Online learning has continued to increase in the last decade across higher education and K-12 education (NCES, 2021). Covid-19 forced many instructors and teachers globally to teach and learn online. Research in online learning has been conducted at micro and macro levels. Micro level research has been conducted at the course or individual case study level, investigating variables such as effective instructional strategies or demographic profiles of successful learners in these environments. Macro level research has been conducted at the national or global levels, investigating access to education via free online courses such as Massively Open Online Courses—otherwise known as MOOCs—and examining global standards for online learning.

This chapter explores several research trends in order to assess the state of online learning and identify opportunities for future research. In order to better understand the research trends, definitions are presented first, followed by quality standards for online learning courses and the summary of programs developed by professional organizations. Student, faculty, and administrator perspectives of online learning research are reviewed in addition to best practices in design and facilitation in online learning. Best practices regarding faculty and learner support, as well as inclusive and equitable online learning, are also discussed. Finally, the chapter concludes with a list of academic journals dedicated to online learning research.

Definitions of Delivery Methods

In this section, we briefly define the various terms involved with online delivery methods (Table 1).

Distance education and online learning are terms that are often used interchangeably. However, online learning and its components is encompassed within distance education, which contains two components that are not representative of online learning: correspondence courses and satellite campuses. Figure 1 is a visual representation of the delivery methods of distance education.

Standards and Frameworks for Online Learning

Various standards and frameworks have been established and made available for instructors and administrators to use when designing and implementing online learning. Shelton (2011) reviewed 13 paradigms for evaluating online learning and suggested a strong need for a common method for assessing the quality of online education programs. Shelton found that the institutional commitment, support, and leadership theme was frequently seen in these standards. At least 10 of the standards included institutional commitment, support, and leadership theme as a primary indicator of quality. Teaching and Learning was the second most-cited theme for indicating quality.

Daniel and Uvalic-Trumbic (2013), in their review of quality online learning standards, list institutional support (vision, planning, and infrastructure), course development, teaching and learning (instruction), course structure, student support, faculty support, technology, evaluation, student assessment and examination security as elements essential for quality online learning. They also add that to assure quality online learning in higher education, the most essential requirement is the institutional vision, commitment, leadership, and sound planning.

Martin, Polly et al. (2017) reviewed twelve different global standards for online learning found that the number of standards varied in these documents from 17 to 184 (Table 2). While instructional analysis, design, and development (N=164), student attributes, support, and satisfaction (N=115), and institutional Mission, structure, and support (N=102) were the top categories, course facilitation, implementation, and dissemination (N=40), policies and planning (N=33), and faculty support and satisfaction (N=27) were rated the lowest three.

These three analyses of the quality standards and frameworks over time echo similar results of study showing that institutional factors such as vision, support, and planning are important indicators of quality online learning.

Student, Instructor and Organizational Perspectives of Online Learning Research

Several researchers have examined student, faculty, and organization or administrator-focused research on online learning. In the following section, we have categorized research studies on key online learning topics based on these perspectives.

Student Perspective

In Table 3, we summarize the key aspects of student-focused topics studied on online learning including benefits and challenges.

Faculty Perspective

In Table 4, we summarize faculty-focused research on online learning including benefits and challenges.

Organization Perspective

In Table 5, we summarize the key aspects of organization or administrator-focused research on online learning including benefits and challenges.

Best Practices for Online Teaching

Martin and Kumar (2021) categorized barriers into institutional, technology and technical, pedagogical, and interpersonal barriers. Research in online teaching has tried to address these issues by focusing on course design, course engagement, course facilitation, learner and instructor support, and inclusion and equity.

In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobEenvgqv0), Dr. Florence Martin discusses several best practices to teach online.

Course Design

Lister (2014) conducted an analysis of online learning literature to identify patterns and themes for the design of online courses. Four themes emerged: course structure, content presentation, collaboration and interaction, and timely feedback. Similarly, Mayes et al. (2011) conducted a literature review around six themes to identify specific recommendations for designing quality online courses. The themes used were learners and instructors, medium, community and discourse, pedagogy, assessment, and content. Recommendations identified included structuring courses, developing student-centered interactive learning activities, building collaboration through group projects, incorporating frequent assessments and strategies for equitable scoring such as rubrics, and providing sufficient detail and solicit student feedback.

