Research and Best Practices for Supporting Online Learning

Research and Best Practices for Supporting Online Learning

Karen Swan

Kent State University

Research Center for Educational

Technology

“no significant difference” phenomenon

• Thomas L. Russell’s (1999) comparison of 355 research reports on distance education

• Barry & Runyan’s (1995) review of distance education in the military

• Hiltz, Zhang & Turoff’s (2002) survey of 19 empirical studies

beyond “no significant differences”

• Clark (1983) vs. Kozma (1991) • Carol Twigg (2000) – biggest obstacle to innovation

in online learning is thinking things can and should be done the same old way

• paradigm change

• interaction with content (Moore, 1989)

• interaction with instructors (Moore, 1989)

• interaction with classmates (Moore, 1989)

• interaction with interface (Hillman, Willis & Gunawardena, 1994)

interaction

TEACHING PRESENCE

PRESENCE

SOCIAL COGNITIVEPRESENCE

LEARNING

adapted from Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer (2001)

interfaceinteraction w/

interactionw/contentinteraction

w/ peers

interactionw/ instructors

interaction with content

• design principles• course design factors

• scaffolding online discussion• studies of learning differing kinds of content

course design

course assignments

instructor feedback

instructor

instructor /discussion

affect

learning

content analysis– “additional comments:”(Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006)

interaction w/ content

• clear goals and expectations• multiple representations of knowledge• active learning• feedback• flexibility / learner control• faculty guidance & support

(Janicki & Liegle, 2001; Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Keeton, Scheckley & Griggs, 2002)

course design principles


• clear structure• navigational transparency• consistency• communication potential• active learning

(Romiszowski & Cheng, 1991; Eastmond, 1995; Irani, 1998; Swan, Shea, Frederickson, Pickett, Pelz & Maher, 2000; Picciano, 2002)

course design factors


• concept & process scaffolds (Wong-Busby, 2006)

• peer review -- Bloom’s taxonomy (Ertmer, Richardson, Belland, Coulthard, Camin & Mong, 2006)

• subject line (Pelz, 2004)

• assessment issues (Swan, Shen & Hiltz, 2006)

scaffolding online discussion


• learning concepts vs. learning techniques• multiple perspectives• disciplined inquiry – reflection and interaction

(Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 1999; Parker & Gemino, 2001; Picciano, 2002; Garrison, 2003)

differing kinds of content


interaction with instructors

• studies of changing instructor roles• studies of teaching presence

• experimental studies• survey data

• strong correlations between learners’ perceived interactions and their perceived learning

(Picciano, 1998; Richardson & Ting, 1999; Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz & Maher, 2000; Jiang & Ting, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2003)

survey data on interactions w/ instructors

interaction w/ instructors

course design

course assignments

instructor feedback

instructor

instructor /discussion

affect

learning

content analysis– “additional comments:”(Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006)


• (Berge, 1995) – managerial, social, pedagogical, technical

• (Paulson, 1995) – organizational, social, intellectual• (Rossman, 1999) – teacher responsibility, facilitating

discussions, course requirements

instructor roles


• cognitive, affective, managerial• cognitive role shifts to one of deeper complexity• affective role requires faculty to find new tools to

express emotion• managerial role requires greater attention to

detail, more structure, additional student monitoring

(Coppola, Hiltz & Rotter, 2001)

changing instructor roles


• “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001)

• design & organization, facilitating discourse, direct instruction

• strong correlations between survey measures of all three aspects of teaching presence and student satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses (Shea, Frederickson, Pickett & Pelz, 2003; Shea, Pickett & Pelz, 2004)

teaching presence


r p r p r p r p

design & organization

.64

< .01 .59

< .01 .64

< .01 .60

< .01

facilitating discourse

.64

< .01 .58

< .01 .61

< .01 .58

< .01

direct instruction

.64

< .01 .61

< .01 .63

< .01 .61

< .01

SUMMER 2002 (n=1140)

SPRING 2003 (n=6088)

satisfaction per. learn.per. learn.

teaching presence: instructors(Shea, et al., 2003, 2004)


satisfaction per. learn.

