See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225441192

Using Technology to Enhance Higher Education

Article in Innovative Higher Education · June 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s10755-010-9167-3

CITATIONS READS

100 4,487

2 authors:

Sue Renes Anthony Thomas Strange

University of Alaska Fairbanks University of Alaska System
23 PUBLICATIONS 270 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 109 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sue Renes on 23 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innov High Educ
DOI 10.1007/s10755-010-9167-3

Using Technology to Enhance Higher Education

Susan L. Renes & Anthony T. Strange

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Whether our students are sitting in the room with us as we teach, sitting in their
home listening, participating by video-conference, or answering discussion questions on an
online platform, technology can play a pivotal role in student learning. In this article we
discuss technology in higher education, specifically its role in hybrid or online formats. As
Renard (2005) so eloquently stated, "No generation has ever had to wait so little time for so
much information" (p. 44). Presented here is a discussion of the types of students who
benefit from distance learning, the factors that prompt instructors to engage in distance
learning, and what instructors should know about distance education before they begin
teaching with this kind of delivery.

Key words Technology . Distance Learning . Higher Education

Technology has forever changed the face of higher education (Appana 2008; Dykman and
Davis 2008a; Ellis et al. 2009; Owens et al. 2009; Ozdemir and Abrevaya 2007; Salinas
2008; Zhao et al. 2009). Higher education, which was once dominated by an exchange

Susan L. Renes is Assistant Professor in the Counseling Department of the School of Education at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, and she and Dr. Strange share an interest in distance education. Dr. Renes
received her Ph.D. from Capella University.

Anthony T. Strange is Associate Professor in the Counseling Department of the School of Education at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. Dr. Strange received his Ed.D. from the University of Southern California.

S. L. Renes (*) : A. T. Strange

School of Education, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 756480, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-6480,
USA
e-mail: slrenes@alaska.edu
A. T. Strange
e-mail: atstrange@alaska.edu
 Innov High Educ

between the instructor and the students in a classroom, has expanded to include a variety of
delivery systems. Classroom interactions now occur during more than just face-to-face
meetings. Audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, Internet calling services, and learning
platforms such as Blackboard or WebCT are often where class is held. E-mail, instant
messaging, and text messaging are all additional options for communicating with students
who are often well versed in these communication formats (Keramidas et al. 2007). With
these options now available, we ask if higher education is really benefiting from these new
technological formats?

Who benefits, what students are using distance education?

Technology has removed the limitations of time and space (Ke and Xie 2009; Lawson
2007), and the number of students who can "attend" a college class has increased
dramatically. Over 3.2 million students took at least one online class during the fall term of
2005 (Ozdemir and Abrevaya 2007). According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2008), "In the 2006-07 academic year, 66 percent of the 4,160 2-year and 4-year
Title IV degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the nation offered college-level
distance education courses" (para. 1).
Students who were previously eliminated from college instruction due to their inability
physically to sit in the classroom are now fully able to participate in higher education. In a
recent study the National Center for Education Statistics (2008) used the following
definition for distance education:
Distance education was defined as a formal educational process in which the
instructor and the student are not in the same location. Thus, instruction might be
synchronous or asynchronous, and it may involve communication through the use of
video, audio, or computer technologies, or by correspondence (which may include
both written correspondence and the use of technology such as CD-ROM)…Hybrid/
blended online courses were defined as a combination of online and in-class
instruction with reduced in-class seat time for students. (para. 1)
The students taking advantage of educational opportunities made available by new
technology include (a) students with physical disabilities (Crow 2008; McNab 2005;
Musick 2001; Spaniol et al. 2006), (b) students in rural areas who would find it difficult to
relocate (Chaney et al. 2008; Majeski and Stover 2007; Owens et al. 2009; Ozdemir and
Abrevaya 2007), (c) parents with children who find it difficult to leave the home (Carnevale
2002; Ke and Xie 2009), (d) military personnel serving their country in remote locations
(McMurry 2007), (e) students working full time who have no flexibility in their schedule
(Talbert 2009), and (f) urban students who find it easier to time-shift rather than space-shift
(Whitaker 2007; Zhao et al. 2009).
Students who have done well in online or hybrid formats include (a) adult learners
(Cercone 2008), (b) self-directed learners (Salinas 2008), (c) students living in rural areas
(Appana 2008; Chaney et al. 2008), (d) learners who understand and value the concept of
interdependence in learning (Smith et al. 2005), (e) students who need to remain employed
and require the flexibility to do so (Appana 2008), and (f) students who are desperately
needed by their communities but want additional training (Chaney et al. 2008;
Southernwood 2008).
Hybrid classes combine face-to-face learning and online learning (Vaughn 2007);
typically, some of the time spent in the classroom is reduced but is not eliminated. Owens et
Innov High Educ

