Facilitation and Quality in Distance Education

By: Natercia Valle and Adam Jordan

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

  • Define teaching presence, best practices, quality assurance, and performance standards in relation to distance education contexts.
  • Identify the structure of a curriculum for distance education courses that takes into consideration the role of instructors, learning community (collaboration), and quality assurance.
  • Evaluate quality assurance of distance education programs based on current standards.
  • Implement instructional strategies to facilitate meaningful learning experiences.
  • Develop customized performance standards based on distance education programs.
  • Assess overall facilitation and quality standards of distance education programs.

Introduction

Researchers, educators and stakeholders have discussed how instructors can facilitate learning so that learners can be challenged at optimal levels and receive appropriate support to construct their own knowledge (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) and achieve their learning goals. There are several theories and constructs in which this discussion could be based on; however, since the focus of this e-book is on distance education (Moore & Kearsley, 2012), we believe that performance standards, teaching presence, and best practices provide a balanced perspective on the role quality assurance, learning community, and instructors in the development and maintenance of productive learning courses.

Best Practices in Quality Assurance for Distance Education

The idea of Quality Assurance brings to mind the concept of gold-standard comparison. Essentially, quality has to do with the standard of something when compared with other things; quality assurance is therefore directed at determining the extent to which a product, or in this case a learner, meets that standard (Ogunleye, 2013). Traditional, face-to-face learning environments and those that employ distance or distributed approaches must rely on standards to guide assessment of the impact of changes in program structure and pedagogy arising from technological innovation (APA, 2002). 

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in the realm of higher education “quality assurance” is the systematic review of educational programs to ensure that acceptable standards of education, scholarship and infrastructure are being maintained.” Setting and applying standards can be quite challenging, because quality standards must simultaneously be clear enough to guide evaluation and broad enough to accommodate a variety of models and innovative approaches to training that are inherent in the distance education model.

Should we consider quality assurance approaches for distance education to be essentially similar to those used in face-to-face learning?

In 1997, The Distance Learning Policy of the Commission on Higher Education of Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools asserted that “it is the intention of the Commission on Higher Education to ensure that distance learning programs are subject to the same level and scope of scrutiny employed in more traditional settings or for conventional campus-based programs” (MSACS 1997). Distance education has certain key characteristics that require a shift in quality assurance approaches. It is our belief that the application of educational technology in the learning process in recent decades has caused a shift toward more learner-responsive, flexible systems that cannot be assessed with traditional methods. However, in order to retain a measure of comparability of quality between distance and face-to-face learning, the generally recognized, established outcomes for professional preparation must be linked to a common set of standards. Stella and Gnanam (2004) contend that the differences in faculty roles, course management strategies, library and learning resource access, provision of material in highly interactive formats that may or may not be asynchronous demand a drastically different approach to quality assurance. One such example is teacher-student ratio; however, it should be noted that despite a need to change instructional strategies, the cap on teacher-student ratio is not limitless in distance education. The more students added to a distance education section, the more responsibility the teacher has to fully engage each student at a high level and provide valuable and meaningful feedback.

Quality assurance in distance education focuses on four main domains: physical products, pedagogical processes, production and delivery systems, and philosophy of products. Physical products can include course materials, number of graduates, examination pass rates, etc. Pedagogical processes include learning and teaching processes, advising students, assessment results, networking with regional offices, and managing student information. Production and delivery systems encompass course production, print and multimedia production, assessment production, scheduling, warehousing and stock control, getting materials to students, and broadcast transmissions. Philosophy products cover such things as vision, mission and policy statements, institutional culture, governance, corporate culture, and public
Image (COL, 1997). Harvey and Green (1993) in Ogunleye (2013) identified five categories or ways of thinking about quality; key aspects of each of these categories include:

Table 1. Five Keys to Quality.

Quality Concept Definition
Exception distinctive, embodies in excellence, passing a minimum set of standards
Perfection zero defects, getting things right the first time (focus on process as opposed to inputs and outputs).
Fitness of Purpose relates quality to a purpose, defined by the provider
Value for money focus on efficiency and effectiveness, measuring outputs against inputs
Transformation a qualitative change; Includes concepts of enhancing and empowering, not simply concretely measurable outcomes.

Assessment Influence

While assessment is a key component to quality assurance, assessment must be leveraged productively to be effective. Indeed, inconsistent assessment practices are the most frequent low scoring area (at least in relation to other areas) in quality assurance subject reviews in the UK (Jonsson, 2012). Facilitation of “student outcomes and attainment is a critical aspect of institutional performance and embraces (a) establishment and insurance of rigor in standards of achievement; (b) methods of student achievement assessment and certification; and (c) comparison of student performance to established standards” (Stella & Gnanam, 2004, p.152).

