Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhanceinstructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in onlinecourses
Florence Martin⁎, Chuang Wang, Ayesha SadafUniversity of North Carolina Charlotte, Dept. of Educational Leadership, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, United States
Instructors use various strategies to facilitate learning and actively engage students in online courses. In thisstudy, we examine student perception on the helpfulness of the twelve different facilitation strategies used byinstructors on establishing instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement and learning. One hundredand eighty eight graduate students taking online courses in Fall 2016 semester in US higher education institu-tions responded to the survey. Among the 12 facilitation strategies, instructors' timely response to questions andinstructors' timely feedback on assignments/projects were rated the highest in all four constructs (instructorpresence, instructor connection, engagement and learning). Interactive visual syllabi of the course was rated thelowest, and video based introduction and instructors' use of synchronous sessions to interact were rated lowestamong two of the four constructs. Descriptive statistics for each of the construct (instructor presence, instructorconnection, engagement and learning) by gender, status, and major of study are presented. Confirmative factoranalysis of the data provided aspects of construct validity of the survey. Analysis of variance failed to detectdifferences between gender and discipline (education major versus non-education major) on all four constructsmeasured. However, undergraduate students rated significantly lower on engagement and learning in com-parison to post-doctoral and other post graduate students.
1. Introduction
An online instructor plays two major roles in the design and deliveryof online learning, as a designer and a facilitator. An online instructorfirst designs the course and then implements it with online learners.However, not all universities expect instructors to design their course.During the implementation process, the instructor acts as a “facilitator”and must actively engage to be present in the course and facilitatelearning (Riva, Davide, & IJsselsteijn, 2003). A facilitator guides thelearning process by providing opportunities for the learners to buildknowledge and skills. As a facilitator, the instructor is also constantlymonitoring the activities to be readily available to provide support tothe students when needed. Facilitation strategies are the various stra-tegies used by the instructor when implementing the course with thestudents. As an online facilitator, instructors keep discussion on track,assist students with technical problems, provide periodic announce-ments to the class, respond to student emails, and grade work promptly(Correia & Baran, 2010; Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007; Sheridan & Kelly,2010).
While researchers have examined various aspects of facilitation in
online learning, most of them have focused on facilitating asynchronousdiscussions. Hew (2015) found students preferred online discussions tobe facilitated by their instructors rather than their peers, even thoughprior studies have found benefits of peer facilitators. Similarly,Phirangee, Demmans Epp, and Hewitt (2016) compared instructor andfacilitation methods in which they found that students participatedmore actively in instructor facilitated discussion than peer facilitateddiscussions. In instructor facilitated discussions, the students were moreactive by writing notes, editing, and creating connections. Shea, Li, andPickett (2006) found that instructor facilitation strategies such asquestioning and providing feedback were positively related to students'perceived connectedness and learning. There is a need for research toexamine the various facilitation strategies an instructor can use in anonline course.
1.1. Facilitation effects on four construct (instructor presence, instructorconnection, engagement and learning)
In this study, we measure student perception of facilitation strate-gies on four constructs (instructor presence, instructor connection,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003Received 29 March 2017; Received in revised form 20 January 2018; Accepted 31 January 2018
engagement and learning) based on Cho and Cho (2016) in their vali-dation of scaffolding strategies to promote interactions which foundthese as four out of the five factors to promote interaction.
1.1.1. Instructor presenceRichardson et al. (2015) define instructor presence as “the specific
actions and behaviors taken by the instructor that project him/herselfas a real person” (p.259). Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), statethat teaching presence occurs when instructors facilitate the flow of thecourse and content. Instructors also act as facilitators when they in-teract with their students and encourage them to actively participate inthe course. Another key role of facilitators is responding to studentquestions in a timely manner and also be involved in the online dis-cussions. In this study, focusing on the facilitation role that the in-structor takes in an online course, we define instructor presence as“having perceived authenticity among a community of learners andvalidating one's personal identity by formally acknowledging andconducting their role through various strategies”.
Establishing instructor presence in an online setting is challengingbut essential to the success of asynchronous online courses. Researchhas found that instructor presence relates to students' success or sa-tisfaction in online courses (Brinkerhoff & Koroghlanian, 2007), en-hances student motivation to learn, increases the depth and quality ofstudents' interactions and discussions (Dennen, 2011), and reduces thesense of isolation and improves student performance (Arbaugh &Benbunan-Fich, 2006; Benbunan-Fich & Hiltz, 2003). Instructor pre-sence is the intersection of social presence and teaching presence andusually occurs during the live part of the online course (Richardsonet al., 2015). It is important because when an instructor is presence inthe online course, it helps bridge the distance and students feel lessisolated in the online course (Creasman, 2012). Sheridan and Kelly(2010) found that students value instructors' providing clear courserequirements, being responsive to students' needs and providing in-formation and feedback in a timely manner as important indicators ofinstructor presence.
1.1.2. Instructor connectednessInstructor Connectedness is defined as “communication behaviors
that reduce perceived distance between people” (Thweatt & McCroskey,1998, p. 349). D'Alba (2014) defines it as “Perceived closeness betweenthe student and instructor as well as the instructor and student” (p. 8).Research has found that students who have strong connection withinstructors have better learning outcomes and academic achievement(Eccles, 2004; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and students who have closerelationships with the instructors are more confident than those whoconsider their instructors to be less supportive (Ryan, Gheen, &Midgley, 1998). Creasey, Jarvis, and Knapcik (2009) created a student-instructor relationship scale that contained 36 items to capture centralrelationship dimension. In their research where they surveyed 94 stu-dents, they found that students were less anxious than their counter-parts when they felt more connected to their instructors. While most ofthe research on instructor connectedness is done in face to face context,there is a need for research examining instructor connectedness in on-line settings where it is more challenging to build a strong connectionwith instructors.
1.1.3. EngagementEngagement is the “ability to hold the attention of an individual or
to induce the individual to participate in some sort of activity” (Meares,2013, p. 1). Student engagement is defined as “the student's psycho-logical investment in and effort directed toward learning, under-standing, or mastering the knowledge, skills, or crafts that academicwork is intended to promote” (Newman, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992, p.12). Several researchers have found that student engagement increasesstudent satisfaction, enhances student motivation to learn, reduces thesense of isolation, and improves student performance in online courses.
