Challenges+of+e-Learning

Some students find e-learning difficult, as do some instructors. This page is dedicated to enumerating the challenges of teaching or learning online.

Instructor Perceived Challenges
The literature is replete with challenges instructors face when preparing to start an online class. Some of the challenges mentioned include; The major instructor issues are discussed in greater detail below.
 * increased time requirements ( Allen, Crosky, McAlpine, Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009; Anderson, 2008; Archambault, Wetzel, Fouger, & Williams, 2010; Fidishun, 2011; Ke, 2010; Muirhead, 2004; Pirani, 2004; Sinclair, 2009; So & Bonk, 2010 ) and increased interaction with students ( Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008 ),
 * instructors pedagogically dominating the discussion ( Muirhead, 2004 ),
 * teaching “tightly structured courses” (Muirhead, 2004, Making Positive Online Learning Connections, para. 3) required by their organizations,
 * differences of non-traditional students ( Bhuasiri et al., 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Lapsley, Kulik, Moody, & Arbaugh, 2008; Martinez-Caro, 2009; McGlone, 2011 ),
 * finding successful ways to encourage student interaction ( Archambault, Wetzel, Fouger, & Williams, 2010; Martinez-Caro, 2011; Muniz-Solari & Coats, 2009; Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 2011; Rhode, 2009; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 ),
 * appropriately using online tools ( Archambault et al., 2010, Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008 ),
 * lack of basic face-to-face interactions ( Cercone, 2008; McHaney, 2009; Muniz-Solari & Coats, 2009; Rhode, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the need to pedagogically adapt the course to an online environment ( Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; Kawka et al., 2011; Omar et al., 2011, Pirani, 2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), often with no additional compensation,
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">technical difficulties with infrastructure or bandwidth ( Anderson, 2008; Fidishun, 2011; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Pirani, 2004; Wright, Dhanarajan, & Reju, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">lack of knowledge or experience using the e-learning environment ( Harlen & Doubler, 2007; Ke, 2010; Pirani, 2004; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">concern for academic integrity of students ( Vande Poppe, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Student Interactions
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Interactivity is pivotal in online classrooms. It is the role and challenge of the instructor to facilitate these interactions ( Cabrera-Lozoya, Cerdan, Cano, Garcia-Sanchez, & Lujan, 2012; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Though the facilitation should be invisible to the learner; activities must be planned and coordinated to maximize learning, build confidence and motivation in the learner, while nurturing higher-level critical thinking skills ( Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010, McGlone, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The instructor should provide feedback and encouragement, but should position him or herself to the side, focusing on being a facilitator of discussion and learning rather than the expert ( Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009; Ke, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Activities must be designed to facilitate the investigation and learning of course objectives and goals ( Kawka et al, 2011; Martinez-Caro, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) through students interacting with other learners and the instructor. All of this planning devolves on the teacher prior to entering an online classroom.

Non-traditional Students
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The increase in the number of online courses has encouraged many adults who would not otherwise be able to engage in additional schooling or training to participate. These older, more mature students have been labeled //non-traditional students// and have become the focus of a number of studies to determine their characteristics ( Martinez-Caro, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). As illustrated in the introduction to teacher challenges, it has been shown non-traditional students are different from their college-age, post-secondary education counterparts. Because of these differences, teachers need to understand many andragogical principles are different for these learners. Because these students usually have greater life experiences, teachers should create activities and assignments tying theory to personal experience resulting in greater applicability of learning ( Kenner & Weinerman, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) while acknowledging an existing base of experience in the learner.

Technical Difficulties
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">One of the major student challenges involves issues with technology. Instructors face many of the same issues; including lack of equipment, access, appropriate band-width, or knowledge and experience with the necessary tools to conduct an e-learning class. Although instructors are rarely responsible for the e-learning infrastructure of the delivering organization, the student will hold them responsible if there are glitches. To address these challenges, teachers need to ensure they receive training in the use of, and experience with, all of the tools they are expected to use ( Bodnik, 2011; Pirani, 2004 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Instructors need to be prepared for large differences in the experience of students with computers and technology, and have the resources or training to provide assistance and encouragement as needed ( Strang, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). It is also critical they form associations with the department or individuals who are responsible for the technical infrastructure of their course, so effective responses can be elicited if problems occur. From my experience the tools require practice to use well, and it never hurts to have someone in IT to facilitate the solving of technical difficulties.

