gilbert ed7212 u10a1_final_paper

Running head: DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAM RECOVERY PLAN 1

Smalltown State University Distance Learning Program

Lola Gilbert

Capella University

ED 7212

Lola Gilbert, MISLT (MLS)

1216 Greenfield Place #201

O’Fallon, IL 62269

[email protected]

DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAM RECOVERY PLAN 2

Business Proposal Summary

This proposal outlines the plan for addressing the challenges currently being experienced by the distance

learning program at Smalltown State University. Areas addressed include the following: faculty buy-in,

faculty development, policies addressing faculty concerns, faculty selection, faculty compensation, faculty

workload, faculty support, faculty satisfaction, online student services, faculty-student interaction, and

learning management systems.

Keywords: business plan proposal, distance learning, student satisfaction


Table of Contents

Section Subsection Subsection of Subsection Page

Purpose 4

Current Situation 4

Existing Programs 4

Distance Program Issues 5

Central Leadership 5

Concerned Student Perspective 5

Vision 8

Areas to Address 8

Faculty 8

Faculty Buy-in 8

Faculty Development 9

Policies Addressing Faculty Concerns

9

Faculty Selection 10

Faculty Compensation 10

Faculty Workload 10

Faculty Support 11

Faculty Satisfaction 11

Learners 11

Online Student Services 12

Faculty-Student Interaction 12

Learning Management Systems 13

Future Situation 14

Goals 14

Team Structure 15

Team Goals 15

Benefits 16

Challenges 16

Conclusion 16


Business Plan Proposal

Purpose

The purpose of this business plan proposal is to examine the current issues affecting the distance

education program at Smalltown State University (SSU) and to explore possible methods for resolving

those issues.

Current Situation

Existing programs.

Three distance learning programs currently exist at SSU. During the last five years, the College

of Business implemented a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration distance learning program at

SSU. Shortly afterwards, the College of Arts and Sciences began offering courses online. Following that,

the Information Systems department launched its own distance learning courses. Each of the three

programs has its own leadership team and learning management system.

Table 1

Distance Learning Programs by School

School Offerings Area Technology

College of BusinessBachelor of Science

DegreeBusiness

AdministrationOpen Source Learning Management System

College of Arts & Sciences

Courses Arts & SciencesCommercially Produced Learning Management

System

Information Science Department

Courses Information Science Customized Web Pages

Image Caption: Table 1

According to the Office of Postsecondary Education’s 2006 report, institutions need to justify the

existence of any distance education programs that they provide. Institutions should also clarify the

mission of these distance education programs and how the program fits into to the mission of the school.

The report specifically addresses institutions with limited offerings, such as SSU, and advises institutions

what reviewers expect to find during the accreditation process, “For an institution that is offering courses

but no full programs, or only a program or two, the reviewer expects to find a well-articulated statement of

why the institution is developing the courses/programs. This might be included in planning documents or

be noted by the academic dean or department head during interviews” (Office of Postsecondary


Education, 2006, p. 4). The existence of a clearly defined distance education mission is necessary not

only to show just cause for having the program, but also for guiding the university with program planning

and evaluation.

Distance program issues.

Smalltown State University has already determined the issues that are preventing the

current programs from being meeting an acceptable standard. The issues that have been identified are

the lack of central leadership and a concerned student perspective regarding the distance programs.

Students have expressed concerns regarding the lack of Student Services support that is available to

online distance learners, the varied levels of interaction received from online faculty, and the use of

multiple learning management systems.

Central leadership.

At the present time, central leadership for the university’s distance learning programs is

non-existent. Undoubtedly, each program has done a commendable job of establishing and maintaining

its distance learning program. Learner enrollment in the programs is evidence that there is a need for a

distance learning program at this institution. Unfortunately, the dedicated efforts of each school have

resulted in three separate programs, with three different points of leadership. Each school program is

functioning as a silo, instead of joining their combined resources and talents to create a university wide

distance learning program. In 2001, the University of South Australia faced a similar situation. Under

considerable thought, it successfully restructured its separate distance learning programs under one

central leadership model, “From the outset, the university benefited from a strong central leadership that

forged a blueprint for institutional development” (King & McCausland, 2001, How Conversion is Influenced

section). An opportunity has presented itself and the time has come to combine this institution’s wealth of

knowledge, talents, resources, and ideas in order to develop one university-wide distance learning

program to offer its distance learning students. Implementing central leadership is the first step in

accomplishing this goal.

