The Quality of a Web-Based Course: Perspectives of the Instructor and the Students

The Quality of a Web-Based Course: Perspectives of the Instructor and the Students By Ruey S. Shieh, Edith Gummer, and Maggie Niess T eaching online is different from teaching in a traditional classroom in terms of pedagogical approaches and intensive use of communication technology (Zhao, 2003). However, online instructors are inclined to maintain a component of face-to-face teaching in their online modules, using materials and methods that might have worked in a classroom setting but do not necessarily work effectively in the online situation (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Educators beliefs, such as perceiving their roles as facilitator, guide, and leader, strongly influence the strategies they select to deliver web-based instruction (Wood, 2002). When teaching an online course, the instructor needs to acquire a new set of competencies to engage in effective instructional practices (Bernard, et al., 2004; Fennema, 2003). For example, the online instructor must be able to deal with pedagogical issues and social and psychological aspects of issues which arise from the absence of visual cues in the online learning environment (Gunawardena, 1995; Maor, 2003; Moore, 1993), in addition to attaining technical expertise for managing the course. Many educators and researchers have been concerned with the quality of online education. A common concern is the high dropout rate of online students, which is reportedly 15 to 20 percent higher than that of on-campus students (Steinman, 2007). In 1987, Chickering and Gamson proposed seven principles for quality practice in undergraduate education, based on 50 years of higher education research on how teachers teach and how students learn. The seven principles are: 1) encourage studentinstructor interaction, 2) promote cooperation amongst students, 3) encourage active learning, 4) provide timely feedback, 5) emphasize time on task, 6) communicate high expectations, and 7) value diverse talents and ways of learning. In their view, it is both the teachers and students responsibility to improve the quality of higher education; however, support from the institutions involved, such as the university and the state and federal agencies, is also required. Although Chickering and Gamson s principles were not specifically related to online education, a number of educators and researchers have been using these principles as rubrics for improving online course implementation (Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2001; Zhang & Walls, 2006). Pedagogical practices supporting quality online teaching and learning In order to implement quality online courses, Kochtanek and Hein (2000) contend that transformation of the instructor s role from lecturer to facilitator was an important first step. They argued that a successful studentcentered learning environment requires that the instructor s role be changed from a knowl- Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends November/December 2008 61

edge transmitter to a knowledge facilitator. As a facilitator, the instructor must moderate class activities, for example, providing a summary of or specific comments about the discussed issues (Graham, et al., 2001; Maor, 2003); monitor students participation and Feeling isolated is a major cause of students stress (that) derives from frustration with technical glitches, apprehension caused by anticipating feedback from the instructor, and confusion or uncertainty about the instructional guidance. engagement levels in the class activities, intervening if students interaction is slow or non-existent (Auyeung, 2004; Maor, 2003); update class announcements (Hill, et al., 2002); keep students on task; and create a climate for learning (Shea, Swan, Li & Pickett, 2005). Lack of well-designed mentoring and assessment strategies was one of the main reasons to which Angeli, Valanides and Bonk (2003) attributed the failure of online laboratory sessions. Many researchers have reported that sufficient opportunity for interaction between the instructor and students is essential to promote social, collaborative online learning (e.g., Hill, Raven & Han, 2002; Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz & Maher, 2000). Likewise, encouraging student interaction by providing timely responses and feedback to class members is another strategy to boost the students sense of participation and learning in an online learning environment (e.g., Hill, et al., 2002; Gilbert & Driscoll, 2002; Maor, 2003; Swan, et al., 2000; Wegerif, 1998), which further helps enhance students achievement (Moller, Harvey, Downs & Godshalk, 2000). Research shows that social presence (the social and psychological distance between two parties in the communication) is the key factor predicting the success of asynchronous online courses (e.g., Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu & Mc- Isaac, 2002). Posting pictures and profiles of class members on the web site (Wang, Sierra, & Folger, 2003); creating a personal web page (Harmon & Jones, 2000; Hill, et al., 2002); and using multiple communications media, such as email, the discussion board, and the chat room, (Hill, et al., 2002) may help reinforce the students sense of social presence. The absence of in-person presence might, however, encourage more equal participation from minorities and shy students owing to anonymity of social status and personal identity (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Gunawardena, 1995). Requiring students to complete a group project (Auyeung, 2004; Hill, et al., 2002; Kochtanek & Hein, 2000; Maor, 2003; Wang, et al., 2003) and develop a mini-lesson by team effort (Harmon & Jones, 2000) reportedly helps strengthen a social, collaborative learning environment. Many instructors have found that teaching online is more challenging than teaching a faceto-face course than they initially envisioned, particularly in the areas of interacting online with students and assessing students learning outcomes (Connolly, Jones, & Jones, 2007). Many students also report that distance courses are more stressful than traditional classroom courses. A number of studies have indicated that feeling isolated is a major cause of students stress when taking online courses, especially when that stress derives from frustration with technical glitches, apprehension caused by anticipating feedback from the instructor, and confusion or uncertainty about the instructional guidance (e.g., Forrester, Motteram, Parkinson & Slaouti, 2005; Hara & Kling, 2001; Motteram & Forrester, 2005). Hara and Kling (2000) attributed students distress to the instructors misperception of their needs, a situation that is complicated by students diverse expectations of the online course (Motteram & Forrester, 2005). Obtaining voices directly from participants by interviewing faculty members as well as students, in addition to analyzing online materials and discussion statements posted in the discussion forum, would help better identify issues embedded in implementing a quality online course (Graham, et al., 2001). The need for more research from both the perspectives of the instructor and the students has motivated the current study. In addition to reporting the instructor s intentional and actual teaching perspectives, this study also examines student learning experiences in order to disclose possible discrepancies between what the instructor practices and what the students experience. Only when the discrepancy between the instructor and students is thoroughly understood, can an online course be effectively implemented. Methodology The research context of this study is an undergraduate core course a lower-level, web-based distance course, entitled Women: Self and Society. The course was taught by a female faculty member at a northwestern university in the U.S. 62 TechTrends November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

in the fall of 2004 for a 10-week term. This online course was delivered through the use of Blackboard Learning and Community Portal System. This study is a qualitative case study following the viewpoint that the real focus of a case study is particularization on just a few purposefully selected cases at length, not generalization (Stake, 1995). Seven data sources were gathered: 1. A pre-survey collecting the demographic information of the participating students 2. Course documents, including all the information posted on the course website 3. Four types of artifacts submitted by students 4. Two planned interviews with the instructor conducted in the second week and four weeks after the final week, respectively and two additional follow-up interviews which took place in the sixth and the seventh weeks 5. Two interviews with each of the participating students who returned the pre-survey indicating willingness to be involved in the study, conducted in the first five weeks depending upon the students availability, and one week after the final week 6. Email correspondence between the instructor and students (a total of 21 emails) and among students (a total of 19) 7. Online observations of all instructional activities throughout the term The overarching theoretical stance for this research was social constructionism, which guided the identification of the research questions and the emerging perspectives of the instructor and students (Patton, 2002). The study employed a content analysis approach to examine the qualitative data, particularly the interviews and the online discussion statements. Data were coded and analyzed using the three types of codes descriptive, interpretive, and pattern as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). The seven principles for quality online instructional practice (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) were used as the initial coding structure, however, as the analysis proceeded, emerging themes and patterns were identified and integrated into the coding structure. It is noted that only four students participated in this study. Although the number of cases is small, the frequent in-depth interviews with both the teaching and the learning parties coupled with a full examination of the course documents, email exchanges, and the class interaction presented in the discussion board, provide a rich picture of the teaching and learning dynamics of the course. It is hoped that discrepancies between the teaching perspective and the learning perspective as identified in this single case study will shed light on issues embedded in implementing quality online courses. Findings The participants. Nine students were registered in the class studied; fewer, according to the instructor, than for previous classes. Four of the nine students voluntarily participated in the study. Based on the pre-survey data, these four students, identified as Students A, B, L and S, were females, ages 20-29, unmarried (although one did have a child), who worked either full-time or part-time, and who claimed to have average to high technological skills. All four students claimed to be self-motivated, preferring individual study to group study. All except Student A had prior online course experience. The instructor emphasized that students must be responsible for their own learning, including figuring out the course requirements from the posted information, and resolving technical problems through the resources provided. Because of the nature of the course, Women Studies, students registered in the class had a variety of academic and personal backgrounds; most were female and many had experienced marital hardships. Offering a safe place for students to exchange and share personal experiences and knowledge was thus one of the instructor s instructional goals. The course. According to the instructor, who had been teaching this baccalaureate core course for three years, the class was designed to facilitate students to develop their critical thinking skills of the course subject. The instructor defined critical thinking as students being able to understand how systems of power and privilege operate, and analyze, synthesize, and connect their ideas to personal social encounters. In addition, the instructor expected students to act on what they had learned from the course topics, and to become people who are involved on behalf of social justice. She believed that participatory, collaborative, non-hierarchical, experiential, and studentcentered instructional principles would help students achieve those goals, even in a webbased learning environment. She also believed that the quality of an online course should be no different from one taught in a traditional classroom. She stated in the first interview: The instructor mentioned that engaging students in the online activity was always a challenge because they were preoccupied with other tasks and because of individual personality and learning styles. Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends November/December 2008 63