• importance of “restrained presence” (Vandergrift, 2002)

• importance of applying principles of collaborative learning to online discussion – structuring interaction in authentic tasks, applying questioning strategies, role assignment, interdependence, reflection (Wu, 2003)

teaching presence


experimental studies

• Riccomini (2002) -- students receiving instructor delivered corrective feedback outperform students using web-based exemplary models

• Kashy, Albertelli, Bauer, Kashy & Thoennessen (2003) – students interacting on instructor supported homework discussion board outperform students just visiting; both outperform students using a third party homework site


interaction with peers

• student perceptions• social presence and teaching

presence of students• virtual interaction• virtual learning communities

• online discussion is more equitable and more democratic (Harasim, 1990; Levin, Kim & Riel, 1990)

• online discussion is more reflective and mindful (Hiltz, 1994; Poole, 2000)

• links between % of course grade based on discussion and perceived learning (Hawisher & Pemberton, 1997; Picciano, 1998; Jiang & Ting, 2000; Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz & Maher, 2000)

student perceptions

interaction w/ classmates

social presence


• “the perceived psychological distance between communication participants”

• participants in asynchronous communication project their identities into their communications & so create social presence (Walther, 1994; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Poole, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2001; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001; Swan, 2001)

social presence


affectivecommunication

channel

immediacy immediacy


channel

immediacy

SO

CIA

L P

RE

SE

NC

E


channel

(Danchak, Walther & Swan, 2001; Swan, 2002)

social presence: equilibrium model


• perceived social presence, perceived interactions, perceived learning all correlated

• but perceived social presence not correlated with either actual interactions or actual performance

• however, students perceiving high social presence performed significantly better on written assignments

• as did highly interactive students

(Picciano, 2002)

social presence: interaction & performance


• content analyses show students perceiving highest social presence also projected themselves more into class discussion

• interview data reveal interesting differences in perceptions of and approaches to online discussion between students perceiving the most and least social presence

social presence: perception & presentation(Swan & Shih, 2005)


• perceived social presence of peers and instructors highly correlated; used regression analyses to tease apart

• social presence of peers only predictor of perceived interaction

• social presence of instructors only predictor of satisfaction

• social presence of instructors accounts for twice as much of the variance in perceived learning as social presence of peers

social presence: instructors & peers(Swan & Shih, 2005)


r p r p r p r p(design &

organization)

facilitating discourse

.36

< .01 .37

< .01 .41

< .01 .43

< .01

direct instruction

.39

< .01 .39

< .01 .40

< .01 .43

< .01

teaching presence: students(Shea, et al., 2003, 2004)


SUMMER 2002 (n=1140)

SPRING 2003 (n=6088)

satisfaction per. learn.per. learn.satisfaction per. learn.

• social context -- task orientation, perceptions of privacy, topics, and social processes

• online communication -- language course participants use to communicate and express themselves

• interactivity -- reciprocal communication patterns, timeliness of responses

social presence & course design(Tu, 2000; Tu & McIssac, 2002)


learner

learner

learner

instructor

(Sutton, 2001)

virtual interactivity


• stems from research on face-to-face learning that suggests that all learning takes place in communities (Lave & Wenger, 1990; Wenger, 1997)

• knowledge building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996; Hunter, 2002; Hoadly & Pea,2002)

• social support for learning (Hawthornthwaite, 2002)

• intersection of social organization and learning activities; particular interactions of participants in online communities (Nolan & Weiss, 2002; Renninger & Shumar, 2002)

virtual learning communities


• Sense of Classroom Community Index (SCCI) --spirit, trust, interaction, learning subscales

• no significant differences in overall sense of community between traditional and online classes

• But much greater variability in online sense of community and top 5/7 online courses report significantly greater sense of community

• significant difference in conceptual structure of community

virtual learning communities: SCCI(Rovai, 2002)


• significant correlations were found between students’ sense of community and indicators of teaching presence

• directed facilitation accounts for 45% of the variance in sense of community

• instructional design accounts for 2% of the variance in sense of community

sense of community & teaching presence(Shea, Li, Swan, & Pickett, 2005)


interaction with interface

• research on patterns in threaded discussion• research on multimedia learning

• design experiments• interface studies

432

1

43

21

1

34

2

43

21

43

21

43

21

patterns in threaded discussion(Hewitt, 2003)