Concerned student perspective.

Understandably, learners that participate in the distance learning programs are

concerned about the inconsistencies that are present due to the lack of central leadership. Concerned


distance learners quite often become dissatisfied learners and either drop their current distance learning

course load or drop their distance learning program completely. Ravai and Downey (2010) reported that

despite the popularity of distance learning, retention rates in these programs are low , “Although the

growth of online learning is well document, a number of studies (e.g., Brady, 2001) provide evidence that

course completion and program-retention rates are generally lower in distance education courses than in

face-to-face courses” (p. 145). Revenues generated from learner tuition make it possible for the distance

education programs to exist in the first place. Loss of these revenues places the distance learning

programs in jeopardy. In order to ensure the continuation of these programs, then the existing student

concerns must be addressed. Items that need to be addressed include the lack of support from student

services that is provided to online students, the varied levels of interaction provided by faculty that teach

online courses, and the multiple learning management systems that are being used to provide distance

learning.

Lack of Student Services support available to online distance learners.

The majority of learners who participate in distance learning programs do so for similar reasons.

Learners want the convenience and flexibility inherent to online programs. Also, many are able to attend

institutions that are not within a feasible driving distance. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh supported this

reasoning when they wrote (2004), “For example, some sources indicate that online learning enables

institutions and/or instructors to reach new learners at a distance, increases convenience, and expands

educational opportunities (Bourne, McMaster, Rieger, & Campbell, 1997; Hara & Kling, 1999, 2001; Hill,

2002; Hofmann, 2002; Owston, 1997; Rourke, 2001; Schrum, 2000)” (p. 60). While these advantages

may exist, there are also disadvantages to online learning. Distance education learners often feel closed

off from the school because no physical link exists. Services that students attending courses onsite are

not available or do not provide adequate support to keep students enrolled. Rovai and Downey (2010)

assert, “Students in distance learning programs may be more like to experience isolation and alienation

from the institution because of their physical separation from the school and the services and from other

students” (p. 145). Successful distance learning programs must provide Student Services supports. The

types and availability of the supports will depend on the needs of the students who are enrolled in the

distance education courses and programs.


Varied levels of interaction received from online faculty.

Learners perform better when they have a clear understanding of the expectations and to what

level it needs to be accomplished. Even when provided with instructions, learners want feedback on their

performance from their instructor. According to Bradford and Wyatt (2010), “Indeed visibility if the key—

even more so than in a traditional classroom (Young, 2006). Howland and Moore (2002), support this

idea; instructor feedback greatly impacts students’ perception of the value of their work” (p. 110).

Consistency is crucial in helping students succeed. Feedback is not the only interaction that students

desire. Students will have questions and they want to know that if they contact their instructor that their

instructor will respond to them in a timely and consistent manner. Students want instructors who are

accessible. Bjorkland, Parente, and Sathianathan (2002) contend that faculty who want to create a

successful online environment will be perceived as accessible by their students , “Success in creating an

environment conducive to faculty-student interaction depends largely on the personality of the instructor

and to what extent the students think the instructor is accessible [12,14]” (p. S1B-14). Faculty members

who teach distance learning courses must understand and respond to the students’ need for feedback

and provide that feedback in a timely fashion that will allow students to succeed in their studies.

Multiple learning management systems.

Distance learners have expressed their dissatisfaction with the distance learning

programs using three different learning management systems. Many organizations do not have the

benefit of knowing what their customers think without completing timely and costly research. This

university has the luxury of knowing what its students’ concerns and the resources to address them.

Naveh, Tubin, and Pliskin believe that it is time to consider student satisfaction in the LMS equation,

“First, past research has shown that LMS use supports, rather than modifies, existing teaching and

learning approaches. Thus, it makes sense to redefine LMS success and shift indications of success

away from achieving a pedagogic revolution (Haraism, 2000) toward improving student satisfaction” (p.

128). The trick may be determining which of the existing systems to select. Further investigation into

what features and platforms students prefer and perform better with will help provide insight into which

learning management system will be the best option for this institution.