Jaggers (2016) developed a course design rubric that assessed organization/orientation, objectives/assessments, interpersonal interaction, and the use of technology for their effects on student achievement. The results showed that well organized courses with specific objectives were more desirable but may not have an impact on student achievement. However, the quality of interpersonal interaction within the courses positively correlated with student grades. The following sections explore research in course design trends in more depth.

Instructors may have various levels of control over the design of the course structure depending on organizational philosophies. Lee et al. (2012) defined three approaches to faculty control of course structure: fully autonomous, basic guidelines, and highly specified. When faculty have less control of their course design, the courses are designed by the institution with instructors serving more as facilitators. Regardless of the amount of faculty control, there are basic elements to course structure that research has shown to be effective, such as a having a consistent course structure throughout the course (Swan, 2001).

Gamification and the use of games, virtual worlds, and simulations have also gained traction in the online learning research. Gamification is defined as the application of game design elements, such as digital badges, in non-game contexts. Hamari et al. (2014) conducted a literature review of gamification studies and found that gamification can have positive effects, but those effects depended on the context in which the strategies were implemented and the audience. For example, in the context of applying gamification in an educational setting, learners experienced increased motivation and engagement. However, some negative outcomes were also identified such as increased levels of competition. Applying the same gamification strategies in such as health and exercise increased levels of competition may not be considered a negative outcome. Similarly, the different qualities of the users may also have effects on levels if motivation and engagements. Merchant et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of games, virtual worlds, and simulations as instructional methods. The results showed that students had higher learning gains with games over virtual worlds and simulations. Clark et al. (2016) found similar results when investigating the literature for effects of games on learning outcomes. The effectiveness of the content delivery method depends on the effectiveness of the design of the instruction and the suitability method for the context of instruction.

Assessment affects how learners approach learning and the content as well as how learners engage with one another and the instructor (Kolomitro & MacKenzie, 2017). Students access course content based upon the belief that the course will help them learn and have better outcomes (Murray et al., 2012). Therefore, the design of online assessments should promote active learning and ensure that success depends on retaining course content. Martin and Ndoye (2016) examined learner-centered assessment in online learning and how instructors can use learning analytics to improve the design and delivery of instruction to make it more meaningful. They demonstrate several data analytic techniques that instructors can apply to provide feedback to students and to make informed data driven decisions during instruction as opposed to after the instruction. Applying such techniques can increase retention of online students.

Course Engagement

Transactional distance theory defined the feeling of isolation or psychological distance that online learners often experience (Moore, 1989). To lesson transactional distance, Moore defined three types of interaction: (a) learner-to-learner, (b) learner-to-instructor, and (c) learner-to-content to guide faculty to create quality distance education experiences. Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on 74 distance education studies on the effects of Moore’s three types of interaction and found support for their importance for achievement.

The Community of Inquiry framework built upon these types of interaction and defined a quality education experience for an online learner in terms of three overlapping presences: cognitive, social, and teaching (Garrison et al., 1999). This framework provides guidelines for faculty and designers to create meaningful interactive learning experiences that increase the level of social interaction. However, the Community of Inquiry framework’s ability to create deep and meaningful learning experiences has come into question due to much of the research using self-reporting, achievement, and perception measures (Rourke and Kanuka, 2009; Annand, 2011). Community-building in online classes has received more attention in recent years. Social presence refers to "the strength of the social relationships and emotional connection among the members of a class or learning community" (Rubin, 2013, p. 119). On an individual level, social presence refers to how involved and engaged each individual student is in the community and their motivation and drive to share, interact, and learn from others. On a community level, social presence refers to the shared sense of belonging of the students in the classroom. Teachers can influence social presence by designing group assignments, creating discussion forums, rewarding community building behaviors, and modeling openness and sharing (Rubin, 2013). Teacher presence refers to designing learning experiences, guiding and leading students' work, providing feedback and facilitating interaction and community-building (Rubin, 2013).