Three premises need to be met to facilitate productive student use of assessment are (1) they must know what performance is aimed for, (2) they must be able to assess their performance in relation to some standard(s), and (3) they must possess some strategies to modify their performance in the light of the information provided by the comparison (Sadler, 1989). Jonsson (2012) conducted a systematic review of the literature and concluded that the transmission model of feedback, where the teacher passes on information to the student, needs to be replaced with a more active and dialogic model of feedback, where productive use of feedback is “scaffolded through a number of different means, such as the use of model answers, exemplars and explicit criteria and standards, along with workshops and group work focusing on strategies for using feedback formatively” (p.152).

Regulatory environment and institutional mission

The regulatory environment and the institutional mission can be at odds with quality assurance in distance education (Scull, Kendrick, Shearer & Offerman, 2011). External pressures include accountability and regulatory mandates to provide transparent data to a wide variety of stakeholders, from state and federal educational oversight agencies. While these agencies are founded with the intention of protecting students, many of the policies are based on antiquated, brick and mortar educational approaches that are not pertinent or applicable to the distance education environment. There are efforts underway to modernize the regulatory policies in higher education but the process is still ongoing and can create obstacles to quality assurance data collection.

The internal dimensions of quality assurance demand an understanding of quality assurance as ongoing, but also reflect the inherent benefit of the distance education environment to the quality assurance process. The advantage of technology-enabled courses over conventional face-to-face courses lies in the “tools that can be incorporated for students to demonstrate learning and the data that can be collected not only about individual student learning but also for subsequent course and program improvement” (p.140). Quality assurance is an ongoing process that must be applied to every subsequent course iteration.

Debate about outcomes and inputs as measures of institutional quality

Traditional quality indicators for brick and mortar institutions has focused on inputs: the qualifications of the faculty, students, academic resources and student services, as well as institutional funding. These indicators may not be sufficient for the purposes of distance education. Outcomes data as an indicator of instructional quality must also be considered. The two perspectives of outcomes and inputs must be balanced for the quality assurance needs to merge in frameworks that serve both external accountability requirements as well as internal needs for continuous improvement.
  
Learning analytics and data-capturing methodologies, using a variety or technology tools and course-management add-ons, have previously been used to identify at-risk students. Within the framework of student-centered learning approaches, learning analytics can also be applied in the interest of identifying student learning preferences, personalization of instructional methods, materials, and curricula for individual or small-groups of students (Johnson, Levine, Smith & Stone, 2011). Data-mining tools that have been long-used in industry are applicable in the distance education setting (Scull, Kendrick, Shearer, & Offerman, 2011). Data mining in Learning Management Systems (LMS) can provide information on how student success is related to where students spend time in the LMS as it pertains to course completion and assessment outcomes. 

The Quality Matters Rubric

The Quality Matters (QM) Rubric is a detailed, 37-page document that was developed by the nonprofit organization Quality Matters, a nonprofit organization dedicated to quality assurance in Online Education. The nonprofit organization was born from a development grant awarded to MarylandOnline by the US Department of Education in 2003; formed in 2006 at the conclusion of the grant, they became self-sustaining in 2014 (Shattuck, 2015). In addition to providing and updating the best practices rubric in the evidence base pertaining to Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Quality Matters also houses the QM Instructional Designer’s Association and is responsible for providing continuing education and facilitating research collaboration. Below is a list of standards available; the entire rubric is available for a subscription fee to Quality Matters.

As an additional benefit in scalability for institutional efforts for quality assurance in distance education, Quality Matters provides a peer-review process of course design involving teams of three experienced online instructors who have completed QM professional development before being designated as a QM Peer Reviewer. Teams are assigned to conduct course design review from a student’s perspective. The team includes a subject-matter expert (SME), an external reviewer, and a more experienced Master Reviewer (MR) who has had additional training and chairs the team.

Teaching Presence

Community of Inquiry

Let us first begin with the concept of Community of Inquiry (CoI). This is important because teaching presence is one of its constructs. A learning environment where instructors and learners can discuss expectations, negotiate meanings related to course content and ask questions, supports the development of a community of inquiry (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008) and helps learners to improve their perceptions of “teacher’s presence” (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010), which, in turn, contributes to their self-efficacy and learning. For more details on the CoI construct, please refer to chapter 2.

