Best Practices in Distance Education: A Review

doi:10.4236/ce.2013.412108

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2013. Vol.4, No.12, 762-766

Published Online December 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.412108

Open Access

762

Best Practices in Distance Education: A Review

Gabriel Kofi Boahen Nsiah

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Valley View University, Accra, Ghana

Email: [email protected]

Received November 4th, 2013; revised December 4th, 2013; accepted December 11th, 2013

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all

Education plays a significant role in shaping a nation, and the proliferation of Internet-based educational

opportunities has expanded distance learning modalities to all parts of the globe. However, though this

mode of delivery is being capitalized upon as a result of the opportunities it offers, it is still new to many

nations and institutions of learning. This article therefore reviews the best practices that make distance

education works. This will better inform nations and their learning institutions as they capitalize on this

mode for providing access to education.

Keywords: Distance Education; Best Practices

Introduction

Technology plays a major role in the educational world

(Monolescu, Schifter, & Greenwood, 2004), and has been cred-

ited with reducing the educational gap between developed and

developing nations through distance education (Breen, 2006).

Learners around the world are demanding anytime and any-

where forms of education, and learning institutions are re-

sponding to that demand by implementing various forms of

digitally-based education (Schrum & Hong, 2002).

Distance education is not a new concept, but in recent years,

it has assumed markedly new forms and greater prominence.

Now, it is one of the fastest growing forms of education and is

becoming more a part of mainstream education through courses

taught by Internet or videoconferencing (Ashby, 2002). In a

very short period of time academic institutions have been pro-

vided vastly expanded opportunities to provide a flexible and

more open learning environment for students, and this trend

continues as technology continually improves (McIsaac & Gu-

nawardena, 1996).

Distance education as a discipline has a sufficient research

base to have an established set of practices that are considered

essential elements for quality instruction. Though terminology

of these best practices varies by researcher, the broad categories

of best practice are relatively consistent across the literature.

Strong distance education programs have specific hallmarks of

good practice, and these are discussed in this article.

Selecting Organization, Vision and Planning

The importance of organization, vision and planning for dis-

tance education is emphasized by many authors (Berge &

Mrozowski, 2001; Care & Scalan, 2001; Berge & Clark, 2005;

Stansfield et al., 2009). According to Cavalluzzo (2005), edu-

cational leaders who see the possible role for distance education

in their school system should begin by assessing students’

needs and identify clear objectives for the program. Berge and

Clark (2005) seconded this idea by asserting that the vision of

offering a virtual school program must be grounded in the real-

ity of needs, resources, and capabilities (p. 207).

Stanfield et al. (2009) discovered that establishing a clear vi-

sion and strong leadership, as well as demonstrating a pro-

active approach to management that can address potential prob-

lems and explore opportunities to the full, are vital for success

in distance education. In terms of developing vision and plans

for implementing a distance education program, it is suggested

by some authors that administrators should play that leadership

role (Care & Scanlan, 2001; Hache, 2000). Others suggest fac-

ulty leadership, explaining that without faculty leadership, the

plan may be undermined (Kriger, 2001; Myers & Ostash, 2001;

Schifter, 2000). Still others promote the importance of collabo-

rative involvement of all stakeholders—administrators, faculty,

staff, and students (Hache, 2000; Hughes, 2001).

Husmann and Miller (2001) emphasized the importance of

good planning based on their survey of distance education ad-

ministrators. These leaders highlighted the need to provide

additional support for faculty development of course materials,

to make programmatic quality a high priority, and to be cus-

tomer-focused by offering programs concentrated on potential

client needs as essential to sound planning for any distance

education program.

Poorly planned programs run the risk of not been successful.

Thus, program administrators must have the vision to consider

and plan for multiple aspects of their program and be consis-

tently evaluating the program to assess effectiveness, limita-

tions and barriers. Planning, if properly executed, provides

solutions to the challenges of today (Fain, 2007; Pisel, 2008).