The instructor equated quantity of study time to quality of learning results, and also believed that the course information posted on the website was sufficient to help students take the course. Because of the nature of the distance students who live away from campus, this is a lot of time in addition to a full time job and a family. They [students] just don t have the time and means to put into the course. That is why I added a statement [in the first class announcement] a couple of years ago that says, You need to expect to spend 8 to 10 hours a week on this course, just like you would a course on campus. As you can see, it is a pretty time-intensive course, but on-campus courses are pretty time-intensive. I wanted it to be equivalent to what is on campus. (The first interview with the instructor, Oct. 7, 2004.) The course syllabus described four major instructional tasks: 1. Readings File: Complete three read ing files each week based on a seven-component template provided by the instructor. 2. Learning Activities Journal: Write two learning activity journals based on the posted weekly learning tasks. 3. Discussion Questions: Post a minimum of three entries per question on the discussion board during the week, including making their own entries and responding to others messages. 4. Activism Project and Research Paper: Complete a group project as a collaborative effort. The instruction. The teaching practices implemented in the course were based on the criteria of the seven principles of good practice addressed by Chickering and Gamson (1987). 1. Encourage active learning: Experiential learning, a focused strategy emphasized by the instructor, was illustrated in a number of weekly instructional activities. For example, students were required to interview members of their local community, investigating their viewpoints towards feminism, and to reflect on the messages certain television shows conveyed regarding race, class, sexual orientation, and/or ability. Student S stated that the learning journal activity was the most useful assignment because it involved handson experience, such as conducting an interview and then writing about that interview experience. Similarly, Student B mentioned that she had a hard time with reading comprehension, thus active learning, such as engaging in real-life activities, helped her learn more effectively. 2. Value diverse talents and ways of learning: Student B, a single mother, acknowledged in the first interview that she had a hard time opening up and sharing thoughts and opinions with others but was excited about working with new people, and working on overcoming fears about being more outspoken. Overall the class atmosphere reflected in the discussion forums appeared to be a friendly venue. Not a single criticism or challenge among students was found on the discussion board throughout the term. The instructor claimed in her last interview that she had successfully fulfilled the goal of creating a safe place for students to learn, particularly for disadvantaged students or a shy student like Student B who was able to share some of her prior personal trauma in the journal assignments. 3. Emphasize time on task: Reminding students of the due date of upcoming assignments was one of the tasks the instructor managed, though she said she only needed to perform the task in the first couple of weeks because by then students would kind of get into the rhythm of it [the due date]. Even though the assignment specifications clearly stated that no late assignments would be accepted, according to the computer records late submissions appeared to be common practice. Computer problems and being occupied by other tasks were the reported reasons for missing or late assignments. Two students revealed in interviews that turning in assignments late did not seem to have had a negative impact on their grades. The posted grade information revealed that students were credited with full points for their work regardless of the time submitted and the content. For instance, students earned a full point for the Discussion Questions assignment as long as they ultimately posted something on the discussion forum. Likewise, those who eventually turned in Readings File assignments were credited with full marks. 4. Promote student cooperation: The instructor expected students to share their ideas and learning experiences acquired from the Readings and Journals activities with peers through the discussion board. Students were also expected to work collaboratively on the activism project and post their progress on the discussion forum for discussion and thought exchange. However, online observation data showed that the students were not enthusiastic about participating in the discussion activity. The instructor mentioned that engaging students in the online activity was always a challenge because they were preoccupied with other tasks and because of individual personality and learning styles. Encouraging student cooperation is the most difficult task of an online course (Zhang & Walls, 2006), and 64 TechTrends November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

most students interviewed in the present study said they interacted with others only to get the grade. In addition, all four students mentioned that the group project was harder than they anticipated because of scheduling conflicts and different group member engagement levels. According to online observation data, the instructor herself never participated in the students discussion forum. The instructor s argument in this regard was that she did not want an authoritative voice to interfere with the students discourse. 