Banna, Lin, Stewart, and Fialkowski (2015) stress that engagement isthe key solution to the issue of learner isolation, dropout, retention, andgraduation rate in online learning. Meyer (2014), Banna et al. (2015),and Britt, Goon, and Timmerman (2015) affirm the importance ofstudent engagement to online learning because they believe studentengagement can be shown as evidence of students' considerable effortrequired for their cognitive development and their given ability tocreate their own knowledge leading to a high level of student success.Lear, Ansorge, and Steckelberg (2010) assert that interactions withcontent, peers, and instructors help online learners become active andmore engaged in their courses.
1.1.4. LearningLearning is the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experi-
ence, study, or by being taught. Visser (2001) defines learning as “Toengage in continuous dialogue with the human, social, biological andphysical environment, so as to generate intelligent behavior to interactconstructively with change” (p. 453). Within the context of onlinelearning, Ally (2004) defines online learning as “the use of the Internetto access learning materials; to interact with the content, instructor, andother learners; and to obtain support during the learning process, inorder to acquire knowledge, to construct personal meaning, and togrow from the learning experience” (p. 7). Academic achievement is acommonly studied dependent variable to measure learning. Learning ismeasured by course grades, course evaluation, standardized tests, pre-posttests, observation, analysis of student products, portfolios, exit in-terviews and surveys from students.
1.2. Theoretical framework for online course facilitation
Berge (1995) categorizes facilitation into Managerial, Social, Ped-agogical and Technical (Fig. 1). (See Table 1.)
Twelve facilitation strategies were identified after conducting anextensive literature review on facilitation strategies in online coursesand based on the practical experience of expert online instructors.Three faculty who taught Quality Matters certified online courses wereconsulted on the facilitation strategies they use in their courses. Basedon the literature review and the practical experience of expert onlineinstructors, these 12 facilitation strategies were identified. The 12 fa-cilitation strategies identified for this study are categorized below basedon Berge's framework.
1.3. Facilitation strategies
In this section, we describe the twelve different facilitation strate-gies perceived to enhance instructor presence, instructor connection,
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
53
learning and engagement based on best practices and from literature.
1.3.1. Video based instructor introduction (e.g., Voicethread, Animoto,Camtasia)
An introduction video is one of the first course components that thestudents watch in the online course. In the introduction video, studentscan get a sense of what they can expect in the online course, get toknow the instructor and dispel fears about the online environment.Fig. 2 is a screenshot of an instructor introduction video created usingVoicethread.
Previous research has found that when students watched an in-troduction video, students were more positive in the course evaluationsand also contributed more to the discussion boards. Researchers, Joneset al. (2008) found that students benefited from the introduction videoas it helped form a relationship with the instructor right from the startof the course which contributed to their progress in the course.
1.3.2. Video based course orientation (e.g., recording using Camtasia,screencast o matic)
Student orientations are essential for online programs to be suc-cessful. While orientations can be done at the institutional level or
program level, it is essential of instructors to also offer course levelstudent orientation. Starting a course with a good orientation providesstudents with a satisfying course experience and these students aremore likely to want take more similar courses (Ko & Rossen, 2010).Fig. 3 is a screenshot of a video based course orientation created usingCamtasia.
Ali and Leeds (2009) discuss the value of orientation in onlinelearning settings since it assists with student retention in online courseswhen compared to traditional classes and face to face settings. Bozarthet al. (2004) also emphasized on the key role of orientation for onlinelearners. Orientations inform the students about the time commitmentrequirement and time management skills. Ko and Rossen (2010) re-commended that it is better if instructors include a video and providetext transcript of it which enables students to go back to it faster anytime during the course.
1.3.3. Able to contact the instructor in multiple ways (contact the instructorforum, email, phone, virtual office hours)
It is important for online instructors to provide multiple ways for thestudents to contact them. Fig. 4 shows examples of different ways thestudents can contact the instructor.
Table 1Facilitation strategies in online facilitation framework.
Facilitation strategies Previous research
Social Video based instructor introduction Jones, Naugle, and Kolloff (2008)Instructor being present in the discussion forums Mandernach, Gonzales, and Garrett (2006)Able to contact the instructor in multiple ways (King & Doerfert, 1996)
Managerial Video based course orientation Ali and Leeds (2009)Bozarth, Chapman, and LaMonica (2004)Ko and Rossen (2010)
Instructors timely response to questions Sheridan and Kelly (2010)Eskey and Schulte (2010)Summers, Waigandt, and Whittaker (2005)
Instructors weekly announcements to the class Ko and Rossen (2010)Eskey and Schulte (2010)Kelly (2014)
Pedagogical Instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects Badiee and Kaufman (2014)Thiele (2003)Lewis and Abdul-Hamid (2006)
Instructor's feedback using various modalities Wolsey (2008)Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and Wells (2007)Lunt and Curran (2010), Merry and Orsmond (2007) and Rotherham (2008)
Instructors personal response to student reflections Johnson (2010)Technical Instructors use of various features in synchronous sessions to interact with students Author and Parker (2014)
LaPointe, Greysen, and Barrett (2004)Reushle and Loch (2008)
Interactive visual syllabi of the course Richards (2003)Instructor created content in the form of short videos/multimedia Draus, Curran, and Trempus (2014)
Rose (2009)Griffiths and Graham (2009)Borup, West, and Graham (2012)King (2014)
Fig. 2. Voicethread Introduction.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
54
Similar to traditional courses, interaction between students andinstructor is important in online courses as it helps with students' sa-tisfaction and retention (King & Doerfert, 1996). Since there is a pos-sibility of isolation in online courses, providing variety of methods toincrease student-instructor interaction is helpful. Depending upon thenature of the question, providing different ways for the student to reachthe instructor might be helpful.
1.3.4. Instructors timely response to questions (e.g., within 24 to 48 h) viaforums, email
In online courses, it is important for instructors to respond promptlyto student questions either via forums or email. Miller (2012) foundthat instructor's quick email response time between 24 and 48 h washighly important and significant variables in predicting online studentsuccess. While 24 to 48 h might be a best practice for the timely re-sponse, some instructors might need longer time frames to respond tothe students. Fig. 5 is a screenshot from the syllabus listing the in-structor response times.