Good planning may also depend on financial viability. In view

of this, financial issues in distance education program are dis-

cussed in the following section.

G. K. B. NSIAH

Open Access 763

Financial Issues

Implementing a viable distance education program can re-

quire a substantial investment of human and capital resources.

Though program administrators may not have to fund physical

classrooms, they do have to support technologies that reliably

produce the virtual classroom setting and qualified technical,

instructional and support staff to run the program. Stanfield et

al. (2009) stressed the importance of financial planning in dis-

tance education to assure a sustainable business model beyond

the initial funding period. Cost models must be developed that

accurately predict the direct and indirect costs associated with

providing instruction at a distance.

Set up costs. Establishing a distance education program can

be expensive, especially when starting with little equipment and

big dreams (Porter, 1997). Cavalluzzo (2005) posited that edu-

cational institutions with interest in or plans of offering distance

education must confront different kinds of issues surrounding

the setup of the program. This includes costs and funding. Por-

ter (1997) explained:

Before you start developing a distance learning course,

you should investigate the types of technology you intend

to use and determine what it will cost to start a course or

program and what the projected costs will be to offer the

course X number of times over X time frame. Knowing

what it will cost to offer the ideal program, then deter-

mining how the―ideal can be translated into―practice

and effective or locating additional sources of funding, are

crucial to the success of a distance learning program (p.

41).

Cavalluzzo (2005) placed emphasis on the use of a student

needs assessment as the basis for program objectives prior to

initiating any distance education program. Once these objec-

tives are defined, the next significant issue should be the factors

that affect the costs and effectiveness of the program, followed

by the need to identify funding sources and methods that can be

used to launch and maintain the program.

Porter (1997) believed that distance education can be offered

with lower-cost technologies but suggested careful budget

planning so that quality is never compromised. Ojo, Ogidan and

Olakulehin (2006) like Porter, also believed that technology

plays an important role in determining the overall cost in run-

ning a distance education program. In their research, they found

that distance education is cost effective as a result of its flexi-

bility, which allows students to pace their study and finish

classes at a convenient time. In other words, a student can skip

a course if facing financial difficulty and return to continue the

program when necessary. The challenge this poses for those

implementing the program is that a steady tuition stream may or

may not be present, as students periodically drop out of the

program based on personal circumstances or finance. Thus, it is

incumbent on the distance education planner to identify finan-

cial strategies such as commercial secretarial services and

stores/bookshops that maximize efficiency and contain costs.

Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

Butcher (2000) distinguished between cost effectiveness and

cost efficiency. He defined cost efficiency as having to do with

“cheapness” of educational provision—usually expressed in

terms of per-student costs—while cost effectiveness has to do

with striking the optimal balance between cost, student num-

bers, and educational quality, a balance which according to

Butcher, will be entirely different for different educational con-

texts.

Butcher (2000) believed the concept of cost-effectiveness

represents the balancing act that constitutes distance education.

According to this author, there is no magical formula that leads

to cost-effective education; rather, cost-effectiveness needs to

be measured on an ongoing basis in relation to changing con-

textual requirements. Bartley and Golek (2004) posited―To

comprehensively evaluate the cost effectiveness of online

learning, practitioners and adopters need a comprehensive tool

to evaluate the costs associated with online learning as com-

pared to those associated with face-to-face learning (p. 173).

To accomplish this program, administrators must carefully

consider costs and budget appropriately. Determining start up

costs, ongoing expenses, and the inevitable price of constant

upgrades inherent to information technology is vital to estab-

lishing and sustaining an effective program.

Classroom Facilitators

Online facilitation, in broad terms can be described as the act

of managing the learners and the learning through an online

medium (Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2002). The

importance of qualified and engaged classroom facilitators is

recognized in distance education programs by researchers

(Mac-Gregor & Atkinson, 2002-2003; Spencer, 2002; Wang,

2008).