5. Encourage student-instructor interaction: The instructor mentioned in the second (first follow-up) interview that she kept in frequent contact with students, communicating with them at least once a week. She said when she had to travel outside the country for research purposes and the Internet was not accessible, she would inform students in advance. However, not all students felt that they had frequent contact with the instructor. Student A stated in the end-ofsemester interview that the instructor seemed to travel a lot, so sometimes she did not contact the students that often. She further described her feeling of contact with the instructor: You know the announcements part [in the Blackboard system]; it is the same one that she [the instructor] put on there. So I feel she is not even there. If she would say OK, this is happening here and here. What do you think of this? I ll be in my room at this time. Good luck, you guys. Have a nice vacation, or whatever, [she would be] more in there, and interacting. (The second interview with Student A, Dec. 3, 2004.) The announcement displayed on the course portal page was dated March 17, 2003, several terms prior to the current one. Student A said that it would also be nice if the instructor could say something on the discussion board. Student S commented that the online instructor should use multiple approaches to contact students, such as through email and the discussion board. Observation of online and email messages revealed that email appeared to be the only tool the instructor used to communicate with students. However, Student L expressed that she did not appreciate frequent interaction with the instructor or peers, preferring self-study to group activities. The instructor s explanation for not using multiple communication approaches to contact students was that all course information, such as the syllabus and assignment due dates, was clearly posted on the website; emails mainly served as reminders. 6. Provide timely feedback: The instructor portrayed her role in the course as a facilitator, stating in the first follow-up interview that her tasks were to empower students to do required activities, encourage them, help them figure out how it was working and give them feedback. The instructor exemplified feedback that she usually provided: You re on the right path, Your Readings File responses are excellent, What you ve done is good work and shows you re thinking critically, and Your article for the group project is thought-provoking and has lots of good info in it. The email correspondence showed that the instructor only occasionally provided students with feedback for their assignments, rather than on a regular basis. Although all students interviewed stated that they were not clear exactly what the instructor expected from their assignments, most appreciated the positive, encouraging feedback. A couple of students considered the short but positive feedback to be important because it informed them about what the instructor liked, though Student L stated that the feedback the instructor provided was usually too little too late, and did not help her much. Online observations reveal that the instructor normally posted the students grades within a week of the assignment due date. Student L said that there was very little interaction after the feedback was given and that the feedback was for the previous assignment when it was time to work on new assignments. The students also said that, after all, the instructor was the one with knowledge and the one giving the grade. 7. Communicate high expectations: The instructor required students to spend 8 to 10 hours a week for this course. All students reported that the course workload was very heavy. Student A mentioned that she usually spent more than 8 to 10 hours per week completing the four types of assignments. She regarded the assignment load for the course as being way too much and added that she was kind of not tempted to take any online courses again. The instructor s reaction to the students responses about the workload was that it had been significantly reduced compared to what she had assigned in earlier terms. She said that the time students spent on the assignments depended upon the speed at which each person worked: Some students might work faster than others, particularly after they know the system. Overall, the instructor appeared satisfied with the students learning outcomes. She mentioned in the last interview that the students in general had done a good job in the class, as had students in earlier terms. She said most students were able to demonstrate their critical thinking skills, applying subjects discussed in the course to their personal experience and real-life situations. Her only criticism about student performance was that most students were too lazy to really write and dig. In the instructor s view, writing more would help students think more and thus learn more. However, when students artifacts were examined closely, it was found that student performance appeared to deteriorate, rather than improve, as the course progressed. For instance, most students were more engaged in the earlier weeks of the class than in the later weeks. Some students copied statements from the referenced information, such as from the textbook, for their assignments in later weeks. Similarly, several students copied the statements they composed in their journal assignments to the counterpart discussion question assignments. Yet the instructor continued crediting students with full Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends November/December 2008 65

points for most of the assignments they submitted, regardless of the quality and quantity of the work. In the last interview with the instructor, she was asked how she assigned points to students assignments as well as the final course grade. The instructor first explained under what condition the students did not receive a full score in their Learning Activity Journal assignments: It was either late or there was a part that didn t get done. That is usually why they [students] would lose points, if they didn t do some part or if the answers were really, really short. Then they might lose some points, typically because I look at those as writing to learn. I am more looking at are they processing the materials, or are they thinking about it. If they are, I tend to give them the full point on it. (The last interview with the instructor, Jan. 7, 2005.) The instructor also stated that she usually assigned full points to students in the Readings File assignment if they do it because the assignment was identifying the article the structured elements of the article. As for the Activism Project and the Research Paper assignment, the instructor said that she had received competing stories about individual effort spent on the project so it was difficult for her to make judgments in that specific account and she eventually sort of assigned a grade to students based on the final product she saw. She added that she was not ready for a group project and had dropped the group project and went back to the individual project in the new term she was teaching. Discussion The instructor of this course intended to deliver the online course to an equivalent standard of quality as a traditional classroom course. She successfully accomplished a portion of the good-practice principles (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), such as encouraging active learning and respecting