Another research lens used to address online learner isolation is learner engagement. Engagement in any learning is important. However, in online learning, engagement is essential because online learners have fewer chances to interact with each other, the instructor, and the institution. Redmond et al. (2018) used a constant comparative method to establish a conceptual framework of online engagement. The framework identifies five key elements for online engagement to guide research in this area: social engagement, cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, collaborative engagement, and emotional engagement.

Dixon (2010) created and validated a scale to measure online learner engagement. The instrument was used to survey 186 online learners from six different campuses. Results showed that multiple communication channels or meaningful and multiple ways of interaction may result in higher learner engagement. However, more research should be conducted to validate these results.

Research on all of these frameworks echo the importance of collaborative or cooperative learning to increase interaction. Borokhovski et al. (2012) conducted a follow-up study to the Bernard (2009) meta-analysis investigating the effects of online collaborative learning on achievement. The results indicated that collaborative learning activities had higher effects on student achievement. Conversely, Oyarzun and Morrison (2013) conducted a quasi-experimental study investigating the effects of cooperative online learning on achievement and found no significant difference in achievement between students who completed the assignment individually or cooperatively.  However, more experimental research is needed to validate the effects of collaborative learning and to identify effective methods of online collaborative learning.

Course Facilitation

Muilenburg and Berge (2007) identified several issues related to online learning implementation from the student perspective, including course materials that are not always delivered on time, instructors not knowing how to teach online, lack of timely feedback, and lack of access to the instructor. Three of these issues deal specifically with instructor immediacy or responsiveness. Bodie and Michel (2014) conducted an experimental study manipulating immediacy strategies for 576 participants in an introductory psychology course. Results revealed that learners in the high immediacy group showed greater learning gains and retention. Martin, Wang et al. (2017) investigated the effects of 12 different facilitation strategies on instructor presence, connection, learning, and engagement. They found that students perceived timely responses to questions and feedback on assignments from instructors helpful. It was also noted that instructors’ use of video aided in building a connection with the instructor. Timeliness and immediacy are common themes in the research. Again, more experimental research should be conducted to identify specific strategies for faculty.

            In addition, Oncu and Cankir (2011) identified four main research goals for course design and implementation to address achievement, engagement, and retention issues in online learning. The four goals are: (a) learner engagement & collaboration; (b) effective facilitation; (c) assessment techniques; and (d) designing faculty development. They further recommended experimental research be conducted to identify effective practices in these areas. Thus, there are many frameworks and principles for effective design and implementation of online learning but still a lack of research validating many of these ideas or providing effective cases.

Faculty and Learner Support

Faculty Support

Several universities that offer online courses are providing online course planning and development support and technology support to their faculty along with institutional support.

Online teaching can be very demanding on faculty. One study found that online teaching demanded 14% more time than traditional teaching and fluctuated considerably during times of advising and assessment (Tomei, 2006). With the spread on online teaching practices in higher education, many academic staff are faced with technological and pedagogical demands that require skills they don't necessarily possess (Weaver et al., 2008). The quality of online programs depends upon the pedagogical practices of online teachers; therefore, faculty support in online programs is very important (Baran & Correia, 2014).

Some believe that the success of online teaching depends upon the support of faculty on three main levels: teaching, community, and organization (Baran & Correia, 2014). The teaching level includes assistance with technology, pedagogy and content through workshops, training programs, and one-on-one assistance. The challenge here is often the fact that academic staff find it hard to adapt to changes in their teaching or allow someone else to tell them how to teach, therefore individuals who design online programs need to first establish themselves as experts and be viewed as such by faculty (Weaver et al., 2008).

The community level includes collegial learning groups, peer support programs, peer observation, peer evaluation and mentoring programs. Some have highlighted the importance of creating a supportive community for online instructors who often feel isolated (Eib & Miller, 2006). Building learning communities and communities of practice for online teachers as well as providing opportunities for students and online faculty helps combat feelings of isolation (Eib & Miller, 2006; Top, 2012).