Sheridan and Kelly (2010) discuss about instructor presence and thevalue student attribute to timely feedback for their questions and pro-blems. Kelly (2014) quotes that some faculty encourage students to posttheir logistical questions to a special forum within the course andmonitor it periodically. It is also found that students often answer eachother's questions before the faculty even sees the question. Eskey andSchulte (2010) in their study had an entire section of survey on online
instructor response time for online adjunct faculty. They found that theinstructor responding to questions in instructor office thread promptlyand instructor responding to email questions promptly where the twothose were rated the highest. Summers et al. (2005) found students feelunhappy when they have to wait for answer to their questions or pro-blems.
1.3.5. Instructors weekly announcements to the class (e.g. every Mondayvia announcement forum, email)
Sending announcements is like greeting the students in the face toface classroom and letting them know that they are not alone and thatthe instructor is there to support them in their learning process. Fig. 6 isa screenshot of the instructors weekly announcements. Ko and Rossen(2010) discuss the importance of sending regular announcements in theonline courses. Regular announcements can be used to get students'attention, encouraging, reminding, and in general update students withthe course as semester is going. Generally online students are non-traditional learners who have full time jobs and try to balance theirpersonal lives with the course work. Quick reminders each week onwhat is due and what is coming next is helpful for students to managetheir time (Kelly, 2014). Eskey and Schulte (2010) in their survey basedresearch found that it was important for the instructor to communicatevia online announcements.
1.3.6. Instructor created content in the form of short videos/multimedia(e.g., Camtasia, articulate modules)
Using multimedia in online courses increases student engagementand learning. Fig. 7 is a screenshot of a short video created on camtasiaand uploaded to Youtube. Draus et al. (2014) reported positive re-lationship between providing video content in online course and stu-dents' engagement, satisfaction and retention. While several instructorsuse existing off the shelf multimedia, some instructors take the time tocreate their own multimedia. Rose (2009) found that instructor-madevideos help students understand the instructional material better andalso helped connect with their instructors.
Griffiths and Graham (2009) from their evaluation of instructorgenerated video content found that students reported closer connectionto the instructor and that student responses to assignments were
Fig. 3. Video introduction using Camtasia uploaded to Youtube.
Fig. 4. Different ways to contact the instructor.
Fig. 5. Course responses time for responding to questionslisted in the syllabus.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
55
improved. Borup et al. (2012) found that when instructor generatedvideo content was used that instructor social and teaching presence,student evaluations of the instructor was improved though there notsignificant improvement in the course outcomes. King (2014) foundthat mini videos and screen-casting that assist making instructors morevisible are techniques that have been believed to bring many pedago-gical benefits.
1.3.7. Instructor being present in the discussion forums (e.g., refers tostudents by name, responds to students posts)
Discussion forums are integral to most of the asynchronous onlinecourses and enhances student-student, student-instructor and student-
content interaction. Instructors use various strategies to facilitate dis-cussions. While some assign students to facilitate discussions, in somecases instructors themselves are present in the discussions for a con-siderable amount of time. Mandernach et al. (2006) in their study foundthat 77% of faculty participants preferred that the university mandatefaculty to participate in discussions in their online courses. They alsofound that faculty had little agreement on the minimum number ofpostings instructors had to make in the online discussion threads. Theyfurther examined if faculty should be evaluated on the quality of theirinteractions and found 41% of faculty support it, 24% oppose it and35% neither supporting or opposing it.
Ko and Rossen (2010) reiterate the importance of discussion forums
Fig. 6. Weekly announcements.
Fig. 7. Instructor generated video created using Camtasia and uploaded to Youtube.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
56
and how it needs instructor's effort to design and facilitate the discus-sion. Some of the strategies they recommend for instructors includestarting major topic threads narrowing down topic, responding to stu-dents posts and mentioning their names. However, instructor's presenceand engagement should be managed in a way that does not becomeoverwhelming for both students and instructor. Fig. 8 shows thescreenshot of instructor's response to student by name on the discussionforum.
1.3.8. Instructor providing timely feedback on assignments/projects (e.g.,within 7 days)
Instructor feedback is a vital part of online learning and facilitatesthe learning process and enhances students' knowledge (Badiee &Kaufman, 2014; Thiele, 2003). Reinforcement occurs as a result offeedback which directs students' performance by correcting what theyhave done and it helps with lasting longer for correct information(Wagner, 1994).
Providing timely feedback in online learning is considered a chal-lenging and time-consuming duty for instructors specifically in writtenform. Since providing timely feedback is challenging for instructorsthey use some creative methods to make sure they will be able toprovide quick feedback. One of the ways is to developing a resource ofcommon questions and problems and responses over time. These col-lected comments can be used faster than writing a new one each time.Another strategy is to provide feedback for students who submit theirassignment before due date while other students are still are working onit (Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006). Fig. 9 shows the screenshot of in-structor's response time to assignments.
1.3.9. Instructor providing feedback using various modalities (e.g., text,audio, video, and visuals) on assignments/projects
Wolsey (2008) defines feedback as the “interaction designed topromote learning between professor and student or between students”.Providing written feedback is time consuming for instructors. Audiofeedback technology is still new and instructors have begun to usevarious modalities to provide feedback to the students. Ice et al. (2007)found in their study that audio feedback was more helpful than text-based feedback. They also found that when an instructor providedaudio feedback, students felt there was increased involvement, helped
retain content and also made the students feel that the instructors caredmore about them. They also found that the time spent listening to audiofeedback versus reading text-based feedback was not a significant factorin deciding whether audio feedback should be used. Lunt and Curran(2010), Merry and Orsmond (2007) and Rotherham (2008) found thatstudents responded positively to audio feedback.
Though not in an online format, Huang (2000) found that the use ofaudio feedback in a traditional writing course allowed the teacher toprovide twice as much as the written text-based feedback. This is an-other advantage of using audio as a modality for providing feedback.Fig. 10 shows a screenshot of the instructor providing audio/videofeedback on an assignment on Canvas LMS.
