Issues,+Debates,+Controversies,+Questions


 * ** EDU7707-8 ** ||  ||
 * ** Planning Dissertation Research in Education ** || ** 4 Issues, Debates, Controversies, Questions, Ambiguities Involving Theories and Findings in Your Topic Area ** ||
 * ** Planning Dissertation Research in Education ** || ** 4 Issues, Debates, Controversies, Questions, Ambiguities Involving Theories and Findings in Your Topic Area ** ||


 * **Excellent! You have articulated your ideas very well and you supported them with strong evidence. However, your paper is lacking in terms of organization and flow. So, in the future, I would recommend organizing better using a short introduction and a short conclusion. Also, you should be using better transitions between your sentences and paragraphs . . . Thank you! ** ||

=Adult Learning Theories= There is no universal adult learning theory to which all practitioners of adult education subscribe. The philosophical foundations of the current myriad of theories are variegated and controversial. Most practitioners admit to an eclectic approach to theory, or neglect theory completely and work from their own intuition. Current online course designers encourage a melding of theories; taking the best practices of each, to arrive at a desired outcome. Despite the confusion, there are ever present calls for improvement in online didactic pursuits, and a few are proposed in a relevant topic area.

Adult Learning Theories
There are dozens of learning theories that provide a rich foundation for understanding the complexity of learning and teaching ( Minter, 2011 ). These theories often have common characteristics, have strengths and shortcomings, and have their supporters and detractors. Many of these theories do not differentiate between teaching adults and teaching children, or are not applicable to adult learners ( Minter, 2011 ). Little consensus exists in regard to adult learning theories as authors articulate that the field can be grouped into three ( Hoic-Bozic, Mornar, & Boticki, 2009; Yusoff & Salim, 2012 ) or five ( Abela, 2009 ) main paradigms. Most authors agree that the main categories are behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and humanism though there are innumerable subtheories ( Minter, 2011 ). Behaviorism is also known as operant conditioning or instrumental learning and focuses on observable behavior, a repeatable process (stimulus-response), and the underlying principle that learning is determined by the environment rather than by the learner. The philosophical underpinnings of behaviorism come from Aristotle, Locke, and Hume and the empiricist tradition that knowledge is gained through the senses ( Baird, 2010; Bransford et al., 2005 ). Modern education demonstrates its original behaviorist foundation in the principle that feedback is critical to learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Hoadley, 2006 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). A leading proponent of behaviorism was Edward Lee Thorndike. His law of effect was an early analysis of motivation and how stimuli can be seen as satisfiers or annoyers. A stimulus was a satisfier if an animal does not seek to avoid it, or seeks to preserve it, while an annoyer is a stimulus that the animal seeks to avoid, or change ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Chyung & Vachon, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Critics of behaviorism found it to be too simplistic and the idea of the mind as a ‘black box’ did not explain aspects of learning such as thinking, reflecting, or imagining. The rote memorization and repetitive practice of behaviorism still finds purchase in skills-based training and situations where learning is time sensitive ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Cognitivism goes beyond behavior and spotlights internal perceptions and brain-based learning; focusing on the role of prior knowledge in learning, the memory system as an active, organized processor of information, and the individual as the locus of learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Merriam et al., 2007 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Cognitivism attempts to open the ‘black box’ and understand the processes involved. Cognitive load ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), cognitive apprenticeship ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Anderson, 2008; Chan Mow, 2008; Hoadley, 2006 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and social learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Anderson, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) are all learning theories based on cognitivism. The learning styles developed by Kolb are a reflection of cognitive theory and are often used to determine the relationship between a learner’s cognitive style and the way he or she engages in learning activities ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Huang, Lin, & Huang, 2012; Kozub, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The rise of cognitivism has lead to a shifting of focus from the teacher to the learner and strategies to engender deeper learning in the student. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Constructivism is an extension of cognitivism but focuses on the subjective nature of knowledge and mental constructs. Learning is seen as an active process whereby the learner constructs their own subjective representations of reality, and new information impinges prior knowledge ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ashworth, Brennan, Egan, Hamilton, & Saenz, 2004; Martinez-Caro, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Constructivism assumes that learning is (a) goal oriented, (b) active and meaningful or relevant, (c) reflective, (d) collaborative, and (e) a partnership ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Segrave & Holt, 2003 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Constructivism is the most widely accepted model of learning in education today <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Hoic-Bozic et al., 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Constructivism focuses on deep learning, engaging the whole person at a cognitive, social, and affective level ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ke, 2010; Ke & Xie, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and is viewed as more effective in terms of learning than are more passive approaches ( <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%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Humanism is a paradigm that focuses on human potential, freedom, and intentionality. Learning is student centered and empowers the learner to become autonomous and self-actualized. The foremost adult learning theory, andragogy, had its beginnings in humanism ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard, Hinchey, & Bennett, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) as do studies and frameworks related to motivation. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Andragogy, “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the art and science of helping adults learn <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard et al., 2011, p. 2; Cercone, 2008, p. 137 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), is also a well-known self-directed theory. The term was originally coined by Alexander Kapp in 1833 and philosophically flows from Plato’s theory regarding education ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Malcolm Knowles was the leading proponent of andragogy in the U.S. and developed a number of tenets that describe the adult learner, and these have been expanded by various authors. Although originally touted as a complete explanation of how adults learn, Knowles later acknowledged “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">that pedagogy and andragogy probably represent the ends of a spectrum that ranges from teacher directed to student-directed learning. Both approaches, he and others now suggest, are appropriate with children and adults, depending on the situation <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Zemke & Zemke, 1995, para. 12 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The main principles of andragogy include: <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">There are numerous arguments, discussions, principles propounded regarding adult learning theory and there is still no single unified model, theory, or set of principles that all subscribe to ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Baskas, 2011b; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007; Zemke & Zemke, 1995 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Adult learners are independent and will not necessarily learn what they are told but need to understand why they need to learn something and the benefits it will bring ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Baskas, 2011a; Fidishun, 2011; Kenner, 2011; Strang, 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%;">Adult learners become more self-directed and need to have control over their learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Blanchard et al., 2011; Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008; McGlone, 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%;">Adult learners have a varied and rich experience base, as well as different learning styles and motivators. Adult learners want to be acknowledged for and have their experiences used in learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009; Blanchard et al., 2011; Fidishun, 2011; Kenner, 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%;">Adult learners are more motivated to learn when a challenge enters their life that they want to learn how to handle better ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Baskas, 2011a; Donavant, 2009; Zemke & Zemke, 1995 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Adult learners are interested in learning how to solve problems, perform tasks, or improve their life ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Cercone, 2008; Chyung & Vachon, 2005; Kenner, 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%;">Adult learners become more intrinsically motivated, focusing on aspirations than extrinsically motivated ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009; Donavant, 2009; Minter, 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%;">Adult learners expect a student-centered approach to learning in an environment of mutual respect between teacher and student ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Karge, Phillips, Dodson, & McCabe, 2011; Kenner, 2011; McGlone, 2011; Minter, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

Contradictions and Inconsistencies in Adult Learning Theory
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">The basic principles of andragogy are accepted by most as foundational, but they do not answer all questions, or include all factors regarding adult learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009; Blanchard et al., 2011; Donavant, 2009; Strang, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Motivation is an important principle upon which learning is built ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and is a focus of cognitivist theory. Andragogy assumes that adults become more intrinsically motivated without explaining the process or factors of that transformation ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bhuasiri, Xaymoungkhoun, Zo, Rho, & Ciganek, 2012 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), nor does it explore extrinsic motivation. As effort is applied toward a goal the amount of persistence or vigor reflects motivation. Motivation can be either due to self-fulfillment and interest - intrinsic; or because of reward or specific outcome - extrinsic ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bhuasiri et al., 2012 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). A key component of motivation for adults is interest ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Guilbaud & Jerome-D’Emilia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and both contribute to educational success ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Kiliç-Cakmak, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008; Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 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%;">Andragogy does not focus much attention on interest. Interest is “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the most basic and ubiquitous of universal motivating emotions for humans <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007, p. 145 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). It is interest that focuses attention, improves information receptivity and learning, and is “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">the