132

23

32

52 51 52

interaction w/ interface

patterns in threaded discussion(Hewitt, 2003)

• user logs -- 97.6% read messages before posting, 82% read only messages flagged as unread, 90% respond to messages < 48 hours old

• Monte Carlo simulation

• “patterns of interactivity in online discussion are governed as much by a feature of the interface (flagging unread notes) as by course requirements, learner characteristics and/or teaching presence”


• many years of experimental research, replicated multiple times, on the effectiveness of differing media combinations for supporting student learning of science explanations demonstrates that some media combinations are better than others

multimedia research(Mayer, 2001)


MODALITY better transfer from animation and narration than from animation and text

CONTIGUITY better transfer when narration and animation are presented simultaneously rather than sequentially

MULTIMEDIA better transfer from animation and narration rather than from narration alone

PERSONALIZATION better transfer when narration is conversational rather than formal

COHERENCE better transfer when irrelevant video, narration, and/or sounds are excluded

REDUNDANCY better transfer from animation and narration than from animation, narration and on-screen text

PRETRAINING better transfer when explanations of system components precedes rather than follows a narrated animation

SIGNALING better transfer when different parts of a narration are signaled

PACING better transfer when the pace of presentation is learner controlled

interaction w/ interface (Mayer, 2001)

design experiments: Pew Course Redesigns

• whole course redesign • active learning• computer-based learning resources• mastery learning• on-demand help/alternative staffing

(Twigg, 2003)


experimental studies

• Lin (2002) -- animation more supportive of learning than video

• Chang, Sung & Chiou (2002) -- Hierarchical Hypermedia Concept Map (HHCM) interface more supportive of learning than linear interface; students using it also take significantly less time to learn than students using either linear or hierarchical interface

• Gutl & Pivec (2003) -- Virtual Tutor expert/multimedia system better supports student problem solving than traditional print-based resources


LEARNING



w/ peers


implications for practice

RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEGreater clarity and consistency in course design, organization, goals, and instructor expectations leads to increased learning

Review courses taught &/or being developed to insure clarity & consistency

Establish quality control guidelines that address issues of clarity & consistency

Address issues of course design & organization & instructional goals & expectations in faculty development


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEOnline discussion/learning may be more supportive of experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding & reflection than F2F discussion/learning

Encourage experimentation, divergent thinking, multiple perspectives, complex understanding & reflection in online discussion through provocative, open-ended questions, modeling & support & encouragement for diverse points of view

Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation that reward desired cognitive behaviors

Develop initial course activities to encourage the development of swift trust


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEOnline discussion/learning may be less supportive of convergent thinking, instructor directed inquiry & scientific thinking than F2F discussion

Use other course activities to support these such as written assignments, one-on-one tutorials, journaling, small group collaboration & self-testing

Develop grading rubrics for discussion & assignments that reward desired cognitive behaviors


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEGreater learning from online learning when desired performance outcomes are scaffolded

Use content & process scaffolds to support discourse behaviors

Use peer review of discussion postings to shape responses

Develop grading rubrics for discussion that reward desired cognitive behaviors

Attend to subject lines


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEThe quantity and quality of instructor interactions with students is linked to student learning

Provide frequent opportunities for both public and private interactions with students

Establish clear expectations for instructor-student interactions

Provide timely & supportive feedback

Include topic of instructor interaction in faculty development


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEInstructor roles are changed in online environments

Include the topic of changing roles in faculty development & provide examples of how other instructors have coped

Provide ongoing educational technology support for faculty

Develop forums for faculty discussion of changing roles – online & F2F


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICETeaching presence – design & organization, facilitating discourse & direct instruction – is linked to student learning & student perceptions of community

Highlight three elements of teaching presence in faculty development & provide examples of how to improve in each area

Provide ongoing support for instructors in each of these areas


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEVerbal immediacy behaviors can lesson the psychological distance between communicators online; overall sense of social presence is linked to learning


Model & encourage the use of verbal immediacy behaviors in interactions with students

Encourage students to share experiences & beliefs in online discussion

Introduce social presence & verbal immediacy in faculty development


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEStudent learning is related to the quantity & quality of postings in online discussions & to the value instructors place on them