1.3.10. Instructors personal response to student reflections (e.g., viajournals to questions on benefits/challenges)
Reflection has been used as a strategy to enable retention oflearning. Johnson (2010) states, “critical reflection is of benefit to adultlearners as these methods promote involvement and engagement in thelearning process” (p. 1). Dewey (1933) stated that, “We do not learnfrom experience. We learn from reflecting on experience” (p. 78).
Reflection is an essential strategy to use in online courses as it helpsthe instructor to understand what the student has got out of the in-structional content. However it is important for the instructor to notonly read the student reflection but also respond to each of their re-flections with positive affirmation or with suggestions to assist with thechallenges. Fig. 11 shows the reflection promote and the opportunityfor the instructor to respond to the reflection.
1.3.11. Instructors use of various features in synchronous sessions tointeract with students (e.g., polls, emoticons, whiteboard, text, or audioand video chat)
Synchronous tools allow students and instructors to interact liveusing features such as audio, video, text chat, interactive whiteboard,and application sharing. Author and Parker (2014) found that in-structors used synchronous tools to promote interaction, build a senseof community, and provide an opportunity for students from differentlocations to be able to participate. Some of the features that persuadedinstructors to adopt synchronous tools were audio chat, archiving op-tion, video and text chat.
Fig. 8. Instructors response to student by name on the discussion forum.
Fig. 9. Response times on syllabus for grading assignments.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
57
Though synchronous sessions limit the flexibility in time to parti-cipate, it enhances immediate feedback and interaction. LaPointe et al.(2004) found that audio and visual functionality of synchronous toolshelp build communities of practice and bridge cultural differences.Reushle and Loch (2008) found that synchronous tools assisted
instructors and students to interact from a distance. Fig. 12 shows thescreenshot of a synchronous session.
Fig. 10. Audio/Video Feedback on Assignment on Canvas LMS.
Fig. 11. Weekly reflection.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
58
1.3.12. Interactive visual syllabi of the course (e.g., includes visual of theinstructor and other interactive components)
Syllabus is an instructional roadmap for the entire course (Richards,2003). However, in a lot of cases, instructors do not take the time tomake the syllabus visually appealing and students do not spend suffi-cient time to go over the details listed in the syllabus as it is not pro-vided in an engaging format. Richards (2003) states the value of aninteractive syllabus and how syllabus is a part of course that has beenneglected for long. Richards (2003) believes that syllabus plays animportant role in students' success in a course. Using variety of media insyllabus content has been encouraged to engage students as much aspossible.
A visual syllabus includes a variety of media including images, vi-deos embedded to engage the learner and help the students find an-swers to all their questions about expectations and other class in-formation easily in the syllabus. An interactive syllabus includeshyperlinks to various sections of the syllabus and course and also in-tegrates multimedia to provide information about the course to thelearner.
1.4. Importance of demographics in online learning research
Research has found that students learn differently based on genderand major (Kolb, 1984; Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002). Based on themajors, students have different learning strategies and methods and areeducated differently (Sanford, Ross, Rosenbloom, Singer, & Luchsinger,2014). This is critical in the online learning environment especiallywhen different strategies are examined for the design and facilitation ofonline learning. Johnson (2011) has reiterated the importance ofcharacteristics of online learners with gender being one of them. Also,there has been mixed findings on student perception based on genderand hence we decided to examine gender in this study.
1.5. Purpose of this research
We examine student perception on the helpfulness of different fa-cilitation strategies used by instructors in online courses and its effects
on instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement andlearning. Helpfulness can be defined as providing useful assistance.Helpfulness can be defined as providing useful assistance. In this study,helpfulness refers to providing useful assistance to facilitate studentonline learning.
The following research questions are being addressed in this study:
1. Which facilitation strategies do students perceive helpful in estab-lishing instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement andlearning in the online course?
2. Is the instrument to measure student perceptions of instructor fa-cilitation strategies reliable and valid?
3. Is there a relationship between student demographic factors andstudent perceptions of instructor facilitation strategies?
2. Methods
2.1. Data sources
One hundred and eighty eight graduate students who were takingonline courses in the Fall 2016 semester in US higher education in-stitutions were surveyed on their perception of benefits of various fa-cilitation strategies. There were 126 female and 60 male respondents.Two students did not identify their gender. Among the 188 students, themajority were education majors (62%) at master's level (40%). Doctoralstudents consist of 20% and undergraduate students consist of 25%. Theothers were from arts and sciences, engineering/applied sciences, andbusiness at either post-bachelorette or post-doctorate levels. The age ofthe participants ranged from 17 to 70 with a mean of 34.03 and astandard deviation of 12.37. The number of online courses that theparticipants took at the time of the survey ranged from 0 to 35 with amean of 6.65 and a standard deviation of 7.62.
2.2. Instrument
The instrument was developed by the researchers after conductingan extensive literature review on facilitation strategies in online courses
Fig. 12. Screenshot of a Synchronous Session.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
59
and based on the practical experience of expert online instructors.Twelve Likert-scale items on facilitation strategies were developed onaspects of instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement andlearning, respectively. All 12 items are rated by each student for thefour constructs, instructor presence, instructor connection, engagementand learning. The participants rated the 12 facilitation strategies abouthow they think these strategies are helpful on a five point Likert Scale(1-Strongly Disagree 2- Disagree 3- Somewhat Agree 4 –Agree 5-Strongly Agree). Cronbach's alpha was calculated to check the internalconsistency of student responses to the survey. The Cronbach's alpha forall items was 0.98, and that for each of the latent construct was 0.91(instructor presence), 0.94 (instructor connection), 0.93 (engagement),and 0.95 (learning).
Two open ended questions were also asked to capture student per-ception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies. One of the open-endedquestions asked, “What are some facilitation strategies that your onlineinstructor uses but not listed here and you have found it helpful?”Another open-ended question asked “What are some facilitation stra-tegies that your online instructor uses but not listed here and you havefound it least helpful?”
2.3. Data collection
Emails were sent to instructional technology list serve from theAssociation for Educational Communications and Technology. Emailswere also sent directly to program directors and faculty who teachonline to distribute this survey with their students.
2.4. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to report the status quo of the par-ticipants' perception of the facilitation strategies. Confirmatory factoranalysis was employed to examine the construct validity of the instru-ment developed, and inferential statistics (analysis of variance) wasused to see if the perceptions of facilitation strategies vary acrossgender and discipline (education versus non-education majors).Pearson correlation was used to see if relations exists between theperceptions of facilitation strategies and age and the number of onlinecourses taken.