Learning Environment
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Courses taught online should not be virtual versions of traditional in-classroom courses. The affordances of electronic delivery provide greater opportunities for learning than the regular classroom can ( So & Bonk, 2010; Watkins, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The benefits to the student of learning online are numerous, but a number of studies have shown one bad experience can inhibit students from taking additional online courses ( Martinez-Caro, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Several sections in this paper have identified some of the features teachers can include in online courses to optimize the affordances available in virtual delivery, especially in terms of interactivity and collaboration. Through creation of activities the teacher pedagogically transforms his or her course to use the online environment to ensure optimal student learning ( Pirani, 2004 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Academic Integrity
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Anonymity fosters behavior individuals would not normally perform without a mask – real or virtual ( Tresca, 1998 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Online access to the Internet facilitates the ability for students to take the ideas of others that “may be unavailable in traditional sources” ( Malik & Khurshed, 2011, p. 161 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and present it as their own. I have limited experience with this particular difficulty because the courses I teach are more interested in teaching students how to develop software programs, and the resulting code is not expected to be unique or original. In more academic settings where assignments are expected to be original and the sole product of the student, a discussion regarding the moral issues and the consequences of plagiarism in the classroom is advised. Through the use of software programs that have access to the text of millions of papers and articles instructors can ensure the discussion regarding plagiarism is inculcated into real life practice. //[The content on this page is excerpted from Watts (2012).]//