The institutional level of support consists of rewards and recognition and the promotion of a positive organizational culture towards online education (Baran & Correia, 2014). Institutional support is seen as supremely important (Baran & Correia, 2014; Weaver et al., 2008). On one hand, if the Deans and Department Heads do not support online teaching, the faculty who do may feel marginalized, unsupported within their discipline, and isolated. On the other hand, if upper management adopts online teaching and pushes for too many changes too quickly, planned implementation and adequate training can be grossly neglected, resulting in dissatisfaction among academic staff (Weaver et al., 2008).

Learner Support

Online education is supported by technology-assisted methods of communication, instruction, and assessment. The methods of communication in online learning are very important since feedback given to students depends on them. For some students, synchronous communication helps with receiving direct feedback, whereas for others, asynchronous communication methods allow for more control on the part of the students to process feedback and respond at their own pace (Gold, 2004). Some have stressed the importance of not simply creating online interaction but rather developing high-quality, technology-assisted communication to promote student outcomes (Gold, 2004). Students report that the most common negative aspects of online classes are technology problems and feeling lost in cyberspace. On the other hand, they appreciate the flexibility of online classes and find instructor availability and a sense of community to be positive aspects of online learning (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007).

Technology characteristics in online learning are important considerations. Some have suggested that interface design, function, and medium richness play a key role in student satisfaction. The medium should accommodate both synchronous and asynchronous communication and the interface should be appealing, well structured, easy to use, allow for different mediums such as text, graphics, audio and video messages, and have the capability of providing prompt feedback to students (Volery & Lord, 2000). Ice et al. (2010), Merry and Orsmond (2007) and Philips and Wells (2007) found that students responded positively to audio feedback.

Within the context of learner support, providing accommodations and support for students with disabilities is also an important consideration in online education. In particular, for students with cognitive impairments, navigating an online course can be particularly challenging, as existing platforms typically do not support such learners (Grabinger et al., 2008).

Inclusive and Equitable Online Learning

When creating online courses, it is essential to create inclusive and equitable online content to meet the needs of diverse learners. The online course can be made more inclusive and equitable through various aspects of online teaching and learning, such as (a) online instructor self-awareness and commitment to inclusive and equitable online teaching, (b) getting to know the online learners, (c) designing the course, and (d) during course facilitation and evaluation.

Instructor self-awareness. Some of the strategies that the instructor can use includes reflecting on the students and their needs; examining your own assumptions about student behavior; including a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statement in the syllabus; and reviewing the syllabus to identify changes, such as course policies that need to be updated, to make it equitable.

Getting to know the online learners. Some of the strategies the instructors can use include surveying the students at the beginning of the semester to understand student needs and their readiness, ensuring all students have access to the devices they need as well as reliable internet for online learning, advocating for students who have greater needs and fewer resources, and supporting students who need specialized instruction and services (e.g., students with disabilities and English language learners).

Course Design. During course design, some of the strategies instructors can use to make the course inclusive and equitable include creating a welcoming online environment, including materials that are accessible to all learners, ensuring that instructional materials include a diverse representation of individuals, including multiple low and high stakes assessments throughout the course, and including resources necessary to support their learning.

Course Facilitation and Evaluation. During course facilitation and evaluation, some of the strategies instructors can use to make the course inclusive and equitable include ensuring equitable participation in asynchronous and synchronous discussions, recording lectures and virtual meetings so that students who are unable to attend can view it later, being available to support students through virtual office hours and providing timely response to questions, providing opportunities for students to engage in smaller group settings, grading anonymously to reduce bias, and collecting feedback anonymously from students for course improvement.

Additional Resources

Table 7 includes a list of journals that publishes research focusing on online learning and distance education.

References

Alexander, R. C. (2015). Establishing an administrative structure for online programs. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn, 12, 49–55.

Baran, E. & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. Techtrends, 58(5), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0791-0

Barefield, A. C., & Meyer, J. D. (2013). Leadership's role in support of online academic programs: Implementing an administrative support matrix. Perspectives in health information management/AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association, 10 (Winter), 1f.

Bodie, L. W., & Michel, M. B. (2014, June). An experimental study of instructor immediacy and cognitive learning in an online classroom. In Intelligent Environments (IE), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 265–272). IEEE.