3. Results and conclusion
3.1. Facilitation strategies
In general, students thought that facilitation strategies listed on theinstrument were relatively helpful. Their total mean score for all fa-cilitation strategies was 4.10 with a standard deviation of 0.60. Themeans scores for each construct ranged from 3.75 to 4.65. Means andStandard Deviations are included for each of the 12 items on the surveyfor the four constructs of instructor presence, instructor connection,engagement and learning are reported in Table 2.
3.2. Instructor presence
For the instructor presence construct, instructors timely response toquestions (M=4.58) and instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects (M=4.33) were rated the highest by the students. The lowestrated item was instructors use of various features in synchronous ses-sions to interact with students (M=3.91) and interactive visual syllabiof the course (M=3.94).
3.3. Instructor connection
For the instructor connection construct, students rated video basedintroduction (M=4.30) and instructors response to student reflections(M=4.27) as the highest. Students rated the interactive visual syllabi
of the course (M=3.73) and instructors use of various features insynchronous sessions to interact with students (M=3.85) as thelowest.
3.4. Engagement
For the engagement construct, instructors timely response to ques-tions (M=4.32) and instructors timely feedback on assignments/pro-jects (M=4.32) were rated the highest. Video based course orientation(M=3.95) and interactive visual syllabi of the course (M=3.79) wasrated as the lowest.
3.5. Learning
For the learning construct, instructors timely response to questions(M=4.34) and instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects(M=4.32) were rated the highest. The lowest rated item was videobased introduction (M=3.85) and interactive visual syllabi of thecourse (M=3.77).
The lowest rated item on the survey was at M=3.73 which showsthat students were very positive of all these 12 facilitation strategiesand value it to be helpful toward feeling that their instructor is present,connecting with instructor, for engagement and learning.
3.6. Demographics and constructs
Descriptive statistics for each of the construct by gender, status(undergraduate, master's student, doctoral student, and other), anddiscipline (education versus non-education major) are presented inTable 3. No statistically significant differences were noticed for any oneof the four latent constructs with respect to gender or discipline (allps > .05). However, statistically significant differences were notedwith respect to status on their perceptions about engagement, F (3,182)= 3.00, p= .03 and learning F (3, 182)= 3.04, p= .03, but noton instructor's presence, F (3, 183)= 2.71, p= .05 or connection, F (3,182)= 1.68, p= .17. Post-hoc multiple comparisons with Tukey's HSDmethod to control for Type I error revealed that the differences existedbetween undergraduate students and post-doctoral and other postgraduate students (coded as “other”). Undergraduate students ratedsignificantly lower on engagement and learning in comparison to post-doctoral and other post graduate students (ps < .05). The differencesbetween undergraduate, master's student, and doctoral students are notstatistically significant (ps > .05). Similarly, the differences betweenmaster's students, doctoral students, post-doctoral and other graduatestudents are not statistically significant either (ps > .05).
The data fit the model satisfactorily (Table 4) although the RootMean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) exceeds the limit set byHu and Bentler (1999). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the CFIvalue should be close to 0.95, SRMR value should be close to 0.08, andthe RMSEA value should be close to 0.06 in order to claim that themodel fit well. Many scholars, such as Marsh, Hau, and Wen (2004),have challenged the cutoff criteria for fit indices suggested by Hu andBentler (1999) for being too restrictive and rejecting adequately fittingmodels. Results from some studies using simulated data questioned thevalidity of Hu and Bentler's (1999) two-index strategy (e.g., Fan & Sivo,2005). As a result, this study used the combination of all GFIs to assessthe measurement models. The 90% confidence intervals for the esti-mation of RMSEA were also provided in Table 3 with Lower Limit (LL)and Upper Limit (UL). The measurement models for each dimension arepresented in Appendix A. The suggestions provided by LISREL to addpaths from observable variables to latent variables were only followedwhen the correlation between the observable variables is reasonableaccording to theory (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). Forexample, we added a path from “video-based instructor introduction”to “video-based course orientation” for the measurement models ofpresence, engagement, and learning, and another path from “instructor
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
60
timely response to questions” to “instructor timely feedback on as-signment projects” for the measurement model of learning becausethese paths are reasonable and improve the goodness of fit the models.
Table 5 shows that correlation coefficients between the four di-mensions of faculty facilitation strategies seem to be extremely high(ranged from 0.72 to 0.85), which suggests that these four dimensionsmight be just one construct.
3.7. Open-ended comments
3.7.1. Helpful instructor facilitation strategiesIn addition to facilitation strategies listed on the survey, students
reported other strategies that they found helpful by responding to theopen-ended survey (see Table 6). Students noted the availability ofadditional resources and examples (n=16), clear expectations(n=10), and integration of instructional videos (n=9) to be beneficial
in learning the course content. For example, one student wrote, “pro-viding additional resources and examples that we can choose to look atif we are not understanding a certain topic/concept seems to be really
Table 2Student perception of the helpfulness of instructor facilitation strategies.
Facilitation strategies Instructor presenceM (SD)
InstructorconnectionM (SD)
EngagementM (SD)
LearningM (SD)
1 Video based instructor introduction (e.g., Voicethread, Animoto, Camtasia) 4.27 (0.90) 4.30 (0.81) 3.98 (0.96) 3.85 (1.04)2 Video based course orientation (e.g., recording using Camtasia, screencast o matic) 4.22 (0.89) 4.10 (0.87) 3.95 (0.98) 3.89 (0.99)3 Able to contact the instructor in multiple ways (Contact the Instructor Forum, Email, Phone, Virtual
4 Instructors timely response to questions (e.g., within 24 to 48 h) via forums, email 4.65 (0.58) 4.20 (0.88) 4.32 (0.84) 4.34 (0.84)5 Instructors weekly announcements to the class (e.g. Every Monday via announcement forum, email) 4.31 (0.83) 4.06 (0.91) 4.18 (0.89) 4.00 (0.96)6 Instructor created content in the form of short videos/multimedia (e.g., Camtasia, articulate
10 Instructors personal response to student reflections (e.g., via journals to questions on benefits/challenges)
4.30 (0.84) 4.27 (0.87) 4.28 (0.81) 4.22 (0.91)
11 Instructors use of various features in synchronous sessions to interact with students (e.g., polls,emoticons, whiteboard, text, or audio and video chat)
3.96 (0.96) 3.85 (1.02) 3.96 (0.98) 3.87 (0.96)
12 Interactive visual syllabi of the course (e.g., includes visual of the instructor and other interactivecomponents)
3.86 (0.99) 3.73 (1.09) 3.79 (1.00) 3.77 (0.98)
Table 3Descriptive statistics on helpfulness of facilitation strategies for participants by gender,status, and discipline.