Vision.

Imagine a distance learning program where the students get to spend their time learning about

business, psychology, art history, computer science, or whatever subject they are studying instead of

having to spend their time learning numerous learning management systems. Now consider reading

discussion posts and assignments that reflect that students are actually engaged and learning? How

about a program that retains its students long enough to have them graduate and enter the workforce?

Finally, what about a program that actually makes enough money to sustain itself? This is our vision. Our

vision can result in a successful distance learning program with a collaborative and supportive

environment for both students and faculty. But a vision isn’t enough. A vision needs a plan of action and

participants committed to goal of transforming it from a vision into a reality. Identifying the issues that are

preventing the vision from happening and replacing those issues with resolutions can be that plan of

action. Let’s examine those issues and some potential resolutions.

Areas to Address

Faculty.

In 2005, Kaye Shelton and George Saltsman conveyed that that administration must address the

following issues for a successful online program, “faculty buy-in, policies that address faculty concerns,

selection of faculty, faculty compensation, an understanding of faculty workloads, faculty support, and

faculty satisfaction” (p. 59). Creation of a collaborative distance learning program that supports students’

needs by addressing specific areas of online learning and instruction that will motivate faculty to teach

online courses and support faculty through the implementation of policies and procedures, a technological

infrastructure equipped to handle online instruction, support staff and resources, training, and professional

development.

Faculty buy-in.

While there would be no need for distance education programs with students, there

would be no distance education program without faculty. Certainly, there are more people who make the

program possible than faculty. However, typically the efforts of those people are to support faculty,

students, or both. Faculty must buy-in to a distance education program in order for it to be successful.

According to Otte and Benke (2006), “The Sloan surveys [1] have indicated that faculty buy-in is the great


bottleneck, but then faculty sit precisely where workload concerns are concentrated and where perceived

threat by online instruction seems greatest. Such concerns cannot be waved away by mere training in

the technology” (Faculty Development section). Steps must be taken to ensure faculty that what is

presented before them is not a threat, but rather an opportunity that is accompanied by support.

Faculty development.

Teaching online courses differs from teaching onsite courses. Course development is

different, especially if the teaching style most commonly used is lecture, or some other teacher-centered

approach. Faculty not accustomed to teaching with a learner-centered approach may need guidance on

how to structure their courses to fit this approach. Distance learning relies on technology. As

technologies emerge, it often makes sense to incorporate them into an existing course or to use when

planning a new course. Faculty who are required to meet such expectations should receive support

through faculty development. The Office of Postsecondary Education (2006) supported this practice

when they wrote, “Good training is broader than software training. It addresses distance education

pedagogy, with specific emphasis on instructional strategies to foster interaction, convey concepts, and to

assess student learning. It also provides guidance to a faculty member on how to translate onsite

courses to the distance delivery mode being used in order to achieve specific learning outcomes” (p. 8).

It only stands to reason that if an institution wants a quality program, then the institution needs to commit

to providing quality training and adequate support to its faculty members.

Policies addressing faculty concerns.

Distance education requires technology. Faculty members are often hesitant to embrace

technology for many reasons. McClean (2005) advised readers that ensuring the right structures are in

place is important in successful distance learning programs , “Faculty and staff development programs

must target not only individual skill and knowledge, but must also address contextual factors such as

organizational policies and institutional support structures if technology integration is to be a success

(Edmonds, 1999)” (Failure to Address section). Putting policies into place can help provide guidance

while also alleviating concerns. The implementation of needed policies is well within the scope of the

university administration and should be done prior to the onset of any major changes. Steps should be

taken to identify, develop or revise, and implement any needed policies.


Faculty selection.

If faculty hold a core responsibility in distance learning programs, then having quality

faculty is essential for a quality distance learning program. A process should be implemented to assess

the skills of distance learning faculty candidates prior to those individuals being placed into available

positions. In 2002, Tracy Wright and Linda Thompson of Northwest Technical College (NTC) supported

this premise when they wrote, “NTC expects distance courses to meet or exceed on-campus quality so it

pays attention to the factors supporting quality. Faculty selection is central to establishing a quality

learning experience for students. NTC recruits distance learners from its own established faculty focusing

on those who want to be part of a distance and have taught at least one-year on-campus” (Faculty

Involvement and Recruitment section). In addition, faculty should be given enough information to have a

clear understanding of the expectations and demands that often come with teaching online education

prior to accepting an online teaching position or course.

