008). The solution, if one can be found, is the same as discussed above; seek to
involve each student in interactive discussions, activities, and socialization hooking them into
being motivated to contribute to the class. By individualizing the course to each student’s
experiences, abilities, interests, and needs, motivation is increased (Ruey, 2010).
Teacher E-Learning Challenges
The literature is replete with challenges instructors face when preparing to start an online
class. Some of the challenges mentioned include; (a) increased time requirements (Allen et al.,
2009; Anderson, 2008; Archambault et al., 2010; Fidishun, 2011; Ke, 2010; Muirhead, 2004;
Pirani, 2004; Sinclair, 2009; So & Bonk, 2010) and increased interaction with students (Guilbaud
& Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008), (b) instructors pedagogically dominating the discussion (Muirhead,
WattsSEL7003-8-3
6
2004), (c) teaching “tightly structured courses” (Muirhead, 2004, Making Positive Online
Learning Connections, para. 3) required by their organizations, (d) differences of non-traditional
students (Bhuasiri et al., 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Lapsley, Kulik, Moody, & Arbaugh,
2008; Martinez-Caro, 2009; McGlone, 2011), (e) finding successful ways to encourage student
interaction (Archambault, Wetzel, Fouger, & Williams, 2010; Martinez-Caro, 2011; MunizSolari & Coats, 2009; Omar et al., 2011; Rhode, 2009; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), (f)
appropriately using online tools (Archambault et al., 2010, Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008),
(g) lack of basic face-to-face interactions (Cercone, 2008; McHaney, 2009; Muniz-Solari &
Coats, 2009; Rhode, 2009), (h) the need to pedagogically adapt the course to an online
environment (Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; Kawka et al., 2011; Omar et al., 2011, Pirani,
2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), often with no additional compensation, (i) technical difficulties
with infrastructure or bandwidth (Anderson, 2008; Fidishun, 2011; Guilbaud & JeromeD’Emilia, 2008; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Pirani, 2004; Wright et al., 2009), (j) lack of
knowledge or experience using the e-learning environment (Harlen & Doubler, 2007; Ke, 2010;
Pirani, 2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005), and (k) concern for academic integrity of students
(Vande Poppe, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005). Five of these challenges are addressed, and
solutions proposed, in greater depth below.
Student Interactions
Several previous sections have indicated the pivotal importance of interactivity in online
classrooms. It is the role and challenge of the instructor to facilitate these interactions (CabreraLozoya, Cerdan, Cano, Garcia-Sanchez, & Lujan, 2012; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008).
Though the facilitation should be invisible to the learner; activities must be planned and
coordinated to maximize learning, build confidence and motivation in the learner, while
WattsSEL7003-8-3
7
nurturing higher-level critical thinking skills (Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010, McGlone, 2011). The
instructor should provide feedback and encouragement, but should position him or herself to the
side, focusing on being a facilitator of discussion and learning rather than the expert (Hoic-Bozic
et al., 2009; Ke, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008). Activities must be designed to facilitate the
investigation and learning of course objectives and goals (Kawka et al, 2011; Martinez-Caro,
2011) through students interacting with other learners and the instructor. All of this planning
devolves on the teacher prior to entering an online classroom.
Non-traditional Students
The increase in the number of online courses has encouraged many adults who would not
otherwise be able to engage in additional schooling or training to participate. These older, more
mature students have been labeled non-traditional students and have become the focus of a
number of studies to determine their characteristics (Martinez-Caro, 2009). As illustrated in the
introduction to teacher challenges, it has been shown non-traditional students are different from
their college-age, post-secondary education counterparts. Because of these differences, teachers
need to understand many andragogical principles are different for these learners. Because these
students usually have greater life experiences, teachers should create activities and assignments
tying theory to personal experience resulting in greater applicability of learning (Kenner &
Weinerman, 2011) while acknowledging an existing base of experience in the learner.
Technical Difficulties
One of the major student challenges involves issues with technology. Instructors face
many of the same issues; including lack of equipment, access, appropriate band-width, or
knowledge and experience with the necessary tools to conduct an e-learning class. Although
instructors are rarely responsible for the e-learning infrastructure of the delivering organization,
WattsSEL7003-8-3
8
the student will hold them responsible if there are glitches. To address these challenges, teachers
need to ensure they receive training in the use of, and experience with, all of the tools they are
expected to use (Bodnik, 2011; Pirani, 2004). Instructors need to be prepared for large
differences in the experience of students with computers and technology, and have the resources
or training to provide assistance and encouragement as needed (Strang, 2009). It is also critical
they form associations with the department or individuals who are responsible for the technical
infrastructure of their course, so effective responses can be elicited if problems occur. From my
experience the tools require practice to use well, and it never hurts to have someone in IT to
facilitate the solving of technical difficulties.