Student Perceived Challenges
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">In the literature many challenges for new students engaging in e-learning are identified. Some of these challenges include; <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Some of these challenges are more pronounced than others and are discussed below:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">feelings of isolation ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Anonymous, 2011; Feguson & DeFelice, 2010; Haythornthwaite, Bruce, Andrews, Kazmer, Montague, & Preston, 2007; Ke, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008; Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 2011; Rhode, 2009; Shea, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2006; Strang, 2009; Thompson, Jeffries, & Topping, 2010; Vande Poppe, 2011; Wright, Dhanarajan, & Reju, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the lack of face-to-face communication ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Anonymous, 2011; Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Ismail, Idrus, Baharum, Rosli, & Ziden, 2011; Lee, Redmond, & Dolan, 2008; Malik & Khurshed, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Vande Poppe, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">issues of access or sufficient throughput ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Anonymous, 2011; Haythornthwaite et al., 2007; Ke, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Pirani, 2004; Sinclair, 2009; Wright et al., 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">ill matched presentation to learning style ( Anonymous, 2011, Omar et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">increased time requirements ( Anonymous, 2011; Archambault, Wetzel, Fouger, & Williams, 2010; Cercone, 2008; Donavant, 2009; Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki, 2009; Huang, Lin, & Huang, 2012; Ke & Xie, 2009; Pirani, 2004 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) or time conflicts ( Antonis, Daradoumis, Papadakis, & Simos, 2011; Bhuasiri, Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, & Ciganek, 2011; Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009; Martinez-Caro, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Park & Choi, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">incomprehensible technical jargon ( Omar et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the need for students to take more responsibility ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Allen, Crosky, McAlpine, Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009; Cercone, 2008; Fidishun, 2011; Fletcher, Tobias, & Wisher, 2007; Harlen & Doubler, 2007; Haythornthwaite et al., 2007; Hoic-Bozic, 2009; Kawka, Larkin, & Danaher, 2011; Kenner & Weinerman, 2011; Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; Martinez-Caro, 2011; McGlone, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Ruey, 2010; Segrave & Holt, 2003; Sinclair, 2009; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">lack of experience or confidence with the necessary technology ( Anderson, 2008; Bhuasiri et al., 2011; Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot, LaPointe, & Rao, 2010; Ke, 2010; Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; McGlone, 2011; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Omar et al., 2011; Pirani, 2004; Vande Poppe, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">),
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">a great need for self-motivation and self-discipline to be successful ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007; Diaz & Entonado, 2009; Gunawardena et al., 2010; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Omar et al., 2011; Pirani, 2004; Strang, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Vande Poppe, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the emphasis on the written versus the spoken word can hamper some students ( Vande Poppe, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Feelings of Isolation
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The social interactions for an online class are different than those in a traditional classroom because they do not have a face-to-face element. Because of this lack of interpersonal associations, many e-learning students suffer feelings of isolation or disconnection in online classes. Even as an instructor of //live// virtual classes, with an active audio line over the telephone there are times when I wonder if anyone is on the other end of the line. To overcome these feelings of isolation in students the literature suggests the instructor elicit feedback and encourage active participation in the class; allowing students to get to know each other through “thoughts and ideas” ( Omar et al., 2011, p. 31 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), resulting in connections and friendships that may extend beyond class ( Anonymous, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Lack of Interactivity
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">In traditional settings, students can attend class and be the passive recipients of the wisdom and knowledge dispensed by the expert at the lectern with little or no interaction with either teacher or other students. In an online class, this passivity can result in a drop in interest and motivation by the student often resulting in dropout. Studies show e-learning courses have an eight time higher withdrawal rate than traditional classes ( Al-Fahad, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). To combat this passivity, instructors need to use and encourage the use of discussion boards, chats, and e-mail between students and with the instructor ( Vande Poppe, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). To facilitate student comfort in interacting in the classroom, Yang and Cornelious (2005) proposed instructors provide information about themselves through a short bio or personal web site. Encouraging interactivity in online courses has been shown to foster deeper learning and higher-level critical thinking skills ( Malik & Khurshed, 2011; Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and is a primary factor in student satisfaction and learning ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Gunawardena et al., 2010; Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009; Hsieh & Cho, 2011; Martinez-Caro, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Technical Issues
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">There are a number of technical issues an online student can face. The introduction to student challenges identified some students have issues with access. This can be because they do not have the necessary equipment to access an online class, or they do not have a means of connecting their computer to the Internet. Even when students can access the Internet, they may not have sufficient band-width to utilize all of the features available for their particular class. Omar et al. (2011) found some students are confused by, or ignorant of, the technical jargon used in some online discussions and are consequently demotivated. Even with necessary access, students may lack the experience or confidence to use the tools required by an online course. I have not experienced this challenge in the classes I teach because the courses focus on enhancing advanced knowledge of a technical nature and expect the student to have the prerequisite knowledge and skill to participate in the online class. For online courses where this could be an insurmountable challenge, it is suggested students “visit a course or take a demo course” ( Anonymous, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) so they will know the technical expectations of the course and determine whether they have the ability to succeed in this context.

Student Responsibility for Learning
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">From a constructivist view, the biggest challenge for the online student is to overcome years of traditional experience and expectation and accept that learning should be student focused. At the company where I work, students are students and teachers are teachers, and teaching is “tightly structured” ( Muirhead, 2004, Making Positive Online Learning Connections, para. 3 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">); meaning that while interaction is encouraged, it is not part of the pedagogy of the class. Students should be informed at the beginning of the class they are to take responsibility for their learning in an online class ( Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). To encourage students to take responsibility, Ruey (2010) stated classes “should focus on learning about ‘why’ and learning about ‘how,’ rather than conducting learning itself” ( p. 707 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). By focusing on teaching students how to learn, secure relevant information, and relate it to their life milieu, learning becomes more student centered, promoting higher-level critical thinking stills ( Kilic-Cakmak, 2010; Omar et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Self-discipline and Motivation
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Lack of self-discipline and motivation in online classes has been demonstrated to increase dropout rates ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Cercone, 2008; Park & Cho, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and decrease the possibility students will take online classes ( Donavant, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Without self-discipline any attempts by the instructor to increase motivation are likely to fail ( Omar et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Students in e-learning courses are more likely to be successful if they are independent, self-directed, and task-oriented ( Yang & Cornelious, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). I have the advantage of teaching short classes involving five or fewer business days. Because of the shortness of the class durations, I rarely have students who do not complete. I do have experience with students, however, who are attending class because their company is requiring attendance; in those instances it is not infrequent these students are lacking in motivation. The key component of motivation is interest ( Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The solution, if one can be found, is the same as discussed above; seek to involve each student in interactive discussions, activities, and socialization //hooking// them into being motivated to contribute to the class. By individualizing the course to each student’s experiences, abilities, interests, and needs, motivation is increased ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ruey, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). //[The content on this page is excerpted from Watts (2012).]//