Make participation in discussion a significant part of course grades

Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation

Require discussion participants to respond to their classmates postings &/or to respond to all responses to their own postings

Stress the unique nature & potential of online discussion in faculty development


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEDiscussion threads die when participants don’t respond to them immediately

Make students responsible for sustaining discussion threads

Make students summarize discussion threads

Require students to incorporate materials from the discussions in their assignments


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEVicarious interaction in online course discussion may be an important source of learning from them

Encourage & support vicarious interaction

Require discussion summaries that identify steps in the knowledge creation process

Use tracking mechanisms to reward reading as well as responding to messages


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICELearning occurs socially within communities of practice; there is greater variability in sense of community ratings among online courses than in F2F courses; sense of community ratings correlated w/ indicators of teaching presence

Design community building activities

Model the use of cohesive immediacy behaviors in all interactions with students


Address issues of community in faculty development

Encourage faculty expression of teaching presence


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEInteractions with interfaces are a real factor in learning; difficult or negative interactions with interfaces can depress learning.

Work with major platforms to improve interfaces to support learning

Develop consistent interfaces for all courses in a program

Provide orientations to program interfaces that help students develop useful mental models of them

Provide 24/7 support for students and faculty

Make human tutors available


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEOngoing assessment of student performance linked to immediate feedback & individualized instruction supports learning

Automate testing & feedback when possible

Provide frequent opportunities for testing & feedback

Develop general learning modules with opportunities for active learning, assessment & feedback that can be shared among courses &/or accessed by students for remediation or enrichment


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEBetter transfer of learning from narration and animation presented simultaneously, in conversational style, w/ irrelevant elements & on-screen text eliminated

Present words in spoken form

Use both words and pictures simultaneously

Avoid extraneous video & audio

Do not add redundant on-screen text


RESEARCH FINDING IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEBetter transfer of learning when components of concepts are addressed first, when organization is signaled, and when the pace of presentation is learner-controlled

Begin presentations with descriptions of components & organization

Allow learners to control the pace of presentations


directions for future research

LEARNING



w/ peers


What do we still need to know?

many more & more rigorous (experimental) studies• multi-institutional• linking inputs & processes to performance

outcomes• focused on cognition and learning• exploring issues of culture & globalization of

education

“Digital technologies are for education as iron and steel girders, reinforced concrete, plate glass, elevators, central heating and air conditioning were for architecture. Digital technologies set in abeyance significant, long-lasting limits on educational activity.”

-- R. O. McClintock (1999)



• new and emerging technologies• blended/hybrid learning options• digital natives/net generation• media effects

[email protected]

Research Center for Educational

Technology

referencesAnderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Barry, M. & Runyan, G. (1995). A review of distance-learning studies in the U.S. military. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (3), 37-47.Benbunan-Fich, R. & Hiltz, S. R. (1999). Impact of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409-426.Berge, S. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 15 (1), 22-30. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html Chang, K-E., Sung, Y-T & Chiou, S-K. (2002). Use of hierarchical hyper-concept maps in web-based courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 4, 335-353.Chickering, A., Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, October, 3-6. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-459.

http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html

http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html

http://www.aahe.org/ehrmann.htm



Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R. & Rotter, N. (2001). Becoming a virtual professor: pedagogical roles and ALN. HICSS 2001 Proceedings, IEEE Press.Danchak, M. M., Walther, J. B. & Swan, K. (2001). Presence in mediated instruction: bandwidth, behavior, and expectancy violations. Orlando, FL: Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning.Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Ertmer, P., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B. R., Coulthard, G., Camin, D. & Mong, C. (2006). Efficacy of peer feedback in online learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, San Francisco.Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8-26, 1997.Gutl, C. & Pivec, M. (2003). A multimedia knowledge module virtual tutor fosters interactive learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 2, 231-258.Harasim, L. (1990). On-line Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger.

references

Hawisher, G. E. & Pemberton, M. A. (1997). Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 (1). Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 1, 31-45.Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J. & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learrner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 30-42. Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The Virtual Classroom: Learning without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Hiltz, R., Zhang, Y., Turoff, M. (2002). Studies of effectiveness of learning networks. Elements of Quality Online Education: Volume 3 in the Sloan-C™ Series. Needham, MA: SCOLE.