Literature has revealed four interrelated roles played by fa-

cilitators in distance education—intellectual, social, managerial,

and technical (Hoostsein, 2002; Wang, 2008). Intellectually,

facilitators help students achieve learning objectives by helping

them comprehend critical learning concepts. They also distrib-

ute and collect class materials, proctor exams and quizzes, and

report class needs or problems as they occur (Spencer, 2002;

Wang, 2008). Socially, the facilitator creates and maintains a

friendly environment. Such an environment makes students feel

safe and comfortable interacting with the instructor and with

each other (Anderson, 2004; Wang, 2008).

Managerially, the facilitator sets agendas such as timeline,

rules, and norms for smooth online discussions. In so doing, the

facilitator demonstrates leadership abilities by keeping the stu-

dents focused. Technically, the facilitator assists teachers and

students by operating electronic classroom media that are ap-

propriate to the delivery of each class session. In addition to

that, the facilitator also helps students get familiar and com-

fortable with the delivery technology (Spencer, 2002; Wang,

2008). According to Spencer (2002), facilitators act as the―

eyes and ears of the instructor who is not physically present in

the remote classroom by giving directions, making announce-

ments, answering questions, and consulting with full-time staff.

Both the instructor and students rely on the facilitator to bridge

the physical distance that separates them by minimizing tech-

nological and administrative obstacles.

In their research, Yi and Majima (1993) found that the rela-

tionship between the facilitator and the students impacted the

way the students learned. Positive relationships between the

facilitator and the students affect the students’ learning posi-

tively, while negative relationships affect the students nega-

tively. According to MacGregor and Atkinson (2002-2003), fa-

cilitators should be mentors/role models to the students.

G. K. B. NSIAH

Open Access

764

Tapping Student Motivation

Educators in general believe that all students can learn. But

the strength, desire, and temperament to learn vary from one

student to the other (Sankaran & Bui, 2001). Sankaran and Bui

further stated,

Students who choose distance education need a high level

of motivation if they are to complete the course work

successfully. During their studies, they often have to work

by themselves with little or no opportunities for face-to-

face or peer interaction. They will have to deal with more

abstract and ambiguous situations than someone taking a

lecture class. They need to be efficient in time manage-

ment, be responsible and in control of their studies and

maintain an image of self-worth and self-efficacy. They

should see the value of the education and be able to post-

pone current enjoyments and cope with interruption life

frequently entails (p. 2).

Ormrod (2006), who also spoke to the importance of tapping

student motivation for learning and motivation for pursuing that

learning at a distance, offered the following guidelines for good

practice in fostering student motivation:

 When students approach a learning task believing they can

make sense of the information—that is, when they have a

meaningful learning set—they are more likely to learn that

information meaningfully,

 Students with a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely

to exert effort when attempting a new task. They are also

more likely to persist (to try, try again) when they confront

obstacles to their success. In contrast, students with low-self

efficacy about a task will put in little effort and give up

quickly in the face of difficulty,

 People often set goals for themselves and direct their be-

havior accordingly; in essence, they are motivated to ac-

complish their goals,

 Students with high achievement motivation seek out chal-

lenging tasks that they know they can accomplish with ef-

fort and persistence. They really do not rest on their laurels;

instead, they set increasingly high standards for excellence

as their current standards are met (Ormrod, 2006: p. 200-

368).

Research has shown that students exhibit greater motivation

when the course content is of interest to them and they perceive

some personal relevance in the content (Adler, et al., 2001;

Brass, 2002; Burke & Moore, 2003). In their research on the

impact of motivation on performance, Sankaran and Bui (2001)

found motivation and performance to be significantly correlated

and that high motivation is associated with high performance,

while low motivation is correlated with low performance. In

similar research, Dunigan and Curry (2006) found high motiva-

tion to be associated with high performance and less motivation

to be associated with low performance.

According to Parker (1999), distance education necessitates

the use of real world problems that students work on in teams

to find solutions for and consistent levels of interaction among

class members and with the instructor. In view of the above,

Parker suggested that distance education courses should there-

fore be designed in a manner that would make room for interac-

tion through questioning, evaluation, and analysis. Such activi-

ties support student motivation by linking theory to practice.