Faculty compensation.

Compensation ranks high on the list of items that cause problems in distance education

programs. In 2003, Hentea, Shea, and Pennington reported that lack of adequate faculty compensation

can be a deal breaker, “A survey of instructors and students involved with distance education, suggested

that faculty compensation and time were the highest ranked barrier on reaching successful distance

learning programs” (Unsuccessful Learning section). Compensation is typically thought of as money,

although it can come in many forms such as assistance from instructional designers, technology experts,

or graduate teaching assistants.

Faculty workload.

Delivering distance education is a time consuming process. Unfortunately, in many

institutions the majority of the work falls to the faculty members who often are already managing heavy

workloads. It is difficult to recruit or maintain instructors when the work expended is immense and the

perceived rewards are few. O’Quinn and Corry shared some reasons faculty members choose not to

teach online courses in their 2002 article, “’Classroom faculty’ who had previously taught via distance

cited many of the same reasons as did their colleagues for not participating, mainly the heavy workload

involved in delivering distance education courses, the lack of rewards and the absence of intellectual


property rights” (Analysis of Faculty Responses section). Proper distribution of course loads, along with

support from other departments such as the library, Information Technology, Copyright Clearance Center,

and continual evaluation of faculty workloads can help alleviate the problem of workload overload.

Policies addressing course loads and intellectual property rights should be established prior to course

development.

Faculty support.

Support, much like compensation, can come in many forms. Some of those forms may

include, but are not limited to assistance from others, resources or tools, or any other means to help make

delivering education easier and less of time constraint. While administrators may not be providing the

actual support, making support systems available is within the scope of their position as well as one of

their many responsibilities. Shelton and Saltsman (2005) reminded administrators and other readers of

this fact when they wrote, “Institutions can provide to faculty course creators in different ways such as

instructional design support including intellectual property and copyright, technical support and media

creation, and allowing faculty to work as a design team rather than just individually” (p. 75). When one

considers the collaborative nature of distance learning environments it only makes sense that that

courses would be developed in a collaborative environment as well.

Faculty satisfaction.

Many factors, not just one, contribute to faculty satisfaction or lack thereof. As in any job,

the environment or organizational culture, compensation, benefits, and professional development

opportunities contribute to job satisfaction. It is no different for faculty members. Wasilik (2009) outlined

the areas of job satisfaction with which most faculty are concerned, “Issues of faculty satisfaction in the

online environment can be categorized into three groups; (a)student-related, (b)teaching –related, and (c)

institution-related (“Faculty Satisfaction, “ 2006; Wiesenberg & Stacey, 2005)” (p. 174). Addressing these

three areas is essential in order to define the components that create satisfied employees.

Learners.

As the reason for the existence of any learning program, it is the learners that make the program

necessary. Without learners there is no need for any program. Just as differences exist in distance

learning faculty as compared to traditional onsite faculty, there exist very real differences in the needs,


skills, and goals of distance learners compared to traditional students. Institutions must address and

respond to the diverse needs of this student population, “As distance education continues to expand its

course offerings, student services must catch up and alter the traditional format of support services to

meet the needs of this newest population of learners” (Raphael, 2006, Conclusion section). More flexible

hours or hours of availability, user friendly documents, and perhaps even offering virtual support are a few

ways that can change the concerns that online students currently have into satisfaction.

Online student services.

Student services are provided on campuses for the simple reason that students need

them. The fact that students do not physically visit a campus does not make their need for these services

any less. In fact, it may be the case that online students need services even more than onsite students.

Dr. Amy Raphael (2006), Director of Career Services at Barry University asserted, “As many distance

learners work more than 40 hours per week outside of the home in a job unrelated to their status as a

student, they are clearly committed individuals undertaking a variety of roles. (Schwitzer, Ancis, & Brown,

2001); Thompson, 1999). These students want what they need, when they need it, in a variety of

formats” (What Services Are Perceived section). Further examination to determine the exact needs of

distance learning students will determine the needs to address. Analysis of the needs will yield guidance

with how to best meet those needs.

Faculty-student interactions.

According to Tomei (2006), Teacher-student interaction plays perhaps the pivotal role in

student attitudes about online learning and distance education. Research accepts that student attitudes,

in turn, are significantly affected by the manner and degree of this interaction (Simmons, 1991; Ritchie &

Newby, 1989)” (p. 532). Learners expect a certain level of interaction from their instructors. They depend

on the comments of the instructor to determine how they performing and to provide clarification for

questions that they might have. Interactions also help instructors gain insight as to what one, or many,

students may be confused about. Bender (2003) supported this assertion when she wrote, “Students can

pool their knowledge and learn new concepts, and feel safe admitting if they are confused. Admission of

confusion is often a ripe launching point, if a new explanation is given, for the student to hopefully

experience the wonderful feeling of pure insight and clarity, as the new concept makes sense and


becomes meaningful” (p. 30). Not only do the amount and quality of these interactions affect students’

attitudes, but they can also affect the quality of a student’s performance in the course. Picciano (2002)

wrote, “Interaction may indicate presence but is also possible for a student to interact by posting a

message on an electronic bulletin board while not necessarily feeling that she or he is part of a group or

class. If they are different, then it is also possible that the interaction and presence can affect student

performance independently” (Introduction section). Students with a sense of belonging often perform

better than those students who feel alienated. Interactions from instructors can help give those students

who do feel alienated a sense of belonging through encouragement or by introducing them to group.

Since work overload can affect the amount and quality of interactions faculty members

have with their students, course size and coursed distribution should be considered heavily in order to

achieve a manageable balance. Tomei (2006) reported that the ideal online course size is around ten

students, “Finally the ideal class size was calculated for each instructional format. The ideal traditional

class size was 17 students while the ideal online class size was 12 students” (p. 540). Policies should be

developed and implemented in order to ensure proper course size.

Learning management systems.

The most prevalent and growing technology that has recently emerged is mobile

technologies using SmartPhones. While SmartPhones are wonderful tools for accessing and

downloading information, they are not the most efficient tool for inputting information. Badge, Johnson,

Mosley, and Cann (2011) asserted the following, “The nature of mobile devices means that they score

highly for flexibility, but other than for audio and video, are poor input devices. For example, it is

challenging to enter large amounts of text (Nielsen Norman Group, 2008).” (p. 91). Simply put, a variety

of technologies that are compatible with each other offers faculty and students the optimal environment.

Today's learners, and tomorrow's, are quite adept at using multiple platforms or methods,

for completing courses. While current and emerging technologies offer opportunities for courses to

provide a more engaging environment for learners, implementing and providing support for such

technologies can prove overwhelming for some institutions, while lack of support can prove frustrating to

learners. An institution that is committed to ensuring the success of its program must provide adequate

support for both technology and instructional design with adequately trained support staff.


While current trends indicate that social media and mobile technologies will be the

standard distance education technologies of the future, further learner assessment and collaborations

with faculty and other designated departments will need to occur in order to select the most appropriate

technologies and a standardized learning management system.

Future Situation

A coordinated distance learning program needs central leadership with unified departments. This

consolidation will both solidify the program and provide students with a sense of attending one school

instead of several. It will also put the responsibility of dealing with technical problems and delivering

courses where it belongs, with the university and not with the students.

Image Caption: Organizational Chart Addressing Distance Education Program Issues

Goals

Table 2

Distance Learning Program Goals

Goal 1 Coordinated learning program with central leadership.

Goal 2Positive student perspective due to online student services support, consistent levels of interaction from online faculty, and a single standardized learning management system.

Bachelor of Science Degree Open Source Learning Management System.

A Support for online students from student services.

B Consistent levels of interaction from online faculty.

C A single standardized learning management system.

Image Caption: Table 2


Team structure.

The creation of a Distance Learning Program Planning Team will bring together a core group of

individuals with different skills, but one common vision. A central leader will guide the team of many

diverse representatives. The team will plan and develop a university-wide distance learning program with

the input of those they see necessary who may not be included on the team.

Program Administrator (leader)

Faculty members from the applicable programs

Instructional Designer

Student representatives from applicable programs

Information Technologies representative

Student Services representative

Library representative

Team goals.