references

Hoadley, C. & Pea, R. D. (2002). Finding the ties that bind: tools in support of a knowledge-building community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, B. (2002). Learning in the virtual community depends upon changes in local communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine, 2 (1).Janicki, T. & Liegle, J. O. (2001). Development and evaluation of a framework for creating web-based learning modules: a pedagogical and systems approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1).Jiang, M. & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based course environment . International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (4), 317-338.Kashy, D. A., Albertelli, G. H., Bauer, W., Kashy, E. & Thoennessen, M. (2003). Influence of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 1, 31-36.

references

Keeton, M.T., Scheckley, B.G., Krecji-Griggs, J. (2002). Effectiveness and Efficiency in Higher Education for Adults. Council on Adult and Experiential Learning. Chicago: Kendall-Hunt.Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Levin, J. A., Kim, H. & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line Education: Perspectives on a New Environment New York: Praege.Lin, C-H. (2002). Effects of computer graphics types and epistemological beliefs on students’ learning of mathematical concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 3, 265-274.Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.McClintock, R. (1999). The Educators Manifesto: Renewing the Progressive Bond with Posterity through the Social Construction of Digital Learning Communities. New York: Institute for Learning Technologies, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1999. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/manifesto/contents.html

references

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/manifesto/contents.html

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/manifesto/contents.html

Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-6.Nolan, D. J. & Weiss, J. (2002). Learning in cyberspace: an educational view of the virtual community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Parker, D. & Gemino, A. (2001). Inside online learning: Comparing conceptual and technique learning performance in place-based and ALN formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (2), 64-74. Paulsen, M. P. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Berge, A. L. & Ollins, M. P. (Eds) Computer-Mediated Communication and the On-Line Classroom in Distance Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three Principles of of effective online pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8 (3): 33-46. Picciano, A. G. (1998). Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2 (1). Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6 (1).

references

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (2), 162-177.Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at the Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richardson, J. & Swan, K. (2001). An examination of social presence in online learning: students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Richardson J. & E. Ting, E. (1999). Making the most of interaction: what instructors do that most affect students’ perceptions of their learning. College Park, MD: Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Asynchronous Learning.Riccomini, P. (2002). The comparative effectiveness of two forms of feedback: web-based model comparison and instructor delivered feedback. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 3, 231-228.

references

Romiszowski, A. J. & Cheng, E. (1992). Hypertext’s contribution to computer-mediated communication: in search of an instructional model. In Giardina, M. (Ed.) Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments. Berlin: Springer.Rossman, M. (1999). Successful online teaching using an asynchronous learner discussion forum. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (2). Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2).Rovai, A. P.(2002). A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom community between higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6 (1).Russell, T. L. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: IDEC, 1999. http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/ Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M. & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education:, Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 279-312.

references

http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/



Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M. & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (2), 61-80. Shea, P. J., Li, C-S., Swan, K. & Pickett, A. M. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: the role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9, (4). Sutton, L. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7 (3), 223-242.Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, (2), 306-331. Swan, K. (2002). Immediacy, social presence, and asynchronous discussion. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3. Olin and Babson Colleges: Sloan Center for Online Education.Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A, Pelz, W. & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 (4), 389-413.

references

Swan, K. & Shih, L-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussion.” Montreal: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Swan, K., Schenker, J., Lin, Y-M., Shea, P. & Aviv, R. (2006). Student satisfaction with online learning: a concept network analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Swan, K. Shen, J. & Hiltz, R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10 (1), 45-62. Tu, C. H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(1), 27–37.Tu, C-H. & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.Twigg, C. (2000). Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference. The Pew Learning and Technology Program. Twigg, C. (2003). New models for online learning. Educause Review, September/October, 2003, 28-38.

references

Vandergrift, K. E. (2003). The anatomy of a distance education course: a case study analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 1, 76-90. Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21 (4), 460-487.Wenger, E. (1997). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Wong-Bushby, I. (2006). Supporting ALN discourse using content and process scaffolds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Wu, A. (2003). Supporting electronic discourse: principles of design from a social constructivist perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 2, 167-184.

references

Research and Best Practices for Supporting Online Learning

Documents

Transcript of Research and Best Practices for Supporting Online Learning