Conaway, Easton and Schmidt (2008) posited that online in-

structors should recognize their roles as facilitators who moni-

tor discussion and provide feedback to sustain student motiva-

tion and promote performance. To encourage discussion, they

suggested that the instructor should lead the discussion, sum-

marize the discussion points, and provide feedback. The in-

structor then may have students assume roles for various as-

signments which automatically place them in interactive roles.

And once interaction is initiated, the instructor may disengage

as the students take over.

Russo and Campbell (2004) also noted that the way instruc-

tors respond to students’ e-mails and other forms of communi-

cation have great impact on how well students learn online.

However, Dennen et al. (2007) offered that communication

through e-mail and assignment feedback is not enough to sat-

isfy learners. This research suggested that learners are used to

having an instructor in the face-to-face classroom and wish to

see that same sort of presence in the virtual classroom (p. 9).

Dennen et al. (2007: p. 9) also emphasized the importance of

clearly presenting the expectations of the course to learners.

They said instructors should not assume that their expectations

are as clear to the students as it is [sic] to them. They believed

that students often feel more secure when they have the expec-

tation explicitly stated or confirmed. Moore and Kearsley

(2005), concurred with the above assertion as evidenced by the

following quote:

Only when a course has clear learning objectives—un-

ambiguous statements of what the student should be able

to do as evidence of having learned—can instructional de-

signers identify the most suitable learning experiences,

make good technology and media selections, and design

appropriate evaluation instruments (p. 125).

Dennen et al. (2007) suggested the provision of examples of

completed assignments or models of expected discussion be-

havior as a way of doing this. They believed that this provision

could be readily built into the course design so students do not

have to ask for them.

Instructors as Co-Learners

Evans et al. (2007) noted that the distance education envi-

ronment affords benefit to both instructors and students by

changing the dynamic of the teacher-student relationship. Fol-

lowing a constructivist philosophy, Evans et al. (2007) recom-

mended that a sound approach to distance education involves

instructional strategies that empower the learners to construct

their own meanings from the content and apply it in personal

ways. Sound instruction, then, relies upon the ongoing initiative

of engaged instructors who are committed to teaching within

the online environment, and to approaching their instruction as

co-learners with their students. Program administrators must set

appropriate standards for hiring and retention of distance edu-

cation faculty, and ongoing development opportunities should

be provided. Meeting instructors’ professional development

needs enhances students learning (Levy, 2003; Lockard, 2001).

Sound Instructional Design and Technical

Support Resources

Because distance education involves the physical separation

of teacher and student, the design of instruction must be highly

precise to make sure that students have all of the information

G. K. B. NSIAH

Open Access 765

they need and that it is presented in a logical and easy-to-follow

format. Instructional design principles that operate from estab-

lished instructional theory should be standardized and applied

to course environments so that students have a consistent inter-

face with which to engage and a logical flow to the course ma-

terials. Course design should focus on the simplest way to con-

vey the content and should be transparent to the learners

(DiPietro et al., 2008; Evans et al., 2007; Levy, 2003).

Adequate Support, Funding, and Compensation

Administrators must ensure the availability of adequate sup-

port from the school, including appropriate technology with

high quality sound and video, as well as support for distributing

homework and for arranging proctored exams. In addition,

funding mechanisms must also consider appropriate compensa-

tion for the design and delivery of distance education courses.

Because distance education requires more of instructors’ time

for preparation and interacting with students, schools should

compensate instructors and teaching assistants appropriately for

extra time spent. Such considerations should be integrated into

program planning and budgeting, and program administrators

should periodically audit their rates to assure that they are

competitive with other programs (DiPietro, et al., 2008; Evans

et al., 2007; Levy, 2003).