Teaching Presence Components

Teaching presence, in the context of the CoI framework, is defined by Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer (2001, p.05) as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes”. As aforementioned, teaching-, social-, and cognitive-presence are constructs within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model, which is a framework that has been explored and tested (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010), demonstrating causal relationships between teaching and social presence, and the perceived influence on cognitive presence.

Community of Inquiry modelFigure 1. Community of Inquiry (CoI).


As shown in Figure 1, these constructs represent the aspects that educators must consider in online and blended learning environments to enhance learners’ engagement through collaborative work and knowledge construction (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). Because online learning is within the scope of distance education, the CoI framework can definitely benefit learners in distance education contexts. Therefore, stakeholders responsible for the design of instructional materials and curriculum for distance education courses have to take the concept of teaching presence seriously in order to produce successful learning experiences.

Shea and Bidjerano (2010) argue that students in blended courses perceive higher rates of teaching presence than those in fully online courses. If that is the case, what can instructors do to improve the perception of teaching presence among students? How could this approach create optimal conditions for the development of a positive relationship between students’ perception of teaching presence and self-efficacy? Please remember that self-efficacy perception leads to the self-regulation students need to succeed in their learning journey (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). In order to answer these questions, we will discuss the tool developed by Anderson, Liam, Garrison and Archer (2001) to evaluate and measure teaching presence in an online learning environment.

The categories used by Anderson et al. (2001) in their parameters to evaluate teaching presence are based on activities that have been carried out by teachers since the one-room schoolhouse era (Anderson et al., 2001), which includes the designing and administration of the instruction, assessment of learning performance, mediation of communication among learners, and presentation of the learning materials.

Although these activities have not changed in their substance, in the online environment, they become more challenging for instructors because, first, it is not as evident (observable) that instructors are actually conducting all these instructional-related tasks; and, second, it is harder for them to facilitate active learning by co-creating the social environment (social presence) it requires (Anderson et al. (2001). This is particularly true at this point in history, where the roles of instructors and learners have to be defined and redefined within the context of online learning environments as those roles are less predefined than in face-to-face learning environments (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, based on these traditional tasks, the authors defined the following categories to represent how different aspects of the learning environment can contribute to learners’ perception of teaching presence: Instructional Design and Organization, Facilitating Discourse, Direct Instruction. These categories may serve as guidelines for what instructors and stakeholders have to pay attention to in order to create successful learning communities (Shea, Swan & Pickett, 2005).

Instructional Design and Organization

According to Anderson et al. (2001), Instructional Design and Organization encompasses elements related to planning in platforms that must be accessible to different stakeholders (e.g., students, administrators, visitors, etc.); furthermore, the types of activities (e.g. group and individual), deadlines, proper communication etiquette (netiquette) and use of media are also included in this category. If all of these elements are well arranged and implemented, learners are more likely to perceive the consistency of the learning environment, this perception can also be enhanced by macro-level comments, which can motivate and guide learners Anderson et al. (2001). The authors also provide some indicators to explain the Instructional Design and Organization category:

  • Setting curriculum 
  • Designing methods 
  • Establishing time parameters 
  • Utilizing the medium effectively 
  • Establishing “netiquette”

Facilitating Discourse

Anderson et al. (2001) argue that instructors’ task of Facilitating Discourse is an essential component in active learning to maintain learners’ interest, motivation and engagement. They provide examples of how instructors can facilitate discourse in online learning environments such as reading and commenting learners’ postings. The authors also emphasize the important role of instructors in a Community of Inquiry (COI) and how it creates greater responsibilities in terms of modeling proper behaviors and managing learners’ comments and behaviors to ensure positive interactions and participation among members of the learning community. Another critical factor involved in this category is the management of academic conflict. This is not to say that conflicts should be avoided altogether as it is also part of the learning process where individuals may have their beliefs challenged by the course material or by other members of the learning community. Thus, in these circumstances the role of the instructor in facilitating the discourse also involves stimulating discussions around a topic and identifying mutual agreement, all of which help in the development of COIs (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008).  Here is a list of the indicators organized by Anderson et al. (2001) to evaluate the Facilitating Discourse category:

  • Identifying areas of agreement and disagreement 

  • Seeking to reach consensus and understanding 

  • Encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions 

  • Setting the climate for learning 

  • Drawing in participants, prompting discussion 

  • Assessing the efficacy of the process

Direct Instruction

The Direct Instruction category is related to the role of instructors as subject-matter experts (SME), which allows them to model scholarship and share knowledge with learners (Anderson et al., 2001). Anderson et al. (2001) mention Vygotsky’s scaffolding analogies and explain how peer collaboration can contribute to social cognition models where the more knowledgeable other (e.g., adult, expert, etc.) can scaffold information for novice learners. The authors also contend the notion that minimal subject level competency can generate high-quality professional education – on the contrary, competency levels surely affect the quality of instruction. They argue that there are some types of knowledge and skills that require that instructors provide extra resources, clarifications and critical discourse in ways that are meaningful to learners, which can be easily accomplished by experts, who have the knowledge and experience to develop mentorship beyond simple sharing of information deepening the levels of learning to construction, application and integration of knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001). 

Another important reason to emphasize the importance of expertise to enhance learning outcomes relates to the identification and clarification of misconceptions. Instructors’ skills and experience may also determine their ability to identify misconceptions and misunderstanding and to offer adequate support in terms of extra educational resources for learners struggling with a given concept. Anderson et al. (2001) conclude their discussion on this category by describing more technical tasks instructors have to deal with such as helping learners navigate the learning environment and use other tools. This can be particularly detrimental for instructors’ schedules as they may use a great amount of their time in areas that do not use their unique skills, allocating resources that would otherwise be used to enhance learners understanding of the subject matter. Here are the indicators used by Anderson et al. (2001) to assess the direct instruction category:

  • Presenting content and questions 

  • Focusing the discussion on specific issues 

  • Summarizing discussion
  • Confirming understanding through assessment and feedback
  • 
Diagnosing misperceptions 

  • Injecting knowledge from diverse sources 

  • Responding to technical concerns

Teaching Presence and Quality Standard for Distance Education

Now that we have discussed what teaching presence is and how it can be measured and assessed through the tool developed by Anderson et al. (2001), it is also important to discuss what other elements are available to evaluate teaching presence. Although these instruments will be further discussed in the section “Best Practices in Quality Assurance for Distance Education”, here we will highlight only the key elements that relate to the teaching presence construct.

The iNACOL National Standards for Quality Online Courses document (Bakken & Bridges, 2011) was developed to support educators in the k-12 context, it offers important guidelines for online courses in general as it presents principles and examples that are also relevant to online courses in higher education and corporations. The table below outlines some of its sections and how its key features could be used to assess teaching presence in distance education:

Table 2: Based on the iNACOL National Standards for Quality Online Courses.

iNACOL Sections

(International Association
for K-12 Online Learning)

 Key Features Teaching Presence
Content Authors state how important are the objectives and goals of organizing the content as well as the importance of providing multiple resources for students prior to the beginning of the course. These clearly related to the planning stage of the instruction – Instructional Design and Organization category.
Instructional Design They mention needs’ assessment, learning, and learners’ context assessment as well as course evaluation without resorting to confusing terminology. It also deals with the planning stage; however, it could be expanded to include other stakeholders with whom instructors have to communicate, including information technology staff and designers.  It could also be improved in terms of discussing the role of subject matter experts.
Student Assessment They assert that there must be at least two ways to evaluate students’ learning. This is an important feature to observe and it is coherent with the fact that people learn and demonstrate learning in different ways. This represents the Direct Instruction category where instructors have the opportunity to identify misconceptions and misunderstanding.
Technology They discuss the importance of communicating technology and skills requirements as well as copyright and licensing aspects. This section related to two categories:  Instructional Design and Organization & Direct Instruction
Course Evaluation and Support They describe summative and formative evaluation (Moore & Kearsley, 2012) in a clear manner without over-relying in technical terminology. Depending on how this course evaluation is conducted, instructors will have the opportunity to revise areas within the 3 categories of the teaching presence construct.

Performance Standards

Definition

Performance standards represent the level of engagement of the instructor with the course and the level between the instructor with his or her learners. Performance standards are heavily influential on the success of the class. However, it is important to realize that “some evaluation based on defined learning objectives measure students’ achievements after the course to find out what the performance standard is for each objective” (Holmberg, 2005, p. 188). We take a closer look at the specific topics that play an important role in the facilitation and evaluation of a distance education program.

Another consideration that pertains to performance standards is its interplay with academic freedom. We recognize that academic freedom is a crucial part of how the instructor approaches his or her curriculum. Further, the purpose of mentioning academic freedom is purely to emphasize or level of awareness. In our opinion, it is a “tightrope walk”, so to speak, and leaning towards the side of academic freedom or performance standards will greatly influence and affect facilitation and quality.

Response Time

Response time refers to how quickly the instructor responds to the student when he or she asks a question. Students not having a direct, physical connection to their instructor may provide a feeling of disconnect. Therefore, it is incredibly helpful for the instructor to be mindful of response times to questions. Within the guidelines of response time falls grading time. This refers to how quickly the instructor grades an assignment and submits the grades to the Learning Management System for the student to view.

Discussion Post Interaction

How frequently the instructor responds to students’ discussion posts is represented here by discussion post interaction. Contrary to live sections, distance education sections lack the organic volleying of learner-instructor communication in terms of asking and answering questions. For discussion posts, students have to wait to receive feedback similarly to an assignment submitted. This changes the type of interaction based on its delay. Further, the discussion post submission allows for students to be more thoughtful about their responses and it omits the opportunity for the learner to “think and respond under pressure”, so to speak.

Assignment Feedback

In the realm of distance education, feedback on assignments is often written so detail is incredibly important. When we mention detail, we mean this in the sense that it is relevant and provides depth to the learning experience. Learners in the distance education setting thrive on detailed feedback. However, the amount of feedback is not as important as its context. As Shute (2008) wrote, “The main aim of formative feedback is to increase student knowledge, skills, and understanding in some content area or general skill” (p. 156). The opportunity to openly discuss assignment critiques is often lost or forced to be done during virtual office hours. The level of thought in feedback provides more information for the learner where he or she may not have the opportunity to get more detail.

Innovation in Instructional Processes

This section represents how unique and creative the teaching methods are. In the live classroom setting, there is more freedom and opportunity to be creative about how subject material is presented. However, in the virtual classroom setting, this is bound by the walls of the media used. Chute, Thompson, and Hancock (1998) refer to instructors as “orchestrators” and the media as their “instruments”. Their description of instructors portrays the learning environment as a lively setting. As it relates to distance education the “music” played (e.g. the voices of answered questions and class participation) isn’t heard all at once. It is broken up into smaller chunks. This places more responsibility on the instructor, or the “orchestrator”, to create an engaging lesson plan that effectively utilizes his or her “instruments”. Additionally, what is also important is the variety of resources and media used because may aid in maintaining engagement. 

Two models we paid close attention to were Moore’s interaction planning model and Anderson’s enigma of interaction model. We believe that they provide a great foundation as to where the focal points should be, not only in the course design process, but also in its evaluation. In the Research chapter, Moore’s (1989) interactions were discussed. In support of this, Kolloff (2001) further emphasizes the instructor role by stating, “It is up to the instructor to construct situations, within the resources, that promote student-to-student interaction in order to produce a successful learning community” (p. 2).

Influenced by Moore’s work, Anderson (1998) created the enigma of interaction model which allowed him to explore three more areas of interaction: 

  • Instructor-Instructor
  • Instructor-Content
  • Content-Content

Anderson’s interactions provide a more complex look at the varied interaction types that occur in the online setting. Kolloff’s (2001) statements on interaction hit home the importance of how we should approach it: “Effective interaction will assist in the establishment of a learning community, stimulate interest, create activity, engage the student, and allow interaction with the information” (p. 2).

Accessibility to Instructor

Another important factor of maintaining positive performance standards is the accessibility to the instructor. Multiple methods of bridging communication to learners add to what makes a distance education class successful. For example, a student who has video chat capability might want to take advantage of a video conference during office hours. However, for a student who does not, maybe a phone call would suffice. Having these options readily available and explaining when to use them is necessary. The following are examples:

  • Phone; email; online chat; video chat
  • Office hours

Troubleshooting and Technical Support

It is undeniable that the distance education field, specifically online learning, comes with varied technical challenges. How the instructor manages technical errors on the LMS is what we refer to as troubleshooting and technical support. Technical problems for distance education programs are often overlooked until the problem becomes present. Rasmussen et al (1997) wrote, “In order for WBI to be successful, there must be a well-defined and structured process to support the student when questions about the instruction or assignments arise. A proactive view toward troubleshooting alleviates learner and instructor frustrations” (p. 344).

Focus on Measures of Effectiveness

Phipps and Merisotis (1999) wrote about how effectiveness can be measured in the distance education field and break it down into three categories:

  • Student outcomes (grades and test scores)
  • Student attitudes about learning via distance education
  • Overall student satisfaction toward distance learning

These three, broad measures of effectiveness are what Phipps and Merisotis (1999) believe the original research of effectiveness in distance education focuses on. 

Chapter Summary

Facilitating a quality distance education program cannot be executed without a careful look at the teaching presence, best practices, and performance standards that we have outlined. We believe that our information discussed, which is heavily influenced by gurus in the distance education field, provides a roadmap to specific considerations that should be taken before, during, and after implementation of a distance education program. In this chapter we have discussed what it means to facilitate learning from a Community of Inquiry framework perspective (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). We have also discussed some of the standards that can be used to assess the quality of facilitation of learning in the context of distance education (Bakken & Bridges, 2011). We end the chapter by providing some practical examples of facilitation, which, although not comprehensive, can serve as a starting point if you are an instructor who wants to take a more deliberate approach on how you facilitate learning in distance education environments, and perhaps even beyond throughout your practice as an educator.

Facilitation and Quality Practice Assessment

The end-of-chapter practice assessment retrieves 10-items from a database and scores the quiz with response correctness provided to the learner. You should score above 80% on the quiz or consider re-reading some of the materials from this chapter. This quiz is not time-limited; however, it will record your time to complete. The scores are stored on the website and a learner can optionally submit their scores to the leaderboard. You can take the quiz as many times as you want.

Discussions

  • How do the concepts of performance standards, teaching presence, and best practices align with distance education? Please provide some examples to support your position.
  • How should we perceive the role of instructors and learners in distance education courses during the development of the curriculum? Please provide examples to justify your opinion.
  • What is the role of teaching presence in the facilitation of learning in the context of distance education?
  • Describe the relationship between the constructs of Community of Inquiry and teaching presence?
  • How can current standards be used to assess satisfactory facilitation and quality in distance education?

 Assignment Exercises

  1.  Based on what you have learned about best practices in quality assurance for distance education, create and organize an infographic to emphasize each standard described in the Quality Matters Rubric Standards. Please remember that graphics, images and sparse text are appropriate for this presentation format.
  2. Create a graphic organizer to compare and contrast Quality Matters and iNACOL standards and how they relate to the concept of teaching presence.
  3. Chose a topic of interest and develop a curriculum for a distance education course where you emphasize teaching presence components and their role in the development of Communities of Inquiry.
  4.  Choose 3 peer-reviewed articles about performance standards and develop a website to describe possible relationships between the following elements: instructor, learner, and content.
  5. Write a 2 page, single-spaced essay where you discuss the relationship between quality assurance, teaching presence, and best practice in distance education programs. Please provide examples to support your arguments.

References

Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. Quality Issues in Distance Learning. 1999.

Bakken, B., & Bridges, B. (2011). National Standards for Quality Online Courses (version 2). Vienna, VA: International Association for K-‐12 Online Learning iNACOL. Retrieved January 5, 2013.

Chute, A. G., Hancock, B., & Thompson, M. (1998). The McGraw-Hill Handbook of Distance Learning: A “How to Get Started Guide” for Trainers and Human Resources Professionals. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The internet and higher education, 13(1), 31-36.

Jonsson, A. (2012). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 0(0), 1-14. doi: 10.1177/1469787412467125.

Kolloff, M. (2001). Strategies for effective student/student interaction in online courses. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of educational research, 61(2), 179-211.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systematic view of online learning.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
National Standards for Quality Online Teaching (2011). Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/national-standards-for-quality-online-teaching-v2.pdf

Ogunleye, A. (2008). Quality Assurance and Quality Indicators in Open and Distance Education: Context, Concerns and Challenges. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.soeagra.com/ijert/ijertjune2013/8.pdf

Oliver, R., Reeves, T. C., & Herrington, J. A. (2006). Creating authentic learning environments through blended-learning approaches.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education.

Quality Matters Rubric Standards (2014). Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qm-standards-with-point-values-fifth-edition/download/QM

Rasmussen, K., Northrup, P., & Lee, R. (1997). Implementing Web-based instruction. Web-based instruction, 341-346.

Scull, W. R., Kendrick, D., Shearer, R., & Offerman, D. (2011). The Landscape of Quality Assurance in Distance Education. Continuing Higher Education Review, 75, 138-149. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967815.pdf

Shattuck, K. (2015). Focusing Research on Quality Matters. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 155-158.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.

Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82.

Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International journal of educational telecommunications, 1(4), 337-365.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.

Stella, A., & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality assurance in distance education: The challenges to be addressed. Higher Education, 47(2), 143-160. Retrieved from http://www.qou.edu/arabic/researchProgram/distanceLearning/qualityAssurance.pdf