al. (2009) studied the experiences of current and former distance students located in remote
areas in Australia. The authors interviewed 49 non-indigenous graduate and undergraduate
students who had completed distance education courses between 2003 and 2007. Following
thematic analysis, three areas emerged as significant: (a) students often experienced a sense
of isolation, (b) students were affected by the attitudes and knowledge of the teaching staff,
and (c) students needed an understanding of and ability to use the required technology. The
main theme was the amount and quality of interaction between the student and the
institution. Frequent communication with caring and supportive individuals helped deter
feelings of isolation while the perception of being treated differently, and not as well, as the
students on campus undermined their distance learning experience. These conclusions
parallel what other studies have shown (e.g., Ravoi and Barnum 2003).
A group of students well suited for education in these new formats are digital natives
(Keramidas et al. 2007), which is a term for individuals who have grown up around
technology, appear comfortable with it, and benefit from what it has to offer. Digital natives
are often taking courses from digital immigrants, instructors who did not grow up around
technology and who often struggle with adapting their teaching to the available formats.
Using technology to assist in learning is not a foreign concept to digital natives and other
students well versed in technology, as they do not view it as separate from their own lives
or their own identities. They see technology as a natural extension of themselves (Schrader
2008). With their cognitive engagement so immersed in technology, they find learning
about, from, and with technology an obvious choice for higher education. As more and
more students are entering higher education as digital natives, future research involving
course design in distance education should consider their learning preferences. More
familiarity with the student audience and carefully considering the student perspective when
designing courses will likely improve student learning (Shattuck 2008).
Some students benefit from learning with technology as Multi-Use Virtual Environments
(MUVEs) formats become more available in college courses (Lamb and Johnson 2009;
Walker and Rockinson-Szapkiw 2009; Wang and Hsu 2009; Waters 2009). The MUVE
formats, such as Second Life, allow students to watch a Shakespearean play, recreate an
historical site, conduct a counseling session, and visit foreign countries. While MUVEs are
not without problems, they do offer possibilities for higher education that were previously
difficult to imagine.
International collaboration among students can occur in online formats more easily than
when students are only meeting in one classroom (Appana 2008). With new opportunities
come new caveats. The instructor in any classroom that includes an international
community must remember that the instruction is coming from one culture and might not
follow the norms of other cultures (Keengwe et al 2009; Moore 2006). Questions asked
from a western perspective might not be relevant to students living in different
environments. It is paramount to understand that it is easy to practice electronic colonialism
(Boshier et al. 1998), a term that describes clumsily imposing western values on students
from other cultures through distance education.

Why is this new form of higher education so appealing now?

The appeal of distance learning in its various forms goes beyond just increasing access to
higher education by eliminating barriers of time and space. New delivery systems provide
an opportunity to tap into more national and international markets than the traditional
classroom and offer the possibility of sustaining programs that are currently struggling with
 Innov High Educ