diverse voices, but other practices did not seem as effective. For example, she intended to keep in frequent contact, but her contact with the students was not consistent and was limited to using email; she encouraged students to actively engage in the discussions, but she never participated in these discussions herself; she provided students with feedback, but the feedback only helped them better understand the nature of the assignments, was not critical, and did not meet some of the students learning needs; she set high expectations for the students, but her assessment practices did not support those expectations. Nevertheless, the Not only early adopters (those who are more advanced in technology) but also the mainstream majority (those who tend to wait for evidence of benefits of online learning or who are more concerned with their technical skills) are beginning to shift their teaching online. instructor appeared content with the quality of the course and the student performance. The failure of the instructor to fully comprehend the nature of participatory, social, collaborativebased online learning and the role of sustaining such learning seemed to contribute to those discrepancies. In addition, the instructor equated quantity of study time to quality of learning results, and also believed that the course information posted on the website was sufficient to help students take the course. As a result, she ignored the students stress, particularly the aspect of workload, and their anticipation for more sensible, participatory interaction. The students, on the other hand, tended to meet the quantity of the assignments required rather than engaging in in-depth study. To become a reflective practitioner, the online instructor must be able to improve the quality of his/her teaching practice by thoroughly understanding and evaluating the role he/she plays in teaching and learning (Maor, 2003; Steinman, 2007). The instructor of an online course must be prepared for the extent of effort and time the new teaching approach may demand, particularly when the instructional intent is to deliver a collaborative, student-centered online course (e.g., Kochtanek & Hein, 2000; Kramarae, 2003; Maor, 2003). In addition to the instructor s engagement level, the instructor s facilitation skills are a crucial factor to ensure the effective implementation of the online course. Helping online instructors develop such skills involves the institution s commitment and support, such as providing training for online instructors prior to designing the online course. Angeli et al. (2003) suggest that training be provided to inexperienced instructors and class mentors to improve their facilitating skills and discourage the transfer of existing poor pedagogical practices to the online environment (Weaver, 2006). Fennema (2003) suggests that some training can address practical issues that faculty may encounter including 1) motivation explaining to faculty the importance of committing themselves to delivering the online course; 2) content providing faculty members with the associated volume of literature prior to creating an online course; and 3) format scheduling a convenient workshop location for faculty throughout the country, and providing participants with guidelines and suggestions for fostering an online course. The adequacy of the training and orientation provided to online instructors also accounts for the quality of an online 66 TechTrends November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

course. Shea et al. (2005) recommend that faculty development efforts focus on helping new online instructors understand the roles related to fostering online learning communities, the technical skills needed to participate in online discourse, and creation of online assessments. Lieblein (2000) recommends mentoring by more experienced faculty members, instructional design assistance, technical support, and policies for faculty evaluation that recognize effort contributed to teaching the online course and related scholarly activities. Wolcott (2003) recommends an evaluation policy that establishes motive and incentive and recognizes potential barriers to successful participation in teaching online courses. One barrier may be an instructor s notion that the quality of online courses can be assessed by the amount of time students spend on the course. Rather, the level of student engagement and the learning objectives need consideration, along with student achievement. Likewise, non-hierarchical teaching and learning involves the instructor s participatory relationship with students, such as taking part in the students discourse (Steinman, 2007) rather than staying out of it. The delivery of courses at a distance, especially online courses, is rapidly increasing in higher education. Reportedly, more than a million students worldwide are receiving online education (Zhang, 2006; Zhao, 2003). More faculty members in higher education are thus expected to teach online courses, particularly new faculty, due to shifting role expectations (Wolcott, 2003). Not only early adopters (those who are more advanced in technology) but also the mainstream majority (those who tend to wait for evidence of benefits of online learning or who are more concerned with their technical skills) are beginning to shift their teaching online (Weaver, 2006). In order to meet the students demands for both quantity and quality of online courses, instructors must adjust their mindset and role from teaching a classroom course to teaching an online course an initial commitment step required by instructors and their institutions. Ruey S. Shieh is currently an associate professor at Tatung Institute of Commerce and Technology, Chia-Yi, Taiwan. Her research focuses on the student and instructor experience in technology-mediated teaching and learning. shiehr@ gmail.com Edith Gummer is the director of the Classroom- Focused Research and Evaluation Program in the Center for Classroom Teaching and Learning at the Northwest Regional Laboratory. Her research focuses on assessment and evaluation of teaching and learning. Margaret (Maggie) Niess is professor emeritus of Science and Mathematics Education at Oregon State University. Her research focus is on understanding the knowledge teachers need for teaching with technology with a specialty focused on integrating spreadsheets in teaching mathematics and science. niessm@onid.orst. edu References Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a web-based conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31-43. Auyeung, L. H. (2004). Building a collaborative online learning community: A case study in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 119-136. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A metaanalysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education, The American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) Bulletin, 3-6. Connolly, M., Jones, C. & Jones, N. (2007). New approaches, new vision: Capturing teacher experiences in a brave new online world. Open Learning, 22(1), 43-56. Fennema, B. (2003). Preparing faculty members to teach in the E-learning environment. In S. Reisman, J. G. Flores, & D. Edge (Eds.), Electronic learning communities: Issues and practices (pp. 239-269). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Forrester, G., Motteram, G., Parkinson, G., & Slaouti, D. (2005). Going the distance: Students experiences of induction to distance learning in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(4), 293-306. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59-79. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The technology Source. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://technologysource.org/article/seven_ principles_of_effective_teaching/ Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 1(2/3), 147-166. Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2000). Students distress with a web-based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participants experiences. Information, Communication and Society, 3(4), 557-579. Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Students distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly, 3, 68-69. Harmon, S. W. & Jones, M. G. (2000, April). A qualitative analysis of situated web-based instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA. Hill, J. R., Raven, A., & Han, S. (2002). Connections in web-based learning environments: A research-based model for community building. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 383-393. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134. Kochtanek R. T., Hein, K. K. (2000). Creating and nurturing distributed asynchronous learning environments. Online Information Review, 24(4), 280-293. Kramarae, C. (2003). Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock on. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 261-272). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lieblein, E. (2000). Critical factors for successful delivery of online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(3), 161-174. Maor, D. (2003). The teacher's role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 127-137. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Early steps in analysis. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed., pp. 50-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends November/December 2008 67

Moller, L. A., Harvey, D., Downs, M., & Godshalk, V. (2000). Identifying factors that effect learning community development and performance in asynchronous distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 293-305. Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium quality framework and five pillars. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/ books/qualityframework.pdf Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge. Motteram, G. & Forrester, G. (2005) Becoming an online distance learner: What can be learned from students experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance Education, 26(3), 281-298. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, J. C. & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88. Shea, P., Swan, K., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Steinman, D. (2007). Educational experiences and the online student. TechTrends, 51(5), 46-52. 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), 359-383. 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. Wang, M., Sierra, C., & Folger, T. (2003). Building a dynamic online learning community among adult learners. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 49-62. Weaver, D. (2006). The challenges facing staff development in promoting quality online teaching. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(2), 275-286. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http:// www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/ pdf/v2n1_wegerif.pdf Wolcott, L. (2003). Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson, (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 549-565). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wood, V. L. (2002). What influences selections of instructional strategies for web-based instruction? Relationships between approaches to teaching, concerns with technology, and selections of strategies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Denver). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(5), 1802A. Zhang, J., & Walls, R. T. (2006). Instructors self-perceived pedagogical principle implementation in the online environment. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 413-426. Zhao, F. (2003). Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Quarterly Assurance in Education, 11(4), 214-221. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning (IJPBL) publishes relevant, interesting, and challenging articles of research, analysis, or promising practice related to all aspects of implementing problem-based learning (PBL) in K 12 and po secondary classrooms. IJPBL is published by Purdue University Press. Editor Peggy A. Ertmer, Purdue University Editorial Assistant Christopher Mong, Purdue University Editorial Board George Bodner, Purdue University Nada Dabbagh, George Mason University Cindy Hmelo-Silver, Rutgers University Woei Hung, University of North Dakota David Jonassen, University of Missouri Alexius Macklin, John Heinz History Center Johannes Strobel, Purdue University Advisory Board Tom Duffy, Indiana University John Savery, University of Akron George Watson, University of Delaware Donald Woods, McMaster University To order this publication: 1-800-247-6553 (toll free number) orders@bookmasters.com ISSN 1541-5015 For other questions, contact the Subscription Manager at pupress@purdue.edu Submit online or read issues one and two freely now by going to http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl P U R D U E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S 1-800-247-6553 www.thepress.purdue.edu 68 TechTrends November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6