Team goals will provide direction for the Distance Learning Program Planning team. Goals may

be added or revised as determined by the team.

o Develop coordinate distance learning program with central leadership

Develop time-line for future program

Design structure

Define member roles

Develop necessary policies and procedures to administer program including, but

not limited to, faculty expectations and learner expectations.

Investigate and select learner management system

Design, develop, and integrate modules into learning management system

Implement technology support for faculty, support staff, and students

Implement training program and develop training tools necessary to adequately

prepare faculty, support staff, and learners to use learning management system.


Benefits

One benefit of a distance learning program with central leadership and a satisfied student

perception include faculty who desire to teach and are qualified in teaching online courses who will be

provided adequate support in order to help them provide quality courses while maintaining job

satisfaction.

Another benefit of the newly designed program will be that students will be able to focus on

completing their courses and their programs, instead of focusing on issues that the university should

address and resolve. Less concern will result in more satisfaction, which will help strengthen the student

retention rates and contribute more revenues to the university.

Challenges

Most plans contain both benefits and challenges, this plan is no different. Planning and

implementing new program structures take time and cost money. Also, as with any change there will be

those who will be reluctant or hesitant to commit to a new program. These are challenges that all

organizations implementing any kind of change face. They are also challenges that many organizations

have shown, can be overcome.

Conclusion

It is the role and the responsibility of the distance education program administrator to ensure the

successful existence of the distance education program. Distance programs consist of many

components. According to Simonson (2009), “Anthony Kaye’s (1981) four subsystems of a distance

education system—the regulatory subsystem, course subsystem, student subsystem, and logistical

subsystem. The distance education manager could be responsible for part or all of any of all of these

subsystems” (p. 322). The administrator’s role cannot be accomplished by the administrator alone. It

must be a university-wide process to plan, develop, implement, and maintain a program that is both

successful and self-sustaining. Howell, Saba, Lindsay, and Williams (2004) advised some and reminded

other administrators that it is a team process, “These strategic plans must be developed not in isolation at

the institutional level but by engaging those at the department and college levels such that much of the

control for these initiatives is strategically localized” (p. 46). It is the administrator’s job to make sure that

those who should be included are included and to also make sure that they have any needed resources.


References

Badge, J., Johnson, S., Mosley, A., and Cann, A. (2011). Observing emerging student networks on a

microblogging service. Journal of Online Teaching, 7(1), 90-98.

Bender, T. (2003). Discussion based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice and

assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianathan, D. (January 01, 2002). Effects of faculty

interacttion and feedback on gains in student skills. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education

Conference, 3.

Bradford, G., & Wyatt, S. (2010). Online learning and student satisfaction: Academic standing, ethnicity,

and their influence on facilitated learning, engagement, and information fluency. Internet and

Higher Education, 13(3),108-114.

Hentea, M., Shea, M. J., & Pennington, L. (2003). A perspective on fulfilling the expectations of distance

education. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on information technology education

(CITC4 2003),160-167. Lafayette, Indiana, USA, October 16-18, 2003. ACM Press, New York.

King, B., & McCausland, H. (2001). Converting to online course and program delivery: The case study of

the University of South Australia (UniSA). The International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/21/362

McClean, J. (2005). Addressing faculty concerns about distance learning. Online Journal of Distance

Education Administration, 8(4). Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/mclean84.htm

Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2010). Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions:

The organizational perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 127-133.

Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006). Evidence of quality in distance education programs drawn

from interviews with the accreditation community. U.S. Department of Education.

O’Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education.

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4). Retrieved from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ ojdla/ winter54/ Quinn54.htm


Otte, G., & Benke, M. (2006). Online learning: New models for leadership and organization in higher

education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(2), 23-31.

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in

an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.

Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in

a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 141-147.

Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator's guide to online education. Greenwich, CT: IAP-

Information Age Pub.

Simonson, M. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education.

Boston, MA:Pearson.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (January 01, 2004). Improving Online Learning:

Student Perceptions of Useful and Challenging Characteristics. Internet and Higher

Education, 7(1), 59-70.

Tomei, L. A. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for

online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531-541.

Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction in the online environment: An institutional study.

Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 173-178.

Wright, T., & Thompson, L. (2002). Cost, access, and quality online nursing and allied health professions.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(2).

gilbert ed7212 u10a1_final_paper

Documents