Bolliger, D., & Martin, F. (2021). Critical Design Elements in Online Courses. Distance Education, 42(3), 352–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1956301

Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845949

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education?. Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.723162

Byrnes, D., Uribe-Flórez, L. J., Trespalacios, J., & Chilson, J. (2019). Doctoral e-mentoring: Current practices and effective strategies. Online Learning Journal, 23(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1446

Chandler, C. B., Quintana, R. M., Tan, Y., & Aguinaga, J. M. (2021). Realizing Equity and Inclusion Goals in the Design of MOOCs. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.51869/104/cch

Chiu, T. K., Lin, T. J., & Lonka, K. (2021). Motivating online learning: The challenges of COVID-19 and beyond. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(3), 187–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00566-w

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

Cutri, R. M., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763167

Daniel, J. & Uvalic´-Trumbic´, S. (2013) A guide to quality in online learning. Retrieved online from http://www.chea.org/userfiles/uploads/A%20Guide%20to%20Quality%20in%20Online%20Learning.pdf

Dimaculangan, N., San Luis, C., & Gabitanan, C. (2021). Teachers’ Self-Assessment of their Online Teaching Readiness and Attitude. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 8(3), 325–332.

Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

Dolamore, S. (2021). Accessibility features in ZOOM to improve equity in the MPA classroom. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(3), 376–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2021.1929020

Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty development as community building - an approach to professional development that supports communities of practice for online teaching. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2) http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i2.299

Fussell, G., Bianco, M., & Polkina, G. (2021, October). Fostering Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Online Classes. In SITE Interactive Conference (pp. 15–19). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Garza, R. L. (2009). Online education and organizational change. Community College Review, 37(1), 81–101.

Gaytan, J. (2015). Comparing faculty and student perceptions regarding factors that affect student retention in online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 56–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.994365

Grabinger, R. S., Aplin, C., & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2008). Supporting learners with cognitive impairments in online environments. TechTrends, 52(1), 63–69.

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50.

Guilbaud, T. C., Martin, F., & Newton, X. (2021). Faculty Perceptions on Accessibility in Online Learning: Knowledge, Practice and Professional Development. Online Learning, 25(2), 6–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i2.2233

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work? —a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE.

Hiltz, S. R., Shea, P., & Kim, E. (2010). Using focus groups to study ALN faculty motivation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 110–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1741

Hunt, D., Davis, K., Richardson, D., Hammock, G., Akins, M., & Russ, L. (2014). It is (more) about the students: Faculty motivations and concerns regarding teaching online. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2).

Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using Asynchronous Audio Feedback to Enhance Teaching Presence and Students' Sense of Community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i2.1724

Joosten, T., & Cusatis, R. (2020). Online learning readiness. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 180–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1726167

Karaman, S. (2011). Nurses' perceptions of online continuing education. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-86

Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2020). Exploring connections in the online learning environment: student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670

Kolomitro, K., & MacKenzie, L. W. (2017). Using Assessment to Promote Deep and Active Learning in an Online Anatomy Course. The FASEB Journal, 31(1 Supplement), 584–2.

Kumar, S., & Johnson, M. (2019). Online mentoring of dissertations: the role of structure and support. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1337736.

Kumar, S., Ritzhaupt, A., Pedro, N. S. (2022). Development and validation of the Online Instructor Support Survey (OISS). Online Learning, 26(1), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2622

Landrum, B. (2020). Examining Students' Confidence to Learn Online, Self-Regulation Skills and Perceptions of Satisfaction and Usefulness of Online Classes. Online Learning, 24(3), 128–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066

Lapointe, L., & Reisette, M. (2008). Belonging online: Students’ perceptions of the value and efficacy of an online learning community. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 641–665. http://editlib.org/p/24419

Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930902977772

Leasure, A., Davis, L., & Thievon, S. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a traditional vs. world wide web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 149–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20000401-04

Lee, C. Y., Dickerson, J., & Winslow, J. (2012). An analysis of organizational approaches to online course structures. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1), n1.

Lieblein, E. (2000). Critical factors for successful delivery of online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 3(3), 161–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00036-7

Lister, M. (2014). Trends in the design of e-learning and online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 671.