Note. NFI=Normed Fit Index, NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index, CFI=Comparative Fit Index, SRMR=Standardized Root Mean Residual, RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error ofApproximation.
Table 5Relationships between latent constructs, age, and number of online courses taken.
Instructor presenceNarrated powerpoints 10 5.32Sharing personal experiences 4 2.13
Note. Participants may have mentioned multiple strategies.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
61
valuable for me.” Other students valued synchronous meetings (n=13)and Q & A sessions (n=4) to help connect them with the instructor.One student stated, “personal meeting (web conference) once duringsemester provide an opportunity to communicate with the instructorand ask questions.” Some students perceived that moderated discus-sions (n=12) and allowing peer feedback (n=5) on assignments“help facilitate active engagement with course content, other students,and the instructor.” Also, students stated that narrated power points(n=10) and learning about instructor's personal experiences (n=4)were helpful in feeling that their instructor is present in their courses.As one student wrote, “I really enjoy when instructors share their ownpersonal experiences on subjects we are learning about. I can connect somuch more with anecdotes and real life experiences, and it helps thecontent really click for me.”
3.7.2. Least helpful instructor facilitation strategiesStudents noted a few strategies that were least helpful to them in
their online courses (see Table 7). Open-ended survey data revealedthat required group work (n=7) and forced interaction in online dis-cussions (n=6) were noted as the least helpful facilitation strategies.One student explained, “Having to work with others who are not on myschedule that I do not know well was a source of undue stress for me.”Another student wrote, “Having discussion boards that demand a cer-tain amount of interaction have always felt forced and inauthentic.”Additionally, students reported timed quizzes (n=4) “were too easy toget through without learning,” social forums (n=4) “were not usedand did not seem to be necessary,” and grading rubrics (n=2) wereunclear and “did not provide helpful feedback or any ideas of how toimprove.”
4. Discussion
The facilitation strategies that were rated the highest and lowest bythe students are being discussed in this section along with the strategieslisted as most helpful and least helpful in their open-ended comments.
4.1. Facilitation strategies rated highest
4.1.1. Timely response/feedback in online facilitationStudents perceived instructor's timely response to questions and
instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects as the most helpfulfacilitation strategies for instructor presence, engagement and learning.These results support Eskey and Schulte's (2010) findings of the in-structor responding to questions in discussion thread promptly andinstructor responding to email questions promptly as the most im-portant for online student success. These results suggest that onlinestudents generally perceive instructor's timely responses and feedbackhelpful in establishing instructor presence, encouraging them to be-come more engaged in their courses, and leading them to higher levelsof learning. King (2014) explained such interpretation that studentsperceive thorough and timely instructor feedback on their work as mostvaluable because it helps them make improvements in their learningprocess.
4.1.2. Video based introductionVideo based Introduction was found to help in building instructor
connection. This finding support Jones et al. (2008) study that foundthat students benefited from the introduction video as it helped form arelationship with the instructor from the start of the course. These re-sults indicate the importance of using video based introductions toimprove perceived closeness between the students and instructor thatmay lead to better academic achievement.
4.1.3. Instructors response to student reflectionsStudents perceived instructors' response to their reflections to be
helpful in establishing a connection with their instructor. Student re-flections have shown to enable confidential communication betweenthe learner and instructor (Black, Sileo, & Prater, 2000) and to promoteinvolvement in the learning process (Johnson, 2010). These findingsdemonstrate that instructors' response to students' reflections are im-portant in facilitating more closeness and reducing perceived distancebetween student and the instructor. This implies that, instructor sup-port and guidance is critical if students are to gain the maximum ben-efits from student reflections.
4.2. Facilitation strategies rated lowest
4.2.1. Use of technology features in synchronous sessionAlthough research suggests that audio and visual functionality in
synchronous tools help build communities of practice (LaPointe et al.,2004), findings from this study demonstrated that students did notperceive instructors use of various technology features in synchronoussessions to interact with students helpful for instructor presence andinstructor connection. Park and Bonk (2007) found that the studentsviewed time constraints, lack of reflection, language barriers, tool-re-lated problems, and peers' network connection problems as challengesimpacting successful synchronous learning. Our study did not show thatstudents view the various features of synchronous technology washelpful. Carabajal, LaPointe, and Gunawardena (2003) noted that thecommunication medium changes the nature of the communication.Such perspectives imply that, identifying student needs (e.g., tech-nology tools, skills, or internet connection) before the synchronoussession and providing assistance during the synchronous session mayhelp in creating instructor presence and connectedness with the stu-dents.
4.2.2. Interactive visual syllabi was rated as the lowest in all four of theconstructs
Although syllabus plays an important role in students' success in acourse (Richards, 2003), the findings of this study revealed that stu-dents perceived interactive visual syllabus to be least helpful in estab-lishing instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement, orlearning in the online course. Given the rare use of visually appealing orengaging syllabus in online courses (Richards, 2003), it may be justlikely that most of the students did not use an interactive syllabus intheir online courses. Another reason may be that the students did notfind the visual syllabus meaningful or relevant to their learning.Grigorovici, Nam, and Russill (2003) argue that the relatedness of thehyperlinks and the type of tasks users pursue are more important thanthe amount of interactivity. This suggests that online instructors shoulduse interactive visual syllabus that is learner centered with hyperlinksand visuals that help the students find answers to all their questionsabout expectations and other class information easily.
4.3. Demographics
In terms of student demographic (e.g., age, gender, status, anddiscipline), statistically significant differences were noted with respectto status on student perceptions about engagement and learning.Results revealed that undergraduate students rated lower on
Table 7Least helpful instructor facilitation strategies reported by students (n=188).
Survey categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Group work 7 3.72Forced interaction in discussion 6 3.19Timed quizzes 4 2.13Social forums 4 2.13Unclear grading rubrics 2 1.06
Note. Participants may have mentioned multiple strategies.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
62
engagement and learning in comparison to post-doctoral students.These findings are comparable to Richardson and Swan (2003) findingsthat age is not related to students' perception of social presence in on-line courses. This suggest that novice online students may require moreinteraction and support from instructors to improve their engagementand learning in online courses.
4.4. Open-ended comments
Open-ended survey responses further revealed facilitation strategiesthat students perceive helpful in establishing instructor presence, in-structor connection, engagement and learning in their online courses.For example, narrated PowerPoints were helpful in establishing in-structor presence; synchronous meetings helped establish connectionwith the instructor; moderated discussions helped facilitate active en-gagement in the course; and providing additional resources and settingclear expectations were beneficial in student learning. These findingsare supported by Swan's (2001) conclusions that instructor's clear andconsistent course structure, frequently and constructive interactionwith students, and active discussions contribute to the success of onlinecourses.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Implications
The results of this study have implications for 1) instructional de-signers who assist in designing online courses, 2) online instructors onwhat facilitation strategies to include in the design and facilitation oftheir online course and 3) administrators who can provide support forinstructors to effectively facilitate online courses.
Instructors' facilitation is crucial especially timely response toquestions and timely feedback on assignments in establishing instructorpresence, encouraging students to become more engaged in theircourses, and leading them to higher levels of learning. In this regard,online instructors can use different ways to communicate with theirstudents. For example, they can set up a discussion forum specifically toanswer general questions about the course or syllabus and shouldmonitor that forum once or twice a day to respond to student questionsas needed. This can be an efficient way to answer student questions andallow all the students to benefit from instructors' responses. Also,holding online office hours through online meeting tools (Skype,WebEx, Google Hangout, etc.) once or twice a week at specific timesmay help students get answers to their questions and get direct feed-back from the instructor. As evidenced by the results of this study,students value synchronous meetings and Q&A sessions with the in-structors to communicate with the instructor and ask questions.Although providing timely feedback can be challenging and time
consuming for instructors, they can use creative strategies to make surethey will be able to provide quick feedback. One of the ways is to de-velop a resource of common questions and problems and responses overtime. These collected comments can be used faster than writing a newone each time.
The results of this study suggests the importance of facilitationstrategies in online learning. It is important for the instructor not onlyto design the course, but be actively engaged in facilitating the courseduring the implementation of the course. Most of the facilitation stra-tegies were rated highly by students and course designers and in-structors can use any of these facilitation strategies in their onlinecourses. This study also adds to the research literature and assists otherresearchers in building on facilitation strategies for online learning.
5.2. Limitations and future research
There were some methodological limitations in this study. First, thesample size as relatively small, and the sample was drawn from alimited number of universities. We received only 186 complete re-sponses. However, the list of universities included different classifica-tions of universities and different geographical regions. We do not havean exact number of participating institutions and this is a limitation ofthis study. Second, all data were self-reported due to the nature of thestudy. Also, students who have not experienced some of these facilita-tion strategies or have limited exposure may rate the strategies low.Third, the list of strategies is not an exhaustive list of all possible fa-cilitation strategies that may be used in online courses. Readers shouldinterpret the results with caution due to these limitations because re-sults may have limited generalizability in different settings and con-texts.
Response bias: The data are collected from instructors who chose torespond to the survey, so the data do not represent all higher educationstudents in online education. Students who chose to answer the ques-tions might be different from those who chose not to answer thequestions. Of those 188 who answered the questions, 16–26 studentsmissed at least half of the 12 items. The missing pattern was checkedwith Little's Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test. Since the p-value for MCAR test is larger than 0.05, we removed all these cases withmissing values. For the rest of the cases, missing values were replacedwith multiple imputation (regression method).
Future researchers could examine additional facilitation strategiesthat are not included in the survey utilized to collect data in this study.Future research could focus on examining faculty perceptions of facil-itation strategies and compare differences between faculty and studentperceptions. It would be worthwhile to investigate facilitations strate-gies from using an experimental design of the course using the facil-itation strategies.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
63
Appendix A
Measurement Models for Presence, Connection, Engagement, and Learning.Note. upper left (presence), lower left (connection), upper right (engagement), and lower right (learning).
References
Ali, R., & Leeds, E. (2009). The impact of classroom orientation in online student re-tention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(4).
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and practiceof online learning. 2. Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15–44).
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological andsocial dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. The Academy ofManagement Learning and Education, 5, 435–447.
Author, A., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who andhow? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210.
Badiee, F., & Kaufman, D. (2014). Effectiveness of an online simulation for teachereducation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(2), 167–186.
Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters:Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course.Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298–312.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field.Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30 The role of the online instructor/facilitator(adobe reader required).
Black, R. S., Sileo, T. W., & Prater, M. A. (2000). Learning journals, self-reflection, anduniversity students' changing perceptions. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4), 71–89.
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence throughasynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203 doi: 111016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001.
Bozarth, J., Chapman, D. D., & LaMonica, L. (2004). Preparing for distance learning:Designing an online student orientation course. Educational Technology & Society,7(1), 87–106.
Brinkerhoff, J., & Koroghlanian, C. M. (2007). On line students' expectations: Enhancingthe fit between online students and course design. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 36(4), 383–393.Britt, M., Goon, D., & Timmerman, M. (2015). How to better engage online students with
online strategies. College Student Journal, 49(3), 399–404.Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2003). Group development in online
learning communities. Handbook of distance education (pp. 217–234). .Cho, M. H., & Cho, Y. (2016). Online Instructors' use of scaffolding strategies to promote
interactions: A scale development study. The International Review of Research in Openand Distributed Learning, 17(6).
Correia, A. P., & Baran, E. (2010). Lessons learned on facilitating asynchronous discus-sions for online learning. Educacao, Formacao & Tecnologias, 3(1), 59–67.
Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Knapcik, E. (2009). A measure to assess student-instructor re-lationships. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 14.
Creasman, P. A. (2012). Considerations in online course design. Manhattan, KS: The IDEACenter. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/research-and-papers/idea-papers/.
D'Alba, O. A. (2014). A case study of student instructor connectedness in an asynchronousmodular online environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Atlanta: Georgia StateUniversity.
Dennen, V. P. (2011). Facilitator presence and identity in online discourse: Use of posi-tioning theory as an analytic framework. Instructional Science: An International Journalof the Learning Sciences, 39(4), 527–541.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to theeducative process (Revised ed.). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The influence of instructor-generatedvideo content on student satisfaction with and engagement in asynchronous onlineclasses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 240.
Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. Handbookof adolescent psychology. 2. Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 125–153).
Eskey, M. T., & Schulte, M. (2010). What online college students say about online in-structors and what do online faculty members say about online instruction: A com-parison of attitudes. Journal of Online Education, 1–20.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or mea-surement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
Equation Modeling, 12, 343–367.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based en-
vironment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and HigherEducation, 2(2–3), 1–19.
Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009). The potential of asynchronous video in onlineeducation. Distance Learning, 6, 13–23.
Grigorovici, D., Nam, S., & Russill, C. (2003). The effects of online syllabus interactivityon students' perception of the course and instructor. The Internet and Higher Education,6(1), 41–52.
Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asyn-chronous online discussions: Further findings from three cases. Instructional Science,43(1), 19–38.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.
Huang, S. (2000). A quantitative analysis of audiotaped and written feedback produced forstudents writing and student perceptions of the two feedback methods. (ERIC documentreproductive service no. ED448604).
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback toenhance teaching presence and Students' sense of community. Journal ofAsynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.
Johnson, B.. The benefits of critical reflection and critical thinking. (2010). Retrieved fromhttp://www.examiner.com/article/the-benefits-of-critical-reflection-and-critical-thinking (June 26, 2014).
Johnson, R. D. (2011). Gender differences in e-learning: Communication, social presence,and learning outcomes. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 23(1),79–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2011010105.
Jones, P., Naugle, K., & Kolloff, M. (2008). Teacher presence: Using introductory videos inhybrid and online courses. Learning Solutions. Retrieved from learningsolutionsmag.com (March 26, 2014) .
Kelly, R. (2014). Five things online students want from faculty. Faculty focus. Retrievedfrom http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-students-want-from-faculty/.
King, J. C., & Doerfert, D. L. (1996). Interaction in the distance education setting.Retrieved from http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/ssu/AgEd/NAERM/s-e-4.htm.
King, S. B. (2014). Graduate student perceptions of the use of online course tools tosupport engagement. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,8(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080105.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. New York: Routledge.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. Chickering (Ed.).
The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.LaPointe, D. K., Greysen, K. R. B., & Barrett, K. A. (2004). Speak2Me: Using synchronous
audio for ESL teaching in Taiwan. The International Review of Research in Open andDistance Learning, 5(1).
Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process modelfor the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1),71–77.
Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices:Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98.
Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2010). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronicaudio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 35(7), 759–769.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications incovariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. PsychologicalBulletin, 111, 490–504.
Mandernach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. (2006). An examination of onlineinstructor presence via threaded discussion participation. Journal of Online Learningand Teaching, 2(4), 248–260.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment onhypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers inovergeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11,320–341.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor inonline discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49(2), 193–213.
Meares, C. (2013). What is online engagement and why should you measure it?Maassmedia E-Marketing Analytics. Retrieved online from http://www.maassmedia.com/what-we-say/blog/what-is-online-engagement-and-why-should-you-measure-it-part-one/.
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2007, June). Students' responses to academic feedback
provided via mp3 audio files. Science learning and teaching conference (pp. 19–20). .Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE
Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114.Miller, J. M. (2012). Finding what works online: Online course features that encourage en-
gagement, completion, and success. Northridge: California State University. Retrievedfrom http://scholarworks.csun.edu/handle/10211.2/1062 (Doctoral dissertation,January 19, 2018) .
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinarycontext. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 405–417.
Newman, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). Taking students seriously.Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York:Teachers College, Columbia University.
Park, Y. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). Synchronous learning experiences: Distance and re-sidential learners' perspectives in a blended graduate course. Journal of InteractiveOnline Learning, 6(3), 245–264.
Phirangee, K., Demmans Epp, C., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships betweenfacilitation methods, students' sense of community and their online behaviours.Special issue on online learning analytics. Online Learning Journal, 20(2), 134–154.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children'ssuccess in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444.
Reushle, S., & Loch, B. (2008). Conducting a trial of web conferencing software: Why,how, and perceptions from the coalface. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,9(3), 19–28.
Richards, S. L. (2003). The interactive syllabus: A resource-based, constructivist approach tolearning. The Technology Source.
Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M.(2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learningenvironments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,16(3).
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relationto students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous LearningNetworks, 7(1), 68–88.
Riva, G., Davide, F., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2003). Being there: The experience of presencein mediated environments. Being there: Concepts, effects and measurements of userpresence in synthetic environments (pp. 3–16). .
Rose, K. K. (2009). Student perceptions of the use of instructor-made videos in online andface-to-face classes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5, 3.
Rotherham, R. (2008). Sounds good evaluation. Retrieved online from http://web.mac.com/simonft/Sounds_Good/Welcome.html.
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking forhelp? An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers'social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90(3), 528.
Sanford, D. M., Ross, D. N., Rosenbloom, A., Singer, D., & Luchsinger, V. (2014). The roleof the business major in student perceptions of learning and satisfaction with courseformat. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 535.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense oflearning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internetand Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190.
Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are im-portant to students in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4),767.
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of studentachievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statisticsclass. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction andperceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2),306–331.
Thiele, J. E. (2003). Learning patterns of online students. Journal of Nursing Education,42(8), 3.
Thweatt, K. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and mis-behaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47(4), 348–358.
Visser, J. (2001). Integrity, completeness and comprehensiveness of the learning en-vironment: Meeting the basic learning needs of all throughout life. Internationalhandbook of lifelong learning (pp. 447–472). Netherlands: Springer.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29.
Wolsey, T. D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online pro-gram. International Journal on ELearning, 7(2), 311.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