Established Policies for Intellectual Property

and Fair Use

Another best practice for distance education programs stipu-

lates that policies should be in place that explicitly outline the

rights of ownership and future use of all instructional materials

and media. Course development should be contracted according

to specified terms of ownership and fair use, and rules should

be employed consistently to avoid any misunderstanding be-

tween course developers and the program. Therefore, estab-

lishing right of ownership and future use policy is necessary to

avert problems before they occur (Evans et al., 2007; Gasaway,

2002; Levy, 2003).

Conclusion

Distance education is still new in most countries, especially

in the developing world. It is a good mode for delivering edu-

cation. There are a lot of benefits that go with distance educa-

tion such as flexibility and provision of education to the remot-

est areas, cost effectiveness, etc. Therefore, serious nations and

institutions interested in real development cannot do away with

distance education. It will provide the opportunity for all, espe-

cially workers and parents to access education even with their

busy schedules.

The implementation of an effective distance education pro-

gram, like any other program, can be facilitated by following

established standards of practice and reliance upon the body of

literature related to the discipline. The lack of knowledge

makes people perish and knowledge is power. Therefore being

well informed in distance education will ensure successful es-

tablishment. This article therefore outlined some of the best

practices for successful implementation and administration of

an effective distance education program. Modern academic

institutions must seize the opportunities that distance education

offers to advance their nations.

REFERENCES

Adler, R. W., Milne, M. J., & Stablein, R. (2001). Situated motivation:

An empirical test in an accounting class. Canadian Journal of Ad-

ministrative Sciences, 18, 101-116.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00248.x

Anderson, T. (2004). Teaching in an online learning context. In T.

Anderson, & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learn-

ing (pp. 273-294). Athabasca: Athabasca University.

Ashby, C. M. (2002). Distance education: Growth in distance educa-

tion programs and implications for federal education policy.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d021125t.pdf

Australian Flexible Learning Framework (2002). Effective online faci-

litation: Australian flexible learning quick guide series.

http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/guides/facilitation.pdf

Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness

of online and face-to-face instruction. Educational Journal and Tech-

nology, 7, 167-175.

Berge, Z. L., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success.

Columbia University, NY: Teachers College Press.

Berge, Z. L., & Mrozowski, S. (2001). Review of research in distance

education, 1990 to 1999. The American Journal of Distance Educa-

tion, 15, 5-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527090

Brass, K. (2002). Pushing E-learning. Sales and Marketing Manage-

ment, 154, 56.

Breen, P. (2006). Coming out of the darkness of the past. Turkish On-

line Journal of Distance Education, 7, 1-8.

Burke, L. A., & Moore, J. E. (2003). A perennial dilemma in OB edu-

cation: Engaging the traditional student. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 2, 37-53.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324016

Butcher, N. (2000). Distance education in developing countries (knowl-

edgebank paper 3).

http://imfundo.digitalbrain.com/imfundo/web/teach/kb3/?verb=vie

Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the de-

velopment of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative

study. The Online Journal of Distanc e Learning Administration, 4 .

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/care42.html

Cavalluzzo, L. (2005). Cost, funding, and the provision of online edu-

cation. In Z. L. Berge, & T. Clarke (Eds.). Virtual schools: Planning

for success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Conaway, R. N., Easton, S. S., & Schmidt, W. V. (2008). Strategies for

enhancing student interaction and immediacy in online courses. Busi-

ness Communication, 6 8, 23-35.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569904273300

Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Intructor-learner

interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of

particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Dis-

tance Education, 28, 65-79.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701305319

DiPietro, M., Ferdig, R. E., Black, E. R., & Preston, M. (2008). Best

practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan

virtual school teachers. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7,

16-19.

Dunigan, B., & Curry, K. J. (2006). Motivation and learning strategies

of students in distance education. Journal of the Mississippi Academy

of Sciences.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Motivation+and+learning+strategies+

of+students+in+distance+education.-a0148313528

Evans, S. R., Wang, R., Yeh, T., Anderson, J., Haija, R., Mcbratney-

Owen, P. M., Peeples, L., Sinha, S., Xanthakis, V., Rajicic, N., &

Zhang, J. (2007). Evaluation of district learning in an introduction to

biostatistics class: A case study. Statistics Education Research Jour-

nal, 6, 59-77.