Learning Environment
Courses taught online should not be virtual versions of traditional in-classroom courses.
The affordances of electronic delivery provide greater opportunities for learning than the regular
classroom can (So & Bonk, 2010; Watkins, 2005). The benefits to the student of learning online
are numerous, but a number of studies have shown one bad experience can inhibit students from
taking additional online courses (Martinez-Caro, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010). Several sections
in this paper have identified some of the features teachers can include in online courses to
optimize the affordances available in virtual delivery, especially in terms of interactivity and
collaboration. Through creation of activities the teacher pedagogically transforms his or her
course to use the online environment to ensure optimal student learning (Pirani, 2004).
Academic Integrity
Anonymity fosters behavior individuals would not normally perform without a mask – real
or virtual (Tresca, 1998). Online access to the Internet facilitates the ability for students to take
the ideas of others that “may be unavailable in traditional sources” (Malik & Khurshed, 2011, p.
WattsSEL7003-8-3
9
161) and present it as their own. I have limited experience with this particular difficulty because
the courses I teach are more interested in teaching students how to develop software programs,
and the resulting code is not expected to be unique or original. In more academic settings where
assignments are expected to be original and the sole product of the student, a discussion
regarding the moral issues and the consequences of plagiarism in the classroom is advised.
Through the use of software programs that have access to the text of millions of papers and
articles instructors can ensure the discussion regarding plagiarism is inculcated into real life
practice.
Conclusion
A limited literature review regarding the challenges faced by students and teachers was
conducted and briefly presented in this paper. Ten specific challenges from the larger review
were addressed in greater detail along with solutions for each challenge. The challenges of elearning can overwhelm the student and the instructor, but as demonstrated they can be
overcome with a detailed and specific plan.
WattsSEL7003-8-3
10
References
Al-Fahad, F. N. (2010). The learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the
college of applied studies and community service, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia:
Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education (TOJDE), 11(2), 61-72. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
Ali, A., Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning
courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 2(2), 118-134. Retrieved from http://cedtech.net/
Allen, B., Crosky, A., McAlpine, I., Hoffman, M., & Munroe, P. (2009). A blended approach to
collaborative learning: Making large group teaching more student-centred. The
International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 569-576. Retrieved from
http://www.ijee.ie/
Anderson, C. (2008). Barriers and enabling factors in online teaching. International Journal of
Learning, 14(12), 241-246. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/
prod.1593
Antonis, K., Daradoumis, T., Papadakis, S., & Simos, C. (2011). Evaluation of the effectiveness
of a web‐based learning design for adult computer science courses. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 54(3), 374‐380. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/
guesthome.jsp
Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Fouger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional development
2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4-11. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/
publications/journals/jdlte.aspx
Bodnik, S. (2011). Mentored learning: The instructor’s view. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinelearning.com/papers/articlementored_instructorview.html
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2011). Critical success
factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT
experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in
traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57,
141‐158. doi:10.1177/0741713606294235
Cabrera‐Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M.‐D., Garcia‐Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying
heterogeneous e‐learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. Computers
& Education, 58(1), 617‐630. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014
WattsSEL7003-8-3
11
Cerecone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning
design. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal (AACE),
16(2), 137-159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/AACEJ
Challenges of education online. (2011, September 6). [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.virtualstudent.com/2011/09/challenges/
Diaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-toface learning environments really different? Educational Technology & Society, 12(4),
331-343. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/
Donavant, B. W. (2009) The new, modern practice of adult education: Online instruction in a
continuing professional education setting. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 227‐245.
doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction,
perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73-84. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl
Fletcher, J. D., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. A. (2007). Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced
distributed learning and the changing face of education. Educational Research, 36(1),
96‐102. doi:10.3102/0013189X07300034
Fidishun, D. (2011, March). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we
teach with technology. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/
fidishun.html
Guilbaud, P., & Jerome-D’Emilia, B. (2008). Adult instruction & online learning: Towards a
systematic instruction framework. International Journal of Learning, 15(2), 111-121.
Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1638
Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors
of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 207-226.
doi:10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
Harlen, W., & Doubler, S. J. (2007). Researching the impact of online professional development
for teachers. In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The SAGE handbook of elearning research (pp. 466-486). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Haythornthwaite, C., Bruce, B. C., Andrews, R., Kazmer, M. M., Montague, R.‐A., & Preston,
C. (2007). Theories and models of and for online learning. First Monday, 12(8).
Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/
1976/1851
Hoic-Bozic, N. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design and implementation. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 52(1), 19-30. doi:10.1109/GTE.2007.914945
WattsSEL7003-8-3
12
Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online
participation in the mixed‐mode e‐learning environment? A study of software usage
instruction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 338‐349.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003
Hsieh, P.‐A. J., & Cho, V. (2011). Comparing e‐learning tools’ success: The case of
instructor‐student interactive vs. self‐paced tools. Computers & Education, 57(1),
2025‐2038. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.002
Ismail, I., Idrus, R. M., Baharum, H., Rosli, M., & Ziden, A. (2011). The learners' attitudes
towards using different learning methods in e‐learning portal environment. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6(3), 49‐52. Retrieved from
http://www.online-journals.org/i-jet
Kawka, M., Larkin, K., & Danaher, P. A. (2011). Emergent learning and interactive media
artworks: Parameters of interaction for novice groups. International Review of Research
in Open & Distance Learning, 12(7), 40-55. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/
index.php/irrodl
Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students.
Computers & Education, 55, 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. Internet and
Higher Education, 12, 136-145. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
Kenner, C., & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to nontraditional
college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87‐96. Retrieved from
http://www.crla.net/journal.htm
Kiliç-Cakmak, E. (2010). Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information
literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(2), 192-208. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html
Lam, P., & Bordia, S. (2008). Factors affecting student choice of e-learning over traditional
learning: Student and teacher perspectives. The International Journal of Learning,
14(12), 131-139. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1585
Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An
investigation of equivalency theory and online learning. Journal of Educators Online,
5(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/
Lee, D., Redmond, J. A., & Dolan, D. (2008). Lessons from the e-learning experience in South
Korea in traditional universities. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Innovative techniques in
instruction technology, e-learning, e-assessment, and education (pp. 216-222). London,
England: Springer Science+Business Media.
Malik, S. K., & Khurshed, F. (2011). Nature of teacher-students’ interaction in electronic
learning and traditional courses of higher education – a review. Turkish online Journal of
WattsSEL7003-8-3
13
Distance Education (TOJDE), 12(4), 157-166. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.
tr/
Martinez‐Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e‐learning: An analysis in
production management courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education,
19(3), 572‐581. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.v19.3
/issuetoc
McGlone, J. R. (2011). Adult learning styles and on‐line educational preference. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 12, 1‐9. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/rhej.html
McHaney, R. (2009). Distance learning video grid: Online teacher exchange. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 457-462. Retrieved from http://www.dsjie.org/dnn
/default.aspx
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic
study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
Muirhead, B. (2004). Contemporary online education challenges. International Journal of
Instructional Technology & Distance Learning (ITDL), 1(10). Retrieved from
http://itdl.org/journal/oct_04/article05.htm
Muniz-Solari, O., & Coats, C. (2009). Integrated networks: National and international online
experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 119. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/irrodl
Omar, A., Kalulu, D., & Belmasrour, R. (2011). Enhanced instruction: The future of e-learning.
International Journal of Education Research, 6(1), 21-37. Retrieved from http://www.
journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educational-research/
Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or
persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/18.pdf
Pirani, J. A. (2004). Supporting e-learning in higher education. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0303/ecm0303.pdf
Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An
exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/603/1178
Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2009.00965.x
WattsSEL7003-8-3
14
Segrave, S., & Holt, D. (2003). Contemporary learning environments: Designing e-learning for
education in the professions. Distance Education, 24(1), 7‐24.
doi:10.1080/0158791032000066499
Shea, P., Fredereicksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2006). Student satisfaction and perceived learning
with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 2-31. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning: Making the invisible visible.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197-209.
Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
So, H.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study.
Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 189–200. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.
info/
Strang, K. D. (2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of
international doctorate students. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 245257. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-ofeducational-research/
Thompson, L., Jeffries, M., & Topping, K. (2010). E-mentoring for e-learning development.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 305-315.
doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498182
Tresca, M. (1998). The impact of anonymity on disinhibitive behavior through computermediated communication (master’s thesis). Retrived from https://www.msu.edu/user/
trescami/thesis.htm?pagewanted=all
Vande Poppe, C. (2011). The challenges of online learning. Retrieved from
http://crystalvandepoppe.suite101.com/the-challenges-of-online-learninga372697
Watkins, R. (2005). 75 E-learning activities: Making online learning interactive. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Wright, C. R., Dhanarajan, G., & Reju, S. A. (2009). Recurring issues encountered by distance
educators in developing and emerging nations. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
irrodl/article/view/608/1180
Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm