The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Internet and Higher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iheduc

Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance T

instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online
courses
⁎
Florence Martin , Chuang Wang, Ayesha Sadaf
University of North Carolina Charlotte, Dept. of Educational Leadership, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Instructors use various strategies to facilitate learning and actively engage students in online courses. In this
Facilitation strategies study, we examine student perception on the helpfulness of the twelve different facilitation strategies used by
Instructor presence instructors on establishing instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement and learning. One hundred
Online learning and eighty eight graduate students taking online courses in Fall 2016 semester in US higher education institu-
Student perception
tions responded to the survey. Among the 12 facilitation strategies, instructors' timely response to questions and
Instructor connection
instructors' timely feedback on assignments/projects were rated the highest in all four constructs (instructor
presence, instructor connection, engagement and learning). Interactive visual syllabi of the course was rated the
lowest, and video based introduction and instructors' use of synchronous sessions to interact were rated lowest
among two of the four constructs. Descriptive statistics for each of the construct (instructor presence, instructor
connection, engagement and learning) by gender, status, and major of study are presented. Confirmative factor
analysis of the data provided aspects of construct validity of the survey. Analysis of variance failed to detect
differences between gender and discipline (education major versus non-education major) on all four constructs
measured. However, undergraduate students rated significantly lower on engagement and learning in com-
parison to post-doctoral and other post graduate students.

1. Introduction online learning, most of them have focused on facilitating asynchronous

An online instructor plays two major roles in the design and delivery
of online learning, as a designer and a facilitator. An online instructor
first 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 facilitate
learning (Riva, Davide, & IJsselsteijn, 2003). A facilitator guides the
learning process by providing opportunities for the learners to build
knowledge and skills. As a facilitator, the instructor is also constantly
monitoring the activities to be readily available to provide support to
the students when needed. Facilitation strategies are the various stra-
tegies used by the instructor when implementing the course with the
students. 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
discussions. Hew (2015) found students preferred online discussions to
be facilitated by their instructors rather than their peers, even though
prior studies have found benefits of peer facilitators. Similarly,
Phirangee, Demmans Epp, and Hewitt (2016) compared instructor and
facilitation methods in which they found that students participated
more actively in instructor facilitated discussion than peer facilitated
discussions. In instructor facilitated discussions, the students were more
active by writing notes, editing, and creating connections. Shea, Li, and
Pickett (2006) found that instructor facilitation strategies such as
questioning and providing feedback were positively related to students'
perceived connectedness and learning. There is a need for research to
examine the various facilitation strategies an instructor can use in an
online course.
1.1. Facilitation effects on four construct (instructor presence, instructor
connection, engagement and learning)
In this study, we measure student perception of facilitation strate-
gies on four constructs (instructor presence, instructor connection,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Florence.Martin@uncc.edu (F. Martin), cwang15@uncc.edu (C. Wang), asadaf@uncc.edu (A. Sadaf).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003
Received 29 March 2017; Received in revised form 20 January 2018; Accepted 31 January 2018
1096-7516/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65

engagement and learning) based on Cho and Cho (2016) in their vali-
dation of scaffolding strategies to promote interactions which found
these as four out of the five factors to promote interaction.
1.1.1. Instructor presence
Richardson et al. (2015) define instructor presence as “the specific
actions and behaviors taken by the instructor that project him/herself
as a real person” (p.259). Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), state
that teaching presence occurs when instructors facilitate the flow of the
course and content. Instructors also act as facilitators when they in-
teract with their students and encourage them to actively participate in
the course. Another key role of facilitators is responding to student
questions 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 and
validating one's personal identity by formally acknowledging and
conducting their role through various strategies”.
Establishing instructor presence in an online setting is challenging
but essential to the success of asynchronous online courses. Research
has 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 of
students' interactions and discussions (Dennen, 2011), and reduces the
sense 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 and
usually occurs during the live part of the online course (Richardson
et al., 2015). It is important because when an instructor is presence in
the online course, it helps bridge the distance and students feel less
isolated in the online course (Creasman, 2012). Sheridan and Kelly
(2010) found that students value instructors' providing clear course
requirements, being responsive to students' needs and providing in-
formation and feedback in a timely manner as important indicators of
instructor presence.
1.1.2. Instructor connectedness
Instructor 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 between
the student and instructor as well as the instructor and student” (p. 8).
Research has found that students who have strong connection with
instructors have better learning outcomes and academic achievement
(Eccles, 2004; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and students who have close
relationships with the instructors are more confident than those who
consider 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 central
relationship 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 of
the 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 connection
with instructors.
Banna, Lin, Stewart, and Fialkowski (2015) stress that engagement is
the key solution to the issue of learner isolation, dropout, retention, and
graduation rate in online learning. Meyer (2014), Banna et al. (2015),
and Britt, Goon, and Timmerman (2015) affirm the importance of
student engagement to online learning because they believe student
engagement can be shown as evidence of students' considerable effort
required for their cognitive development and their given ability to
create their own knowledge leading to a high level of student success.
Lear, Ansorge, and Steckelberg (2010) assert that interactions with
content, peers, and instructors help online learners become active and
more engaged in their courses.
1.1.4. Learning
Learning is the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experi-
ence, study, or by being taught. Visser (2001) defines learning as “To
engage in continuous dialogue with the human, social, biological and
physical environment, so as to generate intelligent behavior to interact
constructively with change” (p. 453). Within the context of online
learning, Ally (2004) defines online learning as “the use of the Internet
to access learning materials; to interact with the content, instructor, and
other learners; and to obtain support during the learning process, in
order to acquire knowledge, to construct personal meaning, and to
grow from the learning experience” (p. 7). Academic achievement is a
commonly studied dependent variable to measure learning. Learning is
measured 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 an
extensive literature review on facilitation strategies in online courses
and based on the practical experience of expert online instructors.
Three faculty who taught Quality Matters certified online courses were
consulted on the facilitation strategies they use in their courses. Based
on the literature review and the practical experience of expert online
instructors, these 12 facilitation strategies were identified. The 12 fa-
cilitation strategies identified for this study are categorized below based
on 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,

1.1.3. Engagement
Engagement 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 academic
work is intended to promote” (Newman, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992, p.
12). Several researchers have found that student engagement increases
student satisfaction, enhances student motivation to learn, reduces the
Fig. 1. Assess online facilitation framework (Berge, 1995).
sense of isolation, and improves student performance in online courses.

53
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65

Table 1
Facilitation 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)

learning and engagement based on best practices and from literature. program level, it is essential of instructors to also offer course level
student orientation. Starting a course with a good orientation provides
students with a satisfying course experience and these students are
1.3.1. Video based instructor introduction (e.g., Voicethread, Animoto,
more likely to want take more similar courses (Ko & Rossen, 2010).
Camtasia)
Fig. 3 is a screenshot of a video based course orientation created using
An introduction video is one of the first course components that the
Camtasia.
students watch in the online course. In the introduction video, students
Ali and Leeds (2009) discuss the value of orientation in online
can get a sense of what they can expect in the online course, get to
learning settings since it assists with student retention in online courses
know the instructor and dispel fears about the online environment.
when compared to traditional classes and face to face settings. Bozarth
Fig. 2 is a screenshot of an instructor introduction video created using
et al. (2004) also emphasized on the key role of orientation for online
Voicethread.
learners. Orientations inform the students about the time commitment
Previous research has found that when students watched an in-
requirement and time management skills. Ko and Rossen (2010) re-
troduction video, students were more positive in the course evaluations
commended that it is better if instructors include a video and provide
and also contributed more to the discussion boards. Researchers, Jones
text transcript of it which enables students to go back to it faster any
et al. (2008) found that students benefited from the introduction video
time during the course.
as it helped form a relationship with the instructor right from the start
of the course which contributed to their progress in the course.
1.3.3. Able to contact the instructor in multiple ways (contact the instructor
1.3.2. Video based course orientation (e.g., recording using Camtasia, forum, email, phone, virtual office hours)
screencast o matic) It is important for online instructors to provide multiple ways for the
Student orientations are essential for online programs to be suc- students to contact them. Fig. 4 shows examples of different ways the
cessful. While orientations can be done at the institutional level or students can contact the instructor.

Fig. 2. Voicethread Introduction.

54
F. Martin et al.
Fig. 3. Video introduction using Camtasia uploaded to Youtube.
Fig. 4. Different ways to contact the instructor.
Similar to traditional courses, interaction between students and
instructor 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 to
increase student-instructor interaction is helpful. Depending upon the
nature of the question, providing different ways for the student to reach
the instructor might be helpful.
1.3.4. Instructors timely response to questions (e.g., within 24 to 48 h) via
forums, email
In online courses, it is important for instructors to respond promptly
to student questions either via forums or email. Miller (2012) found
that instructor's quick email response time between 24 and 48 h was
highly important and significant variables in predicting online student
success. While 24 to 48 h might be a best practice for the timely re-
sponse, some instructors might need longer time frames to respond to
the students. Fig. 5 is a screenshot from the syllabus listing the in-
structor response times.
Sheridan and Kelly (2010) discuss about instructor presence and the
value student attribute to timely feedback for their questions and pro-
blems. Kelly (2014) quotes that some faculty encourage students to post
their logistical questions to a special forum within the course and
monitor it periodically. It is also found that students often answer each
other's questions before the faculty even sees the question. Eskey and
Schulte (2010) in their study had an entire section of survey on online
55
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
instructor response time for online adjunct faculty. They found that the
instructor responding to questions in instructor office thread promptly
and instructor responding to email questions promptly where the two
those were rated the highest. Summers et al. (2005) found students feel
unhappy 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 Monday
via announcement forum, email)
Sending announcements is like greeting the students in the face to
face classroom and letting them know that they are not alone and that
the instructor is there to support them in their learning process. Fig. 6 is
a screenshot of the instructors weekly announcements. Ko and Rossen
(2010) discuss the importance of sending regular announcements in the
online courses. Regular announcements can be used to get students'
attention, encouraging, reminding, and in general update students with
the course as semester is going. Generally online students are non-
traditional learners who have full time jobs and try to balance their
personal lives with the course work. Quick reminders each week on
what is due and what is coming next is helpful for students to manage
their time (Kelly, 2014). Eskey and Schulte (2010) in their survey based
research found that it was important for the instructor to communicate
via 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 engagement
and learning. Fig. 7 is a screenshot of a short video created on camtasia
and 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 instructors
use existing off the shelf multimedia, some instructors take the time to
create their own multimedia. Rose (2009) found that instructor-made
videos help students understand the instructional material better and
also helped connect with their instructors.
Griffiths and Graham (2009) from their evaluation of instructor
generated video content found that students reported closer connection
to the instructor and that student responses to assignments were
Fig. 5. Course responses time for responding to questions
listed in the syllabus.
F. Martin et al.
Fig. 6. Weekly announcements.
improved. Borup et al. (2012) found that when instructor generated
video content was used that instructor social and teaching presence,
student evaluations of the instructor was improved though there not
significant improvement in the course outcomes. King (2014) found
that mini videos and screen-casting that assist making instructors more
visible 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 to
students by name, responds to students posts)
Discussion forums are integral to most of the asynchronous online
courses and enhances student-student, student-instructor and student-
Fig. 7. Instructor generated video created using Camtasia and uploaded to Youtube.
56
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
content interaction. Instructors use various strategies to facilitate dis-
cussions. While some assign students to facilitate discussions, in some
cases instructors themselves are present in the discussions for a con-
siderable amount of time. Mandernach et al. (2006) in their study found
that 77% of faculty participants preferred that the university mandate
faculty to participate in discussions in their online courses. They also
found that faculty had little agreement on the minimum number of
postings instructors had to make in the online discussion threads. They
further examined if faculty should be evaluated on the quality of their
interactions and found 41% of faculty support it, 24% oppose it and
35% neither supporting or opposing it.
Ko and Rossen (2010) reiterate the importance of discussion forums
F. Martin et al.
Fig. 8. Instructors response to student by name on the discussion forum.
and how it needs instructor's effort to design and facilitate the discus-
sion. Some of the strategies they recommend for instructors include
starting major topic threads narrowing down topic, responding to stu-
dents posts and mentioning their names. However, instructor's presence
and engagement should be managed in a way that does not become
overwhelming for both students and instructor. Fig. 8 shows the
screenshot of instructor's response to student by name on the discussion
forum.
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 facilitates
the learning process and enhances students' knowledge (Badiee &
Kaufman, 2014; Thiele, 2003). Reinforcement occurs as a result of
feedback which directs students' performance by correcting what they
have 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 written
form. Since providing timely feedback is challenging for instructors
they use some creative methods to make sure they will be able to
provide quick feedback. One of the ways is to developing a resource of
common 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 their
assignment before due date while other students are still are working on
it (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 to
promote learning between professor and student or between students”.
Providing written feedback is time consuming for instructors. Audio
feedback technology is still new and instructors have begun to use
various 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 provided
audio feedback, students felt there was increased involvement, helped
57
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
retain content and also made the students feel that the instructors cared
more about them. They also found that the time spent listening to audio
feedback versus reading text-based feedback was not a significant factor
in deciding whether audio feedback should be used. Lunt and Curran
(2010), Merry and Orsmond (2007) and Rotherham (2008) found that
students responded positively to audio feedback.
Though not in an online format, Huang (2000) found that the use of
audio feedback in a traditional writing course allowed the teacher to
provide 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/video
feedback on an assignment on Canvas LMS.
1.3.10. Instructors personal response to student reflections (e.g., via
journals to questions on benefits/challenges)
Reflection has been used as a strategy to enable retention of
learning. Johnson (2010) states, “critical reflection is of benefit to adult
learners as these methods promote involvement and engagement in the
learning process” (p. 1). Dewey (1933) stated that, “We do not learn
from experience. We learn from reflecting on experience” (p. 78).
Reflection is an essential strategy to use in online courses as it helps
the instructor to understand what the student has got out of the in-
structional content. However it is important for the instructor to not
only read the student reflection but also respond to each of their re-
flections with positive affirmation or with suggestions to assist with the
challenges. Fig. 11 shows the reflection promote and the opportunity
for the instructor to respond to the reflection.
1.3.11. Instructors use of various features in synchronous sessions to
interact with students (e.g., polls, emoticons, whiteboard, text, or audio
and video chat)
Synchronous tools allow students and instructors to interact live
using 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 sense
of community, and provide an opportunity for students from different
locations to be able to participate. Some of the features that persuaded
instructors to adopt synchronous tools were audio chat, archiving op-
tion, video and text chat.
Fig. 9. Response times on syllabus for grading assignments.
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65

Fig. 10. Audio/Video Feedback on Assignment on Canvas LMS.

Though synchronous sessions limit the flexibility in time to parti- instructors and students to interact from a distance. Fig. 12 shows the
cipate, it enhances immediate feedback and interaction. LaPointe et al. screenshot of a synchronous session.
(2004) found that audio and visual functionality of synchronous tools
help build communities of practice and bridge cultural differences.
Reushle and Loch (2008) found that synchronous tools assisted

Fig. 11. Weekly reflection.

58
F. Martin et al.
Fig. 12. Screenshot of a Synchronous Session.
1.3.12. Interactive visual syllabi of the course (e.g., includes visual of the
instructor 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 to
make 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 an
interactive syllabus and how syllabus is a part of course that has been
neglected for long. Richards (2003) believes that syllabus plays an
important role in students' success in a course. Using variety of media in
syllabus content has been encouraged to engage students as much as
possible.
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 includes
hyperlinks to various sections of the syllabus and course and also in-
tegrates multimedia to provide information about the course to the
learner.
1.4. Importance of demographics in online learning research
Research has found that students learn differently based on gender
and major (Kolb, 1984; Neumann, Parry, & Becher, 2002). Based on the
majors, students have different learning strategies and methods and are
educated differently (Sanford, Ross, Rosenbloom, Singer, & Luchsinger,
2014). This is critical in the online learning environment especially
when different strategies are examined for the design and facilitation of
online learning. Johnson (2011) has reiterated the importance of
characteristics of online learners with gender being one of them. Also,
there has been mixed findings on student perception based on gender
and 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
59
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
on instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement and
learning. 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 student
online 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 and
learning 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 and
student perceptions of instructor facilitation strategies?
2. Methods
2.1. Data sources
One hundred and eighty eight graduate students who were taking
online 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, the
majority were education majors (62%) at master's level (40%). Doctoral
students consist of 20% and undergraduate students consist of 25%. The
others were from arts and sciences, engineering/applied sciences, and
business at either post-bachelorette or post-doctorate levels. The age of
the participants ranged from 17 to 70 with a mean of 34.03 and a
standard deviation of 12.37. The number of online courses that the
participants took at the time of the survey ranged from 0 to 35 with a
mean of 6.65 and a standard deviation of 7.62.
2.2. Instrument
The instrument was developed by the researchers after conducting
an extensive literature review on facilitation strategies in online courses
F. Martin et al.
and based on the practical experience of expert online instructors.
Twelve Likert-scale items on facilitation strategies were developed on
aspects of instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement and
learning, respectively. All 12 items are rated by each student for the
four constructs, instructor presence, instructor connection, engagement
and learning. The participants rated the 12 facilitation strategies about
how 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 internal
consistency of student responses to the survey. The Cronbach's alpha for
all 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-ended
questions asked, “What are some facilitation strategies that your online
instructor 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 have
found it least helpful?”
2.3. Data collection
Emails were sent to instructional technology list serve from the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Emails
were also sent directly to program directors and faculty who teach
online 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 factor
analysis was employed to examine the construct validity of the instru-
ment developed, and inferential statistics (analysis of variance) was
used to see if the perceptions of facilitation strategies vary across
gender and discipline (education versus non-education majors).
Pearson correlation was used to see if relations exists between the
perceptions of facilitation strategies and age and the number of online
courses taken.
3. Results and conclusion
3.1. Facilitation strategies
In general, students thought that facilitation strategies listed on the
instrument were relatively helpful. Their total mean score for all fa-
cilitation strategies was 4.10 with a standard deviation of 0.60. The
means scores for each construct ranged from 3.75 to 4.65. Means and
Standard Deviations are included for each of the 12 items on the survey
for 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 to
questions (M = 4.58) and instructors timely feedback on assignments/
projects (M = 4.33) were rated the highest by the students. The lowest
rated item was instructors use of various features in synchronous ses-
sions to interact with students (M = 3.91) and interactive visual syllabi
of the course (M = 3.94).
3.3. Instructor connection
For the instructor connection construct, students rated video based
introduction (M = 4.30) and instructors response to student reflections
(M = 4.27) as the highest. Students rated the interactive visual syllabi
60
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
of the course (M = 3.73) and instructors use of various features in
synchronous sessions to interact with students (M = 3.85) as the
lowest.
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) was
rated 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 video
based introduction (M = 3.85) and interactive visual syllabi of the
course (M = 3.77).
The lowest rated item on the survey was at M = 3.73 which shows
that students were very positive of all these 12 facilitation strategies
and 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), and
discipline (education versus non-education major) are presented in
Table 3. No statistically significant differences were noticed for any one
of the four latent constructs with respect to gender or discipline (all
ps > .05). However, statistically significant differences were noted
with 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 not
on 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 HSD
method to control for Type I error revealed that the differences existed
between undergraduate students and post-doctoral and other post
graduate students (coded as “other”). Undergraduate students rated
significantly lower on engagement and learning in comparison to post-
doctoral and other post graduate students (ps < .05). The differences
between undergraduate, master's student, and doctoral students are not
statistically significant (ps > .05). Similarly, the differences between
master's students, doctoral students, post-doctoral and other graduate
students are not statistically significant either (ps > .05).
The data fit the model satisfactorily (Table 4) although the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) exceeds the limit set by
Hu and Bentler (1999). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the CFI
value should be close to 0.95, SRMR value should be close to 0.08, and
the RMSEA value should be close to 0.06 in order to claim that the
model fit well. Many scholars, such as Marsh, Hau, and Wen (2004),
have challenged the cutoff criteria for fit indices suggested by Hu and
Bentler (1999) for being too restrictive and rejecting adequately fitting
models. Results from some studies using simulated data questioned the
validity 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 assess
the 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 are
presented in Appendix A. The suggestions provided by LISREL to add
paths from observable variables to latent variables were only followed
when the correlation between the observable variables is reasonable
according to theory (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). For
example, we added a path from “video-based instructor introduction”
to “video-based course orientation” for the measurement models of
presence, engagement, and learning, and another path from “instructor
F. Martin et al. The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65

Table 2
Student perception of the helpfulness of instructor facilitation strategies.

Facilitation strategies Instructor presence Instructor Engagement Learning

M (SD) connection M (SD) M (SD)
M (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 4.33 (0.77) 4.15 (0.94) 4.16 (0.90) 4.05 (1.01)
Office hours)
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 4.14 (0.89) 4.01(0.90) 4.12 (0.86) 4.22 (0.83)
modules)
7 Instructor being present in the discussion forums (e.g., refers to students by name, responds to 4.32 (0.82) 4.13 (0.98) 4.22 (0.91) 4.10 (0.93)
students posts)
8 Instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects (e.g., within 7 days) 4.45 (0.78) 4.06 (1.05) 4.32 (0.89) 4.32 (0.83)
9 Instructor's feedback using various modalities (e.g., text, audio, video, and visuals) on assignments/ 4.02 (1.00) 3.94 (1.01) 4.02 (0.91) 4.04 (0.96)
projects
10 Instructors personal response to student reflections (e.g., via journals to questions on benefits/ 4.30 (0.84) 4.27 (0.87) 4.28 (0.81) 4.22 (0.91)
challenges)
11 Instructors use of various features in synchronous sessions to interact with students (e.g., polls, 3.96 (0.96) 3.85 (1.02) 3.96 (0.98) 3.87 (0.96)
emoticons, whiteboard, text, or audio and video chat)
12 Interactive visual syllabi of the course (e.g., includes visual of the instructor and other interactive 3.86 (0.99) 3.73 (1.09) 3.79 (1.00) 3.77 (0.98)
components)

Table 3 Table 5
Descriptive statistics on helpfulness of facilitation strategies for participants by gender, Relationships between latent constructs, age, and number of online courses taken.
status, and discipline.
Connection Engagement Learning Age Courses
Presence Connection Engagement Learning
⁎⁎ ⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) Presence 0.72 0.79 0.73 0.11 0.03
Connection 0.78⁎⁎ 0.75⁎⁎ 0.05 0.02
Female 4.25 (0.55) 4.08 (0.71) 4.08 (0.68) 4.06 (0.72) Engagement 0.85⁎⁎ 0.10 −0.02
Male 4.20 (0.56) 3.97 (0.74) 4.14 (0.61) 4.01 (0.65) Learning 0.07 −0.04
Undergraduate 4.05 (0.61) 3.89 (0.81) 3.88 (0.79) 3.81 (0.78) Age 0.32⁎⁎
Master 4.27 (0.57) 4.02 (0.79) 4.11 (0.65) 4.07 (0.70)
Doctorate 4.30 (0.42) 4.12 (0.48) 4.21 (0.51) 4.12 (0.59) ⁎⁎
p < .01.
Other 4.37 (0.51) 4.26 (0.60) 4.30 (0.57) 4.29 (0.60)
Education 4.29 (0.49) 4.06 (0.71) 4.13 (0.60) 4.08 (0.67)
Table 6
Non-Education 4.15 (0.63) 4.01 (0.74) 4.05 (0.75) 4.00 (0.74)
Helpful instructor facilitation strategies reported by students (n = 188).

Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.

Survey categories Frequency Percentage

timely response to questions” to “instructor timely feedback on as- Learning

signment projects” for the measurement model of learning because Additional resources & examples 16 8.51
Clear expectations 10 5.32
these paths are reasonable and improve the goodness of fit the models.
Instructional videos 9 4.79
Table 5 shows that correlation coefficients between the four di- Instructor connection
mensions of faculty facilitation strategies seem to be extremely high Synchronous meetings 13 6.91
(ranged from 0.72 to 0.85), which suggests that these four dimensions Question and answer sessions 4 2.13
might be just one construct. Engagement
Moderated discussion 12 6.38
Peer feedback 5 2.66
Instructor presence
3.7. Open-ended comments Narrated powerpoints 10 5.32
Sharing personal experiences 4 2.13
3.7.1. Helpful instructor facilitation strategies
In addition to facilitation strategies listed on the survey, students Note. Participants may have mentioned multiple strategies.
reported other strategies that they found helpful by responding to the
open-ended survey (see Table 6). Students noted the availability of in learning the course content. For example, one student wrote, “pro-
additional resources and examples (n = 16), clear expectations viding additional resources and examples that we can choose to look at
(n = 10), and integration of instructional videos (n = 9) to be beneficial if we are not understanding a certain topic/concept seems to be really

Table 4
Goodness of fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis for each dimension.

n χ2 df Ratio NFI NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA 90%LL 90%UL

Presence 172 141.83 47 3.02 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.13
Connection 167 196.99 48 4.10 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.15
Engagement 163 216.76 47 4.61 0.91 0.90 0.93 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.17
Learning 162 177.79 46 3.87 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.14

Note. NFI = Normed Fit Index, NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation.

61
F. Martin et al.
Table 7
Least helpful instructor facilitation strategies reported by students (n = 188).
Survey categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Group work 7 3.72
Forced interaction in discussion 6 3.19
Timed quizzes 4 2.13
Social forums 4 2.13
Unclear grading rubrics 2 1.06
Note. Participants may have mentioned multiple strategies.
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 during
semester provide an opportunity to communicate with the instructor
and 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 own
personal experiences on subjects we are learning about. I can connect so
much more with anecdotes and real life experiences, and it helps the
content really click for me.”
3.7.2. Least helpful instructor facilitation strategies
Students noted a few strategies that were least helpful to them in
their online courses (see Table 7). Open-ended survey data revealed
that 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 my
schedule 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 to
get through without learning,” social forums (n = 4) “were not used
and did not seem to be necessary,” and grading rubrics (n = 2) were
unclear and “did not provide helpful feedback or any ideas of how to
improve.”
4. Discussion
The facilitation strategies that were rated the highest and lowest by
the students are being discussed in this section along with the strategies
listed 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 facilitation
Students perceived instructor's timely response to questions and
instructors timely feedback on assignments/projects as the most helpful
facilitation 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 and
instructor responding to email questions promptly as the most im-
portant for online student success. These results suggest that online
students generally perceive instructor's timely responses and feedback
helpful in establishing instructor presence, encouraging them to be-
come more engaged in their courses, and leading them to higher levels
of learning. King (2014) explained such interpretation that students
perceive thorough and timely instructor feedback on their work as most
valuable because it helps them make improvements in their learning
process.
62
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
4.1.2. Video based introduction
Video based Introduction was found to help in building instructor
connection. This finding support Jones et al. (2008) study that found
that students benefited from the introduction video as it helped form a
relationship with the instructor from the start of the course. These re-
sults indicate the importance of using video based introductions to
improve perceived closeness between the students and instructor that
may lead to better academic achievement.
4.1.3. Instructors response to student reflections
Students 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 between
the learner and instructor (Black, Sileo, & Prater, 2000) and to promote
involvement in the learning process (Johnson, 2010). These findings
demonstrate that instructors' response to students' reflections are im-
portant in facilitating more closeness and reducing perceived distance
between 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 session
Although 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 not
perceive instructors use of various technology features in synchronous
sessions to interact with students helpful for instructor presence and
instructor connection. Park and Bonk (2007) found that the students
viewed time constraints, lack of reflection, language barriers, tool-re-
lated problems, and peers' network connection problems as challenges
impacting successful synchronous learning. Our study did not show that
students view the various features of synchronous technology was
helpful. Carabajal, LaPointe, and Gunawardena (2003) noted that the
communication 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 synchronous
session and providing assistance during the synchronous session may
help 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 the
constructs
Although syllabus plays an important role in students' success in a
course (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, or
learning in the online course. Given the rare use of visually appealing or
engaging syllabus in online courses (Richards, 2003), it may be just
likely that most of the students did not use an interactive syllabus in
their online courses. Another reason may be that the students did not
find the visual syllabus meaningful or relevant to their learning.
Grigorovici, Nam, and Russill (2003) argue that the relatedness of the
hyperlinks and the type of tasks users pursue are more important than
the amount of interactivity. This suggests that online instructors should
use interactive visual syllabus that is learner centered with hyperlinks
and visuals that help the students find answers to all their questions
about expectations and other class information easily.
4.3. Demographics
In terms of student demographic (e.g., age, gender, status, and
discipline), statistically significant differences were noted with respect
to status on student perceptions about engagement and learning.
Results revealed that undergraduate students rated lower on
F. Martin et al.
engagement and learning in comparison to post-doctoral students.
These findings are comparable to Richardson and Swan (2003) findings
that age is not related to students' perception of social presence in on-
line courses. This suggest that novice online students may require more
interaction and support from instructors to improve their engagement
and learning in online courses.
4.4. Open-ended comments
Open-ended survey responses further revealed facilitation strategies
that 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 connection
with the instructor; moderated discussions helped facilitate active en-
gagement in the course; and providing additional resources and setting
clear expectations were beneficial in student learning. These findings
are supported by Swan's (2001) conclusions that instructor's clear and
consistent course structure, frequently and constructive interaction
with students, and active discussions contribute to the success of online
courses.
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 on
what facilitation strategies to include in the design and facilitation of
their online course and 3) administrators who can provide support for
instructors to effectively facilitate online courses.
Instructors' facilitation is crucial especially timely response to
questions and timely feedback on assignments in establishing instructor
presence, encouraging students to become more engaged in their
courses, and leading them to higher levels of learning. In this regard,
online instructors can use different ways to communicate with their
students. For example, they can set up a discussion forum specifically to
answer general questions about the course or syllabus and should
monitor that forum once or twice a day to respond to student questions
as needed. This can be an efficient way to answer student questions and
allow 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 times
may 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
63
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
consuming for instructors, they can use creative strategies to make sure
they will be able to provide quick feedback. One of the ways is to de-
velop a resource of common questions and problems and responses over
time. These collected comments can be used faster than writing a new
one each time.
The results of this study suggests the importance of facilitation
strategies in online learning. It is important for the instructor not only
to design the course, but be actively engaged in facilitating the course