Lowenthal, P., Bauer, C., & Chen, K. Z. (2015). Student perceptions of online learning: An analysis of online course evaluations. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 85–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.1023621

Luongo, N. (2018). An examination of distance learning faculty satisfaction levels and self-perceived barriers. Journal of Educators Online, 15(2), n2.

Mandernach, B. J., Hudson, S., & Wise, S. (2013). Where has the time gone? Faculty activities and time commitments in the online classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 10(2), n2. http://dx.doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.2.8

Martin, F., Bolliger, D. U., & Flowers, C. (2021). Design matters: Development and validation of the Online Course Design Elements (OCDE) instrument. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 46–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5187

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Martin, F., Budhrani, K., & Wang, C. (2019). Examining faculty perception of their readiness to teach online. Online Learning, 23(3), 97–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i3.1555

Martin, F., & Ndoye, A. (2016). Using Learning Analytics to Assess Student Learning in Online Courses. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(3), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.53761/1.13.3.7

Martin, F., Parker, M. A., Deale, D. (2012). Examining the Interactivity of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 227–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174

Martin, F. & Parker, M.A. (2014). Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms: Why, Who and How? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210.

Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global standards for enhancing quality in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(2), 1–10.

Martin, F., & Kumar, S. (2021). Barriers in Online Education and Strategies for Overcoming Them. In L. Cifuentes (Ed.) A Guide to Administering Distance Learning. p. 43–60) Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Sense.

Martin, F., Stamper, B., & Flowers, C. (2020). Examining Student Perception of Readiness for Online Learning: Importance and Confidence. Online Learning, 24(2), 38–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2053

Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018).  Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003

Mayes, R., Luebeck, J., Ku, H. Y., Akarasriworn, C., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2011). Themes and strategies for transformative online instruction: A review of literature and practice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 151.

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033

Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2007, June). Students’ responses to academic feedback provided via mp3 audio files. In Science Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 19–20).

Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 7(3), 55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i3.1845

Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269

Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D. & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11(1), 125–139.

Nambiar, D. (2020). The impact of online learning during COVID-19: students’ and teachers’ perspective. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2), 783–793.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2021). Condition of Education 2021. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021144

Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098–1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009

Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34(4), 257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9111-6

Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262

Peacock, S., Cowan, J., Irvine, L., & Williams, J. (2020). An exploration into the importance of a sense of belonging for online learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(2), 18–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4539

Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517

Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69.

Pollard, R., & Kumar, S. (2021). Mentoring graduate students online: Strategies and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 267–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5093

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307

Ranganathan, H., Singh, D. K. A., Kumar, S., Sharma, S., Chua, S. K., Ahmad, N. B., & Harikrishnan, K. (2021). Readiness towards online learning among physiotherapy undergraduates. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02803-8

Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175

Reyes-Fournier, E., Cumella, E. J., Blackman, G., March, M., & Pedersen, J. (2020). Development and Validation of the Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale. Online Learning, 24(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2071

Rubin, B. (2013). Measuring the community in online classes. Online Learning, 17(3), 115–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i3.344

Schrum, L. (2002). Oh, What Wonders You Will See--Distance Education Past, Present, and Future. Learning & Leading with Technology, 30(3), 6–9

Schwartzman, R. (2007). Refining the question: How can online instruction maximize opportunities for all students? Communication Education, 56, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601009728

Shelton, K. (2011). A review of paradigms for evaluating the quality of online education programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(1).

Smith, D.F. (2014). 10 Online Learning Trends to Watch in 2015. Retrieved online from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2014/12/10-online-learning-trends-watch-2015-infographic-0

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208

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.

Top, E. (2012). Blogging as a social medium in undergraduate courses: Sense of community best predictor of perceived learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 24–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.02.001

Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540010344731

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1

Weaver, D., Robbie, D., & Borland, R. (2008). The practitioner's model: Designing a professional development program for online teaching. International Journal on ELearning, 7(4), 759–774.

Wei, H. C., & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: do perceptions and readiness matter? Distance Education, 41(1), 48–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768

Woods Jr, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses?--exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners' perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377–394.