energizing force behind intrinsic motivation <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bye et al., 2007, p. 145, see also Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2010; Rey & Buchwald, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Studies in interest have demonstrated that while learners are responsible for maintaining interest ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Alshare, Freeze, Lane, & Wen, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), interactive or collaborative activities promote interest ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ally, 2008; Bahr & Rohner, 2004; Cornelius, Gordon, & Ackland, 2011; Karge et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and the acknowledgement of learners interests tends to enrich the learning experience ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bradley, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), promote intrinsic motivation ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abrami et al., 2010; Baskas, 2011a; Bye et al., 2007 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and encourage participation ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Muirhead, 2004 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Andragogy does not adequately address reflection and its importance to learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009; Cercone, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Self-reflection by the learner engenders deep learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Cercone, 2008; Ke & Xie, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), high-quality learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ke, 2010; Ruey, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), meta-learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Baskas, 2011a; Bradley, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and metacognitive expertise ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Cacciamani, Cesareni, Martini, Ferrini, & Fujita, 2012 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Reflection also allows the learner to examine his or her biases ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Baskas, 2011b <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), other perspectives ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Sinclair, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) so that he or she can internalize ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ally, 2008; Strang, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), contextualize ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Bradley, 2009; Fidishun, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and transform experience and knowledge into learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Buch & Bartley, 2002; Chan Mow, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), while boosting motivation ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Abela, 2009; Baskas, 2011a <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and promoting higher order learning ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Taran, 2006 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Studies demonstrate that reflection is a key online design dimension ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Ke, 2010; Yang & Cornelius, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and that students seem to prefer e-learning because of their ability to reflect before engaging in discussions ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Andrews & Haythornthwaite, 2007; Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Martinez-Caro, 2011; Sinclair, 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%;">In addition to these limitations authors have identified that there is still research to do on a number of adult learning topics. Donavant (2009) indicated that regardless of the theoretical basis of online education, there is little “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">empirical research on adult learning principles and adult educational techniques in professional development <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">p. 229 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). E-learning research to date has focused mostly on case studies ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot, LaPointe, & Rao, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and single-course studies ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Martinez-Caro, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) for online courses that are disparate in concept and design ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">); in essence, incomparable or generalizable. This inconsistency between courses and studies stimulates queries regarding learning management systems (LMS) most organizations use for delivery of online courses, and how to assess what is good, what can be improved, what is missing ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">Antonis, Daradoumis, Papadakis, & Simos, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and what modes of interaction are appropriate ( <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 90%;">So & Bonk, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Conclusion
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Hundreds of learning theories exist. Each theory extends three main perspectives of the world. Practitioners of e-learning typically subscribe to the constructivist view that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the individual based on their interactions with environment, their past experiences, and others. Each person creates his or her own world, and none can know objective reality. There is a need to standardize online learning, so that course presentation and design are generally consistent. Rather than focusing on demonstrating that online learning is beneficial to students in relationship to traditional classrooms, the field needs to focus on teaching techniques to determine what works and what does not. It is important to compare online teaching technique versus online teaching technique and create a body of knowledge of which technique works when with whom. It is important to compare online delivery modes with online delivery modes to discover best practices and create the learning management systems of the future. There is much work to do. Now is the time to start.