low numbers (Appana 2008; Chaney et al. 2008; Ellis et al. 2009). Distance education
allows land-grant universities an expanded opportunity to fulfill their mission to educate the
citizens of the state and to increase revenue (Ozdemir and Abrevaya 2007). Some
universities, e.g., Columbia University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University,
Oxford, and the University of Maryland, currently offer master's programs that have no on-
campus requirements (Dykman and Davis 2008b; Ozdemir and Abrevaya 2007).
One reason institutions are increasing their distance education opportunities is that
students are requesting it (Appana 2008; Moore 2008). Students want the flexibility that
distance delivery offers, allowing them to combine work and school demands. Ke and Xie
(2009) looked at the learning performance of students participating in online courses. Fifty-
one students aged 24-59, majoring in nursing, business, or education and enrolled in ten
online courses participated in the mixed method study. All of the study’s participants
attended an American research university and were taught by instructors who had an
average of five years of online teaching experience. All participants, regardless of age,
demonstrated a high level of satisfaction with online learning although the older students
adopted a more comprehensive approach to learning compared to the younger students. The
study’s findings also showed that for adult students, organized course content with student
support facilitated shared knowledge construction and student satisfaction.
Continuing education using a distance format is appealing to employers who can reduce
training costs, increase productivity with less time spent away from the office, and increase
the professional development options for their employees (Appana 2008). Employees
needing to move into new areas as their careers develop can do so more easily when
obtaining a professional certificate, and now a college degree is possible entirely or at least
partially online (Dykman and Davis 2008b).
Zhang et al. (2004) reported that remote learners often outperform students in traditional
settings when an online learning environment emphasizes learner-centered activities and
social presence. When instructors perceive technology as a tool in assisting higher
education to fulfill its role in society by overcoming the barriers of space and time and not
as a threat to the status quo, it is more likely to be adopted by both faculty and students
(Ellis et al. 2009).

When do instructors decide to consider distance learning in higher education?

Despite the high number of students already involved in distance learning in some form,
instructors in higher education often hesitate to embrace any form of distance education
(Nicolle and Lou 2008; Salinas 2008; Tabata and Johnsrud 2008; Vaughn 2007). What is it
that convinces resistant faculty to make the shift and view learning as viable in a different
format?
Vaughn (2007) referred to any change in postsecondary education as analogous to the
"turning of the Titanic" (p. 91). Rogers (1995), a theorist and writer on the subject of how
members of social systems adopt innovations, used specific labels to describe the adoption
of new technology. "Innovators" and "early adopters" are those who initiate the use of new
technology while "early majority" and "late majority" adopters need an introduction to the
innovation and compelling evidence that shows how it will address an immediate need.
"Laggards" are those who are non-adopters. Hagner and Schneebeck (2001) interviewed
240 faculty members and identified four groups that depict the various motivations to use
technology in teaching: the entrepreneurs, risk adversives, reward seekers, and reluctants.
Hagner and Schneebeck identified the risk adversives as the largest group and described its
Innov High Educ

members as often lacking in technical expertise, afraid of new teaching environments, and
hesitant to engage in self-examination, but able to benefit from peer demonstrations
showing the effectiveness of technological innovations.
Nicolle and Lou (2008) examined factors that influence mainstream faculty members to
implement technology. Faculty from the colleges of education, arts and sciences, and basic
sciences at Research I institutions participated in the study. The results showed that peer
support along with institutional support and perceived improvement in student learning
were key influences. Faculty members appreciated an opportunity to share successes and
failures when using technology in higher education. The authors found that discussing
technological innovations and teaching and learning practices with peers during informal
lunch meetings and faculty gatherings proved more helpful than formal training by
technology staff members. Innovation diffusion theories (Rogers 1995), diffusion networks,
(Valente 1995) and Wenger's (1998) communities of practice all support Nicolle and Lou’s
findings that informal processes are often what promote the adoption of a new idea.
Tabata and Johnsrud (2008) also investigated what factors indicate a likelihood that
faculty members will participate in distance education. Full and part-time faculty, lecturers,
and graduate assistants from a research university, two baccalaureate-granting colleges, and
seven community colleges, all part of a large campus system in the western region of the
United States, were invited to participate in the study. Factors found to be associated with
the likelihood that faculty members will participate in distance education included (a)
conducting professional work with software applications; (b) using electronic resources in
professional work; (c) believing they possess technology and distance education
instructional skills; (d) believing the quality of distance instruction is the same as face-to-
face; (e) believing they have the ability to try distance education before adopting it; and,
interestingly, (f) believing that distance education is difficult but also that using
technological innovations enhances a person’s self-image.
When faculty members can see a clear personal benefit for themselves and see an
increase in learning potential for their students, they are more likely to begin using
technology and support distance education (Nicolle and Lou 2008). They use institutional
support in the form of help desks, technicians, and professional development; and they are
willing to change their teaching styles and teaching formats when they see these options as
potentially relevant to their classes. They go on to encourage others to do so (Nicolle and
Lou 2008). Harris et al. (2009) warned that incorporating technology into teaching does not
mean one should be bullied by a technocentric world. Technology in and of itself may have
curb appeal; but content, context, and pedagogy must be equal partners with technology
when designing and teaching in new teaching formats.