during 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 online
courses. This study also adds to the research literature and assists other
researchers in building on facilitation strategies for online learning.
5.2. Limitations and future research
There were some methodological limitations in this study. First, the
sample size as relatively small, and the sample was drawn from a
limited 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 have
an exact number of participating institutions and this is a limitation of
this study. Second, all data were self-reported due to the nature of the
study. 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 should
interpret 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 to
respond to the survey, so the data do not represent all higher education
students in online education. Students who chose to answer the ques-
tions might be different from those who chose not to answer the
questions. Of those 188 who answered the questions, 16–26 students
missed at least half of the 12 items. The missing pattern was checked
with 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 with
missing values. For the rest of the cases, missing values were replaced
with multiple imputation (regression method).
Future researchers could examine additional facilitation strategies
that 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 student
perceptions. 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.
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 practice
of online learning. 2. Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15–44).
Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and
social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. The Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 5, 435–447.
Author, A., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who and
how? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210.
Badiee, F., & Kaufman, D. (2014). Effectiveness of an online simulation for teacher
education. 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, and
university students' changing perceptions. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4), 71–89.
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through
asynchronous 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: Enhancing
the fit between online students and course design. Journal of Educational Computing
64
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
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 Open
and 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 IDEA
Center. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/research-and-papers/idea-papers/.
D'Alba, O. A. (2014). A case study of student instructor connectedness in an asynchronous
modular online environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Atlanta: Georgia State
University.
Dennen, V. P. (2011). Facilitator presence and identity in online discourse: Use of posi-
tioning theory as an analytic framework. Instructional Science: An International Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 39(4), 527–541.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process (Revised ed.). Boston: D. C. Heath.
Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The influence of instructor-generated
video content on student satisfaction with and engagement in asynchronous online
classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 240.
Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. Handbook
of 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.
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 Higher
Education, 2(2–3), 1–19.
Griffiths, M. E., & Graham, C. R. (2009). The potential of asynchronous video in online
education. Distance Learning, 6, 13–23.
Grigorovici, D., Nam, S., & Russill, C. (2003). The effects of online syllabus interactivity
on 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 structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55.
Huang, S. (2000). A quantitative analysis of audiotaped and written feedback produced for
students writing and student perceptions of the two feedback methods. (ERIC document
reproductive service no. ED448604).
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to
enhance teaching presence and Students' sense of community. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.
Johnson, B.. The benefits of critical reflection and critical thinking. (2010). Retrieved from
http://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 in
hybrid and online courses. Learning Solutions. Retrieved from learningsolutionsmag.
com (March 26, 2014) .
Kelly, R. (2014). Five things online students want from faculty. Faculty focus. Retrieved
from 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 to
support 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 and
Distance Learning, 5(1).
Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model
for 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 electronic
audio feedback compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 35(7), 759–769.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in
covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological
Bulletin, 111, 490–504.
Mandernach, B. J., Gonzales, R. M., & Garrett, A. L. (2006). An examination of online
instructor presence via threaded discussion participation. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 2(4), 248–260.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on
hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralizing 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 in
online 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
65
The Internet and Higher Education 37 (2018) 52–65
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. Retrieved
from 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 disciplinary
context. 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 Interactive
Online Learning, 6(3), 245–264.
Phirangee, K., Demmans Epp, C., & Hewitt, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between
facilitation 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's
success 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 to
learning. 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 learning
environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
16(3).
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation
to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
Riva, G., Davide, F., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2003). Being there: The experience of presence
in mediated environments. Being there: Concepts, effects and measurements of user
presence in synthetic environments (pp. 3–16). .
Rose, K. K. (2009). Student perceptions of the use of instructor-made videos in online and
face-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 for
help? An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers'
social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(3), 528.
Sanford, D. M., Ross, D. N., Rosenbloom, A., Singer, D., & Luchsinger, V. (2014). The role
of the business major in student perceptions of learning and satisfaction with course
format. 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 of
learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet
and 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 student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics
class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and
perceived 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. International
handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 447–472). Netherlands: Springer.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American
Journal 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.