Fain, P. (2007). Vision for excellence. The Chronicle of Higher Educa-

tion, 54, A26-A29.

The Technology So urce, 2.

http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=982

Hache, D. (2000). Strategic planning of distance education in the age of

teleinformatics. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Admini-

G. K. B. NSIAH

Open Access

766

stration, 1.

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Hache12.html

Hoostein, E. (2002). Wearing four pairs of shoes: The roles of e-learn-

ing facilitators.

http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/oct2002/elearn.html

Hughes, T. P. (2001). Through a glass darkly: Anticipating the future of

technology-enabled education. Educause Review, 36.

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0140.pdf

Husmann, D. E., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Improving distance education:

Perceptions of program administrators. The Online Journal of Dis-

tance Learning Administration, 4.

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring41/husmann41.html

Kriger, T. J. (2001). A virtual revolution: Trends in the expansion of

distance education. Education at a Distanc e , 15.

http://www.usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/NOV01_Issue/arti

cle02.html

Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance

learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance

Learning Administra tion, 6.

Lockard, L. A. (2001). Collaborative technology planning. Technical

Horizons in Educatio n.

http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?ai

d=3660

MacGregor, S. K., & Atkinson, T. R. (2002-2003). Facilitating learning

interactions in the two way video classroom. Journal of Educational

Technology System s , 31, 45-62.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/KH51-CDC6-ADBL-J969

McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Handbook of research

for educational communications and technology: A project of the

association for educational communications and technology. New

York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Monolescu, D., Schifter, C. C., & Greenwood, L. (2004). The distance

education evolution: Issues and case studies. Hershey, PA: Informa-

tion Science.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems

view. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Myers, P., & Ostash, H. (2001). Building a virtual campus. Journal of

the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, 7.

Ojo, O. D., Ogidan, R., & Olakulehin, F. K. (2006). Cost effectiveness

of open and distance learning in Nigeria: Responses from focus

group discussion. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administra-

tion, 9.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in disatance edcuation: The critical con-

versation. Educational Technology Review, 13-17.

Pisel, K. P. (2008). A strategic planning process model for distance

education. Online Journal of Distanc e Learning Administration, XI.

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer112/pisel112.html

Porter, L. R. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom: Distance learning

with the Internet. New York, NY: Wiley Computer Publishing.

Russo, T. V., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Perceptions of mediated pre-

sence in an asynchronous online course: Interplay of communication

behaviors and medium. Distance Education, 25, 215-232.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791042000262139

Sankaran, S. R., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and

motivation on performance: A study in web-based instruction. Jour-

nal of Instructional Psychology.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_3_28/ai_79370574/

Schifter, C. C. (2000). Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participa-

tion in distance education. Educational Technology, 40, 43-46.

Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). From the field: Characteristics of suc-

cessful tertiary online students and strategies of experienced online

educators. Education and Information Technology, 7, 5-11.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015354423055

Spencer, J. (2002). USU distance education site facilitator handbook.

Logan: Utah State University.

http://www.usu.edu/uenss/Handbook-Sep02.pdf

Stansfield, M., Connolly, T., Cartelli, A., Jimoyiannis, A., Magalhães,

H., & Maillet, K. (2009). The identification of key issues in the de-

velopment of sustainable e-learning and virtual campus initiatives.

Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7, 155-164.

Wang, Q. (2008). Student-facilitator’s roles in moderating online dis-

cussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 2008.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00781.x

Willis, B. (2000). Instructional development for distance education.

Strategies for Learn ing at a Distance.

http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist2003.html

Yi, H., & Majima, J. (1993). The teacher-learner relationship and class-

room interaction in distance learning: A case study of the Japanese

language classes at an American high school. Foreign Language

Annals, 26, 21-30.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01147.x