What should faculty know when considering technology and distance education?

Fortunately, technology in any educational format is not the concern it once was (Appana
2008). Distance education, in particular, no longer suffers from the instability and
unreliability that were often the earlier, frustrating realities of the technologies needed for
this format. Now, the human factor rather than the technology is often the limiting factor for
distance education. What does an instructor need to do to make a successful transition to
teaching in a distance format?
First, one must consider the institution's commitment and capabilities; the students'
needs, capabilities, and access; and the instructor's skills (Keramidas et al. 2007; Zhao et al.
2009). If there is a market in the student population for learning in new formats, the
 Innov High Educ

institution and department's commitment to these learning formats and the support to help
instructors use the formats have to be the first considerations. If a professor is excited about
offering a course in a new format but the institutional or the technological support is not
there, the course can be difficult to launch. If the institution and the technology support are
available, the best-developed course will still go nowhere if it requires bandwidth or other
computer requirements that are not available to many of the students wanting the course
(Appana 2008). To avoid these initial pitfalls, faculty members must become familiar with
the level of institutional and technological support available to them and with the degree of
student access. These elements will define the limitations of their efforts and direct what
can be done and how it can be done. When these limitations are understood and the
opportunity to teach in a new format is available, course development can begin.
When moving to a distance format, an instructor cannot simply replicate what is done in
a traditional classroom (Chaney et al. 2008; Dykman and Davis 2008c; Keramidas et al.
2007; Tallent-Runnells et al. 2006; Vaughn 2007; Zhao et al. 2009). When designing a
distance course, two separate components that interact with each other in course delivery
must be considered: instructional design and technical design (Ellis et al. 2009; Harris et al.
2009; Keramidas et al. 2007.). Instructional design includes the strategies used to teach
content and assess comprehension. Both pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge
are required for effective instructional design. Technical design includes such things as
screen layouts and display menus, but also includes selecting how content will be
presented. The collaboration between instructional design and technical design, when not
done effectively, will constrain rather than support the course design. For some instructors,
this new collaboration between instructional design and technical design seems daunting,
but for others it opens up new and exciting possibilities. The online environment actually
offers new ways to deliver course content that could improve comprehension and learning
for some students.

What are the points to consider when developing a distance education course?

Developing a distance course generally takes more time than developing a face-to-face
course (Appana 2008; Crawley et al. 2009; Dykman and Davis 2008b; Keramidas et al.
2007; Zhao et al. 2009), and it is best to prepare as much of the course ahead of time as is
possible (Vaughn 2007). When left until the last minute, most instructors will try to
replicate what was done in a traditional class setting, yielding an unsatisfactory result
(Dykman and Davis 2008c). A well-designed course will help cultivate a connection with
students that will influence learning and retention of course material. Dykman and Davis
(2008c) suggested that instructors should master the software and hardware needed to teach
a distance course and learn as much as possible about teaching in the distance environment
before any actual teaching begins. Just as an instructor would not attempt to teach a course
with no knowledge of the subject, instructors teaching in a distance format need to
understand the technology and the format they will use in their instruction. Continued use
of technology and continued practice teaching in a distance format usually improves an
instructor's ability to incorporate the technology and become comfortable with the distance
format.
It is best to standardize the look and feel of the distance courses offered in a program
(Dykman and Davis 2008a; Keramidas et al. 2007). A student's time when beginning a
course and the stress level while taking a course is reduced if every course offered in a
program, or at least every course taught by a particular instructor, has a similar appearance.
Innov High Educ

The appearance and location of syllabi, the course assignments, and the learning modules
are examples of course components that should look the same. Providing clear expectations
regarding student performance (Dykman and Davis 2008b; Keramidas et al. 2007), posting
rubrics that show the grading criteria, posting the syllabus before class begins, and posting a
document describing faculty expectations all go a long way toward answering students'
questions and keeping the course on track. Once class has started, changing assignments or
changing the course format will likely create problems. With students not regularly meeting
face-to-face to ask questions regarding a change, the ensuing confusion becomes stressful
for the student and the instructor. Thus, it is best to keep to the assignments posted and keep
the course format the same during the duration of the class.
Tallent-Runnells et al. (2006) and Ke and Xie (2009) found that well designed and well-
implemented programs are significant factors in promoting student learning and student
satisfaction. While developing a distance course likely takes more time than does a face-to-
face course, there might not be compensation for this additional time (Keramidas et al.
2007). Instructors need to advocate for adequate compensation for the time that will be
spent in developing a distance course. Administrators also must assume responsibility when
looking to increase distance education options for students. Administrators need to clearly
delineate what financial compensation will be granted for developing distance courses and
what promotion and tenure considerations will be given for faculty who have developed or
taught distance courses.
Quality Matters [QM] (2006) is a project originally funded by the Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), and it helps colleges and universities
produce quality online programs. The organization offers a peer-review evaluation process
designed for certifying the quality of online and blended courses. QM has received national
recognition for its approach and its ability to improve online education and student learning.
Community and technical colleges, colleges and universities, K-12 schools and systems,
and other academic institutions have all used QM to improve their programs.

What should faculty know when developing a learning community?

Along with developing a well-designed distance course, developing a learning community

when teaching a distance course is crucial to student learning, student retention, and student
satisfaction (Exter et al. 2009; Menchaca and Bekele 2008). Exter et al. (2009) studied
learning communities in a distance education graduate program in instructional technology
located in a large, midwestern university. Analysis of interviews and survey results from the
29 students participating in the study revealed that students see a learning community as
beneficial and believe an instructor's proficiency with technology is central to fostering the
communication necessary to build a learning community. Students in the study suggested
providing opportunities for face-to-face or teleconferencing interactions during the school
year and developing a social networking web site to support the learning community.
However, the students were clear these opportunities should not be mandatory due to
distance students’ lack of time or interest or geographical constraints.
Several authors have suggested specific ways to enhance the online learning
communities. Providing a welcoming e-mail or posting sets the tone for the class. Knowing
an instructor is excited to teach the class creates excitement in the students who sign up for
the course (Majeski and Stover 2007). Creating a place in the learning platform for students
to post personal and professional information fosters a sense of community (Keramidas et
al. 2007). Along with posting their educational background and current professional
 Innov High Educ

interests, listing hobbies and personal interests and attaching a digital picture to the
introduction helps students visualize their classmates and relate to them in a more personal
way (Majeski and Stover 2007).
Instructors should also reassure students that help is available to understand the content
of the course and the various aspects of the technology required to participate in the course
(Dykman and Davis 2008b). Students learning in this format appreciate instructors who are
willing to be the point of contact until they become familiar with the institution’s resources.
There is nothing more frustrating for a student than wanting to participate in a distance
education course and then realizing the help to do so is not available (Motteram and
Forrester 2005). It also helps to provide information on how to use technology that can be
referred to again and again (podcasts, printed material, etc).
Zhao et al. (2009) and Majeski and Stover (2007) stressed the importance of frequent
communication between the student and the instructor in distance learning environments. The
communication alleviates students' concern they might be missing something and reminds them
they are not alone out in cyberspace. The distance instructor must also be willing to consistently
monitor the course room to be aware of problems that might come up (Dykman and Davis
2008b; Keramidas et al. 2007). Instructors who respond to students' concerns quickly (within
48 hours) and who are dependable, friendly, and empathic all support the success of the
distance education environment. Immediacy not only affects the learning community but also
often shows up in faculty performance ratings completed by students (Majeski and Stover
2008). When interacting with students regarding their performance, Dykman and Davis
(2008b) suggested that the instructor make a conscious effort to be both challenging and
supportive. By pointing out students’ strengths and areas for improvement, the students retain a
sense of competence while working to improve their performance in the course.
Unfortunately, mistakes can be unforgiving in an online environment (Dykman and Davis
2008b). Students who are soured by the experience due to lack of attention by the course
instructor are not likely to return. Rourke and Kanuka (2009) described the different types of
interactions that need to occur in a distance education environment to achieve the best
outcomes. A well-defined social presence (learners presenting themselves as real people),
teaching presence (appropriate instruction and support), and cognitive presence (constructing
meaning through sustained communication) all work together to promote deep and
meaningful learning. Rourke and Kanuka believe learners will leave with personal and
lasting understanding of the topics presented in the course when the environment is
supportive both intellectually and socially and when there is appropriate guidance provided
by a knowledgeable instructor. Instructors who take on the challenge of teaching in a distance
format often must serve as role models, problem solvers, and liaisons (Zhao et al. 2009).

Conclusion

Many factors contribute to resistance to using technology to promote distance education.

There are those who believe true learning can only take place in a classroom with the
instructor as the center of knowledge. However, higher education is currently being offered
to an increasing number of non-traditional students from all circumstances in life. Many can
be educated at work, at home, or during military service on a ship or returning from patrol
in Afghanistan. Colleges must support the concept of distance education with technology
and offer time and training to develop courses that meet the needs of all students. Moreover,
students need help to understand how to learn via a modality unlike traditional methods.
Traditional teaching can also benefit from what has proven effective for distance education
Innov High Educ

classes. Many of the suggestions included in this article are equally important for face-to-
face courses. Colleges, instructors, and students must continue to work to together to
improve the way education is delivered.
Technology provides us with a great opportunity to modify our approaches to teaching
and learning in beneficial ways. Expanding our knowledge and understanding of this
technology could help fulfill a student's dream of education. This is the mission of most
colleges and universities. More research focused on the characteristics and learning styles
of the student populations which are requesting and succeeding in a distance education
format and more research focused on distance education programs that have demonstrated
positive outcomes would likely support these new learning opportunities and increase the
knowledge base for the field of distance education. Never before have we had more tools
and technology to bring education to more students in so many ways.

References

Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the
instructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5–22.
Boshier, R., Wilson, M., & Qayyum, A. (1998). Lifelong education and the world wide web: American
hegemony or diverse utopia? International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 18(4), 275–285. doi:10.1080/
026013799293694
Carnevale, D. (2002, November). Distance education attracts older women who have families and jobs, study
finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(11), A33.
Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of online learners with implications for online learning design.
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(2), 137–159.
Chaney, E., Chaney, J., Eddy, J., & Stellefson, M. (2008). Making the case for distance education in the
health education and health promotion profession. International Electronic Journal of Health Education,
11(1), 5–18.
Crawley, F. E., Fewell, M. D., & Sugar, W. A. (2009). Researcher and researched: The phenomenology of
change from face-to-face to online instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 165–176.
Crow, K. L. (2008). Four types of disabilities: Their impact on online learning. TechTrends: Linking
Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(1), 51–55.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008a). Part one: The shift toward online education. Journal of Information
Systems, 19(1), 11–16.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008b). Online education forum: Part two – teaching online versus teaching
conventionally. Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 157–164.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008c). Online education forum: Part three - a quality online educational
experience. Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 281–289.
Ellis, R. A., Hughes, J., Weyers, M., & Riding, P. (2009). University teacher approaches to design and
teaching and concepts of learning technologies. Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(1), 109–117.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.010
Exter, M. E., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N. M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2009). Sense of community within a fully
online program. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 177–194.
Hagner, P. R., & Schneebeck, C. A. (2001). Engaging the faculty. In C. A. Barone & R. P. Hagner (Eds.),
Educause leadership strategies: vol 5. Technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 1–12). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge and
learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. Internet and Higher
Education, 12(1), 136–145. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Onchwari, J. (2009). Teaching and student learning: Toward a learner-centered
teaching model. AACE Journal, 17(1), 11–22.
Keramidas, C., Ludlow, B., Collins, B., & Baird, C. (2007). Saving your sanity when teaching in an online
environment: lessons learned. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(1), 28.
 Innov High Educ

Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2009). The potential, the pitfalls, and the promise of multi-user virtual
environments: Getting a second life. Teacher Librarian, 36(4), 68–72.
Lawson, N. (2007). Questions students ask about distance education. Distance Learning, 4(1), 61–65.
Majeski, R., & Stover, M. (2007). Theoretically based pedagogical strategies leading to deep earning in
asynchronous online gerontology courses. Educational Gerontology, 33(3), 171–185. doi:10.1080/
03601270600850826
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance
education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231–252. doi:10.1080/01587910802395771
McMurry, A. J. (2007). College students, the GI bill, and the proliferation of online learning and
contemporary challenges. Internet & Higher Education, 10(2), 143–150.
McNab, L. (2005). Interview: Speaking personally with Chris Dede. American Journal of Distance
Education, 19(2), 119–123.
Musick, K. (2001). Distance education: Promoting access and equity for adult learners with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Education, 15(1), 63–77.
Moore, M. G. (2006). Editorial: Questions of culture. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–5.
doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_1
Moore, M. G. (2008). What students really want. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 1–2.
doi:10.1080/08923640701713406
Motteram, G., & Forrester, G. (2005). Becoming an online distance learners: What can be learned from
students’ experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance Education, 26(3), 281–298.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2009044
Nicolle, P. S., & Lou, Y. (2008). Technology adoption into teaching and learning by mainstream university
faculty: A mixed methodology study revealing the "how, when, why, and why not. Journal of
Educational Research, 39(3), 235–265. doi:10.2190/EC.39.3.c
Owens, J., Hardcastel, L., & Richardson, B. (2009). Learning from a distance: The experience of remote
students. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 57–74.
Ozdemir, Z. D., & Abrevaya, J. (2007). Adoption of technology-mediated distance education: A longitudinal
analysis. Information & Management, 44(5), 467–479. doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.04.006
Quality Matters. (2006). What is the QM program? Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.qmprogram.org/
Ravoi, A., & Barnum, K. (2003). Online course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and
perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.
Renard, L. (2005). Teaching the DIG generation. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 44–47.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of
Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.
Salinas, M. (2008). From Dewey to Gates: A model to integrate psychoeducational principles in the selection
and use of instructional technology. Computers & Education, 50(3), 652–660. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2006.08.002
Schrader, P. G. (2008). Learning in technology: Reconceptualizing immersive environments. AACE Journal,
16(4), 457–475.
Shattuck, K. (2008). Introduction. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://www.qualitymatters.org/Rubric
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement:
Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.
Southernwood, J. (2008). Distance learning: The future of continuing professional development. Community
Practitioner: The Journal of the Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association, 81(10), 21–23.
Spaniol, M., Klamma, R., Springer, L., & Jarke, M. (2006). Aphasic communities of learning on the web.
International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(1), 31–45.
Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education,
and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625–646. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9094-7
Talbert, J. J. (2009). Distance education: One solution to the nursing shortage? Clinical Journal of Oncology
and Nursing, 13(3), 269–270.
Tallent-Runnells, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006).
Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion innovations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Vaughn, N. (2007). Perspectives in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of E-
Learning, 6(1), 81–94.
Walker, V. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2009). Educational opportunities for clinical counseling
simulations in Second Life. Innovate, 5(5), 1–6.
Innov High Educ

Wang, S., & Hsu, H. (2009). Using the ADDIE model to design second life activities for online learners. TechTrends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 76–81. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0347-x
Waters, J. K. (2009). A “Second Life” for educators. T H E Journal, 36(1), 29–34.
Wenger, E. C. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitaker, R. (2007). Teaching online in the Bronx: Local distance education. On the Horizon, 15(3), 145–
156. doi:10.1108/10748120710825031
Zhang, D., Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004). Can E-learning replace classroom learning.
Communication of the ACM, 47(5), 75–79.
Zhao, J. J., Alexander, M. W., Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Truell, A. D. (2009). Faculty and student use of
technologies, user productivity, and user preference in distance education. Journal of Education for
Business, 84(4), 206–212.

View publication stats