 * = References ||
 * * Abela, J. (2009). Adult learning theories and medical education: A review. //Malta Medical Journal, 21//(1), 11-18. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu/mt/umms/mmj/PDF/234.pdf
 * Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2010, July). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. //The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning//. Symposium conducted at Memorial Union Biddle Hotel, Bloomington, IN. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/events/symposia/Docs/InteractionDEnext120510.pdf
 * 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/
 * Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), //The theory and practice of online learning// (pp. 15-44). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
 * Alshare, K. A., Freeze, R. D., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2011). The impacts of system and human factors on online learning systems use and learner satisfaction. //Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 9//(3), 437-461. Retrieved from http://www.dsjie.org/dnn/default.aspx
 * Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), //The theory and practice of online learning// (pp. 343-365). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
 * Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.). //The SAGE handbook of e-learning research// (pp. 1-51). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
 * Antonis, K., Daradoumis, T., Papadakis, S., & Simos, C. (2011). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a web<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ based learning design for adult computer science courses. //IEEE Transactions on Education//, //54//(3), 374<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ 380. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp
 * Ashworth, F., Brennan, G., Egan, K., Hamilton, R., & Saenz, O. (2004). Learning theories and higher education. Retrieved from Dublin Institute of Technology: http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=engscheleart
 * Bahr, N., & Rohner, C. (2004, July). The judicious utilization of new technologies through authentic learning in higher education: A case study. //Annual Conference Proceedings of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Miri, Sarawak, 27//. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2004/papers/bahr.pdf
 * Baird, F. E. (2010). //Philosophic classics: From Plato to Derrida// (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 * Baskas, R. S. (2011a). //Applying adult learning and development theories to educational practice//. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED519926)
 * Baskas, R. S. (2011b, March 27). //Adult learning assumptions//. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED517971)
 * Blanchard, R. D., Hinchey, K. T., & Bennett, E. E. (2011, April). //Literature review of residents as teachers from an adult learning perspective//. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
 * Bradley, J. (2009). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations – which comes first – the tools of instructional design? //International Journal of Pedagogies and learning, 5//(3), 20-31. Retrieved from http://jpl.e-contentmanagement.com/
 * Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D., Bell, P., . . . Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), //Handbook of educational psychology// (pp. 1-95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 * Buch, K., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference. //Journal of Workplace Learning, 14//(1), 5-10. doi:10.1108/13665620210412795
 * Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. //Adult Education Quarterly//, //57//, 141<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ 158. doi:10.1177/0741713606294235
 * Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. //Computers & Education//, //58//, 874-884. Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education/
 * 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
 * Chan Mow, I. T. (2008). Issues and difficulties in teaching novice computer programming. In M. Iskander (ed.), //Innovative techniques in instruction technolgy, e-learning, e-assessment, and education// (pp. 199-204). London, England: Springer Science+Business Media.
 * Chyung, S. Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and dissatisfying factors in e-learning. //Performance Improvement Quarterly, 59//(3), 227-245. doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
 * Cornelius, S., Gordon, C., & Ackland, A. (2011). Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: An activity-focused course design. //Interactive Learning Environments//, //19//(4), 381-393. doi:10.1080/10494820903298258
 * 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<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ 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
 * 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
 * Hoadley, C. (2007). Learning sciences theories and methods for e-learning researchers. In R. Andrews, & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), //The SAGE handbook of e-learning research// (pp. 139-156). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
 * 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
 * Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ mode e<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. //Computers & Education//, 58(1), 338<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ 349. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003
 * Karge, B. D., Phillips, K. M., Dodson, T. J., & McCabe, M. (2011). Effective strategies for engaging adult learners. //Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8//(12), 53-56. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/6621
 * 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., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. //Educational Technology Research & Development, 57//(1), 487-510. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9120-2
 * 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
 * Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. //Educational Psychologist, 41//(2), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/0046-1520.asp
 * Kozub, R. M. (2010). An ANOVA analysis of the relationships between business students' learning styles and effectiveness of web based instruction. //American Journal of Business Education, 3//(3), 89-98. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/AJBE
 * 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
 * Littlefield, S. O., Lynn, S. J. Namy, L. L., & Woolf, N. J. (2010). //Psychology: A framework for everyday thinking//. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 * Martinez<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ learning: An analysis in production management courses. //Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19//(3), 572<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ 581. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.v19.3 /issuetoc
 * McGlone, J. R. (2011). Adult learning styles and on<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ line educational preference. //Research in Higher Education Journal, 12//, 1<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ 9. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/rhej.html
 * Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). //Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide// (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 * Minter, R., L. (2011). The learning theory jungle. //Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8//(6), 7-15. Retrieved from http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/4278/4365
 * 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
 * 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/
 * Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations. //Journal of Experimental Psychology – Applied, 17//(1), 33-48. doi:10.1037/a0022243
 * 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
 * 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/
 * Taran, C. (2006). Enabling SMEs to deliver synchronous online training – practical guidelines. //Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23//(3), 182-195. doi:10.1108/10650740610674193
 * 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
 * Yusoff, N., & Salim, S. S. (2012). Expert skills in e-learning storyboards using a cognitive task analysis technique. //Computers & Education, 58//, 652-665. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.009
 * Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995). Adult learning: What do we know for sure? //Training, 32//, 69-82. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED504481) ||