 * ~ **Previous Page** ||~  ||~ **Home** ||~   ||~ **Online Faculty Guide** ||~   ||~ **Next Page** ||


 * = References ||
 * * Al-Fahad, F. N. (2010). The learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the college of applied studies and community service, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia: Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? //Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 11//(2), 61-72. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
 * Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary //Educational Technology, 2//(2), 118-134. Retrieved from http://cedtech.net/
 * Allen, B., Crosky, A., McAlpine, I., Hoffman, M., & Munroe, P. (2009). A blended approach to collaborative learning: Making large group teaching more student-centred. //The International Journal of Engineering Education, 25//(3), 569-576. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/
 * Anderson, C. (2008). Barriers and enabling factors in online teaching. //International Journal of Learning, 14//(12), 241-246. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1593
 * Anonymouos. (2011, Septembers 6). //Challenge of education online// [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.virtualstudent.com/2011/09/challenges/
 * Antonis, K., Daradoumis, T., Papadakis, S., & Simos, C. (2011). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a web‐based learning design for adult computer science courses. //IEEE Transactions on Education, 54//(3), 374‐380. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp
 * Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Fouger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools. //Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27//(1), 4-11. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte.aspx
 * Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2011). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. //Computers & Education, 58//(2), 843-855. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
 * Bodnik, S. (2011). //Mentored learning: The instructor’s view//. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearning.com/papers/articlementored_instructorview.html
 * Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. //Adult Education Quarterly, 57//, 141‐158. doi:10.1177/0741713606294235
 * Cabrera‐Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M.‐D., Garcia‐Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying heterogeneous e‐learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. //Computers & Education, 58//(1), 617‐630. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014
 * Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. //Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal (AACE), 16//(2), 137-159. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/AACEJ
 * Diaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-face learning environments really different? //Educational Technology & Society, 12//(4), 331-343. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/
 * Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education: Online instruction in a continuing professional education setting. //Adult Education Quarterly, 59//(3), 227‐245. doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
 * Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of //Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11//(2), 73-84. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
 * Fidishun, D. (2011, March). //Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we teach with technology//. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed00/fidishun.html
 * Fletcher, J. D., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. A. (2007). Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed learning and the changing face of education. //Educational Research, 36//(1), 96‐102. doi:10.3102/0013189X07300034
 * Guilbaud, P., & Jerome-D’Emilia, B. (2008). Adult instruction & online learning: Towards a systematic instruction framework. //International Journal of Learning, 15//(2), 111-121. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1638
 * Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. //The American Journal of Distance Education, 24//(1), 207-226. doi:10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
 * Harlen, W., & Doubler, S. J. (2007). Researching the impact of online professional development for teachers. In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), //The SAGE handbook of e-learning research// (pp. 466-486). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
 * Haythornthwaite, C., Bruce, B. C., Andrews, R., Kazmer, M. M., Montague, R.-A., & Preston, C. (2007). Theories and models of and for online learning. //First Monday, 12//(8). Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1976/1851
 * Hoic-Bozic, N., Mornar, V., & Boticki, I. (2009). A blended learning approach to course design and implementation. //IEEE Transactions on Education, 52//(1), 19-30. doi:10.1109/GTE.2007.914945
 * Hsieh, P.-A. J., & Cho, V. (2011). Comparing e-learning tools' success: The case of instructor-student interactive vs. self-paced tools. //Computers & Education, 57//(1), 2025-2038. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.002
 * Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed‐mode e‐learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. //Computers & Education, 58//(1), 338‐349. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003
 * Ismail, I., Idrus, R. M., Baharum, H., Rosli, M., & Ziden, A. (2011). The learners' attitudes towards using different learning methods in e‐learning portal environment. //International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6//(3), 49‐52. Retrieved from http://www.online-journals.org/i-jet
 * Kawka, M., Larkin, K., & Danaher, P. A. (2011). Emergent learning and interactive media artworks: Parameters of interaction for novice groups. //International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 12//(7), 40-55. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
 * Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. //Computers & Education, 55//, 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
 * Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. //Internet and Higher Education, 12//, 136-145. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
 * Kenner, C., & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to nontraditional college students. //Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41//(2), 87-96. Retrieved form http://www.crla.net/journal.htm
 * Kiliç-Cakmak, E. (2010). Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. //Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26//(2), 192-208. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html
 * Lam, P., & Bordia, S. (2008). Factors affecting student choice of e-learning over traditional learning: Student and teacher perspectives. //The International Journal of Learning, 14//(12), 131-139. Retrieved from http://ijl.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.30/prod.1585
 * Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An investigation of equivalency theory and online learning. //Journal of Educators Online, 5//(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/
 * Lee, D., Redmond, J. A., & Dolan, D. (2008). Lessons from the e-learning experience in South Korea in traditional universities. In M. Iskander (Ed.), //Innovative techniques in instruction technology, e-learning, e-assessment, and education// (pp. 216-222). London, England: Springer Science+Business Media.
 * Malik, S. K., & Khurshed, F. (2011). Nature of teacher-students’ interaction in electronic learning and traditional courses of higher education – a review. //Turkish online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 12//(4), 157-166. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
 * Martinez‐Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e‐learning: An analysis in production management courses. //Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19//(3), 572‐581. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.v19.3/issuetoc
 * McGlone, J. R. (2011). Adult learning styles and on‐line educational preference. //Research in Higher Education Journal, 12//, 1‐9. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/rhej.html
 * McHaney, R. (2009). Distance learning video grid: Online teacher exchange. //Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7//(2), 457-462. Retrieved from http://www.dsjie.org/dnn /default.aspx
 * Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. //Distance Education, 26//(1), 29-48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
 * Muirhead, B. (2004). Contemporary online education challenges. //International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning (ITDL), 1//(10). Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/oct_04/article05.htm
 * Muniz-Solari, O., & Coats, C. (2009). Integrated networks: National and international online experiences. //International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10//(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
 * Omar, A., Kalulu, D., & Belmasrour, R. (2011). Enhanced instruction: The future of e-learning. //International Journal of Education Research, 6//(1), 21-37. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educational-research/
 * Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. //Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12//(4), 207-217. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/18.pdf
 * Pirani, J. A. (2004). //Supporting e-learning in higher education//. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0303/ecm0303.pdf
 * Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. //The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10//(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/603/1178
 * Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. //British Journal of Educational Technology, 41//(5), 706-720. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x
 * Segrave, S., & Holt, D. (2003). Contemporary learning environments: Designing e-learning for education in the professions. //Distance Education, 24//(1), 7‐24. doi:10.1080/0158791032000066499
 * Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2006). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4//(2), 2-31. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
 * Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning: Making the invisible visible. //International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21//(2), 197-209. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
 * So, H.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study. //Educational Technology & Society, 13//(3), 189–200. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/
 * Strang, K. D. (2009). Measuring online learning approach and mentoring preferences of international doctorate students. //International Journal of Educational Research, 48//, 245-257. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educational-research/
 * Thompson, L., Jeffries, M., & Topping, K. (2010). E-mentoring for e-learning development. //Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47//(3), 305-315. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498182
 * Vande Poppe, C. (2011). //The challenges of online learning//. Retrieved from http://crystalvandepoppe.suite101.com/the-challenges-of-online-learninga372697
 * Watts, S. W. (2012). //Initial challenges//. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Education, Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, AZ.
 * Wright, C. R., Dhanarajan, G., & Reju, S. A. (2009). Recurring issues encountered by distance educators in developing and emerging nations. //International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10//(1), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/608/1180
 * Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. //Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8//(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm ||