The impact of e-learning master's degree programs on university teaching and success characteristics

¶ … E-learning master's degree program in teaching at a University and the important Characteristics of a successful e-learning master's in education degree program.

E-learning is gaining great popularity worldwide for its cost-effectiveness, flexibility, and speed of knowledge transfer.The number of students enrolled in e-learning classes has more than doubled in the past three years, from 670 students during the 2005-2006 to1350 students during the 2007-2008 academic year.This growth has meant more -and different - classes are being offered through e-Learning This is a great opportunity for students who are juggling work and family obligations. Some who have started their degree on campus are finding the online option a great way to finish - rather than postpone - their academic goals ( Mclaren 2010).Carnevale (2005) reported the results of a 2004 study that showed about 937,000 students in the U.S. were enrolled in e-learning courses at the end of 2004. By 2006, more than 1.2 million students are expected to be taking such courses, representing about 7% of the 17-million students enrolled at degree granting institutions. Distance learners are typically older than traditional students with an average age over 25 years old. They are more likely to be female and married, apt to have higher incomes, and tend to have family and job responsibilities that restrain them from attending traditional on-campus classes (Ashby, 2002). Feasley (1983) observed that distance education students mostly seek to satisfy specific life goals, such as job-related training, as well as their own intellectual curiosity. In a study of graduate distance learners, Becker (as cited in Purdue, 2003) found that students expected their distance program would have increased interaction with instructors and learners, require less campus time, be more flexible, and be more engaging due to the use of media. E- learning has leveled the academic field for many post graduate students, it is important to highlight its impact in a Master's degree program and the characteristics of a successful e-learning Master's degree as well. It is hypothesized that cost, curriculum and convenience are the keys for success in an online Masters degree program. E- learning or online education has been defined in a variety of ways, but the two most common descriptions: (1) E-learning is an enviromnment in which the teacher and the learner are physically separated and (2) there is a technologically-based delivery system involving some combination of print, multimedia materials and computer networking to allow the instructor and the learner to communicate and exchange course content (Martin 1994). As e- learning delivery stands currently, it has evolved from the unique delivery of course materials and basic interaction to providing graduate students with interactive pedagogically sound online platform where teacher student interaction in the tradional classroom setting is still very present. Instructors and students use various methods to keep in touch. Using the establishments internal interactive medium (Blackboard) none of the connectedness once feared lost in moving from the tradiotnal class room to online delivery is still vey prevalent. In a study conducted by Valenta, Therriault, Dieter and Mrtek (2001) it was reported that student often had different perceptions regarding distance learning experiences.A majority of the students in their 2001 study perceived the most important factor of distance learning was the flexibility provided by theonline delivery method. They were mostly concerned with online issues such as a lack of social interaction or face-to-face interactions in class group discussion; however degree granting institution offering graduate degrees online have established intricate interactive platforms where active teacher student interaction, class discussions, course material exchange even class cyber cafes where students can network.Other researchers (Gregory, 2003) noted similar opinions being voiced by students.In a study of adult students planning to enroll in online courses, the respondents believed the value provided by online course would be of equal value than the value provided by traditional course. Klesius, Homan and Thompson (1997) conducted a survey with students enrolled in distance education and traditional classes for in service and pre-service teachers. The results of their study found that the student who completed an online course of study felt that the online course quality was also equal or better than traditional instruction. They pointed out that online learning allows students more control over the learning situation as a whole. They also emphasize the lack of flexibility of traditional classes because they have set meeting times and locations and individuals student goals or backgrounds are often not taken into consideration. rather, every student listens to the same lectures and/or discussions and completes the same activities without the ability to slow down, repeat or speed up the learning process.These verified arguments support decisions to enroll in distance education courses, research consistently demonstrates that convenience is a major factor for the increase of online matriculation. (Dixon, Pellicone & Dixon 2005).In a research study comparing online learning perception in a five-year period, it was found key components relating to student satisfaction include detailed information about what was required to complete the module/course, helpful and timely feedback from teachers, and continued communication with the instructor. Unlike traditional class settings appointment or offices hours are obsolete. Furthermore, it was also mentionned that important factors related to student success in the distance learning environment were not limited to course related components. Good time management skills and self-discipline are needed attributes.Several studies also challenge the notion that students who enroll in e-courses have higher chance of failure due to an overestimation of their technological expertise. As it stands in current e-learning practices, upon matriculation to an e-learning graduate program, students are given online training course with the purpose to familiarize them with the university's interactive learning medium be it Wec-CT or Blackboard.In a five-year comparative study conducted by researcher during the years 2001 and 2006, a majority of students (85% in 2001 and 84% in 2006) felt that they were adequately prepared for using-required technologies associated with their online learning courses. No significant difference was noted between the 2001 and the 2006 student's perceptions regarding the adequacy of the training received.Student felt they were properly prepared for interacting with the technologies being used to deliver the online course even though most had received some formal on how to use the technologies. The reason might lie in the fact that the same technologies were used by instructors. Course management systems such as Blackboard and WebCT are commnly used to support both traditional and online course delivery formats (Carliner,2005). Moreover this sudy also addressed students reasons for enrollement and course quality. As to the course quality perception, students surveyed in 2006 during the course of this study rated online courses co-equal or better than traditional courses. Those questionned in 2006 were more likely than the group surveyed in 2001 to recommend learning courses to their friends. Better quality perceptions and the willingness to recommend e-learning to their peers clearly demonstrates that those surveyed in 2006 were more satisfied and more comfortale with their oline courses. Increase in course satisfaction may be influenced by better exposure to technology and faculty experience. Since course management software has been increasingly used in the tradional academic setting, student familiarity makes its use less foreign popularizing the use of boards, online resourses and other course management tools imperative to the success of e-learning. Curriculum design and its integration in the digital environment also appeals to proponensts of e-learning. E-learning curriculum allows for greater individual growth as its basis is found in sharing findings and creating an atmosphere of greater exchange amongst students vs. traditional classroom settings were exchange will take place during set class meeting times. This goal is accomplished in the discussion forums area of web- based teaching platforms, accesses only by students enrolled in the course, wherein the instructor places thoughful questions after information and assignments for the week are completed, for instance. The purpose of the questions are to generate personally integrated responses and to encourgae dialogue with the class. Student are free to write in these forums responding to each other posting and there by enriching their prospective digital learning experience. For the most part, forum participation and postings are considered an integral part of the e-learning experience and mandate that postings be completed in within a set time frame with minimum word count and references, and a minimum of three posting per week. Instructors also actively engage in these evolving discussions with students.These exchanges, although time consuming albeit accomplish the goal better than what could be done in a traditional classroom setting.By presenting open ended, broad questions aimed at increasing self-awareness and knowledge, students in the e-learning environment have the opportunity to process and reflect with one another. This types of engagement seems to increase depth of thought and connection with others in the class.While this online experience would be different in the traditional classroom, it can be estimated that it could be an equally powerful avenue for experiencial activity. In addition, it is important to note, that each online class has a group component inherent to it and students are required to actively engage with one another in discussion forums. This engagement is reported to be highly valuable to most students as they connect with one another on relevant classroom topics as applied to life contexts. E-learning in the graduate teaching setting has changed the paradigm of student teaching as well. During group discussion instructors have found student to become personally quite open during these dialogues and, more often than not, exceed word count requirements as well as the number of required posting each week due to interest level and a draw to connect with others. When collaborative projects groups are assigned the flexibility offered through an online program proves to be of great benefit as many traditional constraints are lifted. For an online student scheduling is as simple as agreeing upon a time to meet ( and turning on the camera and plugging in the headset), regardless of the physical location or cost of fossil fuels. Traditional instructors who have be using contact online technology to deliver class material admit missing the face-to-face with students. However, powerful exchanges occur among members of an online community that may be difficult to imagine by those who have only taught in a traditional classroom setting. Technology lowers interpersonal inhibitions enough to create a lively interpersonal from the first day of class, and the depth of connections and level of participation that ensues only sometimes occurs in a traditional setting. One instructional designer recently predicted that 80 to 90% of post secondary education will be online with the next decade (Maslennikova, 2008). Regardless of the actual rate of growth in the online education arena, teaching style and methods will inevitably face a need to shift to accommodate demands for these programs. Those interested in teaching integration will need to consider ways to creatively maintain activities that promote depth of processing, while at the same time remaining relevant to a new genration of learners. To whatever extent these changes in educational delivery systems can be informed by empirical research it will be helpful to all involved. Maslennikova asserts that much of what happens in a traditional classroom setting can be replicated in an online environment. The extent to which these possibilities are being realized is a matter of future research. Specifically, it would be helpful to know the differential processes and outcomes of online traditional education from the perspective of students, faculty and other key stakeholders. Bain's (2004) notion of lively engagement is based on his research regarding what the best college teachers do. In a traditional setting, the students receive credit for attendance and answering questions but course credit is their primary reward for a forgettable classroom experince. This is not to say that lecturing is an ineffective style or that one should not teach the integration model of decades gone by; indeed, Bain (2004) found many lecturers among his best college teachers. Rather, the point is that whatever is taught and however it is taught needs to engage the student if it is to be effective.Even the most vocal critics of online education probably agree that the online teaching methods as described in this compiled litterature review research is vastly superior and much more effective in terms of delivery and solliciting class participation.In online environments, students must interact with ideas and peers in order to receive credit, a level of engagement that might never be reached by students in the traditional setting.

Unfortunately, not all members of the educational commmunity are sold on the well reviewed benefits of e-leaning as it pertains to graduate studies.Allen and Seaman (2003) in conducting a survey on online education delivered by higher education institutions in the United States defined an online course as one that had at least 80% of the course content delivered online. Regardless of the definition, an early indication of then widespread popularity of online education courses can be found in a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, which revealed that more than 54,000 online education courses were being offered in 1998, with over 1.6 million student's enrolled (Lewis, et al., 1999). Allen and Seaman (2003) reported that: (a)over 1.6 million students took at least one online course during the Fall of 2002, (b) over one-third of these students (578,000) took all of their courses online, (c) among all U.S. higher education students in Fall 2002,11% took at least one online course, and (d) among those students at institutions where online courses were offered, 13% took at least one online course .Controversies as to the quality of online education have not diminished over the past decades. Many people are suspicious of online education because courses are often offered by divisions of extended studies or continuing education and are taught by adjunct faculty or instructors who have not earned doctoral degrees. Therefore, many individuals have concluded that online education programs are left outside of formal faculty structures that have traditionally had oversight for instructional course quality. Both proponents and opponents have been concerned about online education quality. Opponents view online education as inferior, see it as a substitute for the traditional "brick and mortar" university, and conclude it is rather a profit making venue. This type of delivery is often viewed by administrators as a "cash cow"-a means of delivering instruction to a large number of paying customers without the expense of providing things such as temperature controlled classrooms and parking spaces (Brown & Green, 2003, p. 148-149). Opponents have also suggested that online courses lower the quality of academic standards (Buck, 2001). Some opponents even question the quality of online courses when students do not actually attend a college, and have face-to-face interaction with instructors. Moreover, Weiger (1998) asserted that the quality of instructors who teach online courses cannot be guaranteed since anyone can put a course online. Concerns regarding the quality of online education are also raised by both students and faculty. Arguments are made that as consumers of online education, students are unlikely to be able to find out information about the quality of the courses that are provided (Twigg, 2001). Schools or universities that offer online education courses typically do not provide comparative information for students e.g., how would a student know which online course meets his/her needs? Moreover, prerequisites that are essential for taking a particular online course are usually not clearly stated on websites for students, and "when students are encountering technical problems, whom they can ask for assistance is not available to them" (Twigg, 2001, p. 15).

From the faculty's perspective, if they haven't received the training for teaching online courses, using the technologies, evaluating and assessing online courses, how then can the quality of their online teaching be assured? Moreover, when teaching online, if a majority of the faculty member's time is spent corresponding with students, how then can faculty balance their traditional teaching, research, and service activities? When faculty is reluctant to teach online classes, how can school administrators motivate them to do so? Proponents are in support of online education. They suggest that the lack of face-to-face interaction can be substituted by online discussions in bulletin board systems, online video conferences or on listservs (Blake, 2000).Online education can also promote students' critical thinking skills, deep learning, collaborative learning, and problem-solving skills (Ascough, 2002; Rosie, 2000). Donlevy (2003) asserted that online education may help schools expand curricula offerings with less cost and can help graduates gain important technology skills to improve their marketability. Proponents also argue that online education can encourage non-discriminatory teaching and learning practices since the teachers and students, as well as students and their classmates typically do not meet faceto-face. Palloff and Pratt (1999) reported that because students cannot tell the race, gender, physical characteristics of each other and their teachers, online education presents a bias-free teaching and learning environment for instructors and students. The quality of online education has prompted the attention of higher education accreditation associations.

The report of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (1998, as cited in Weiger, 1998) recommended that accreditators should "establish reliable and valid performance measurements, require evidence of contact between faculty and students, mandate evidence of effective instructional techniques, promote systematic efforts to select and train faculty, and assure that students, faculty, staff and administrators receive adequate training to use electronic resources" (p. 11). Therefore, the need of standards for ensuring quality of online education instruction is paramount. Paulsen (2002) in defining online education indicated that it separates teachers and learners (which distinguishes it from face-to-face education), influences an educational organization (which distinguishes it from self-study and private tutoring), uses computer network to present or distribute some educational content, and provides two-way communication via a computer network so that students may benefit from communication with each other, teachers, and staff (p.1.). This definition clarifies the difference between online education and traditional education. Consequently, quality indicators should be different as it relates to online education and traditional education.The higher education community has developed several quality indicators for traditional education that are well accepted by many institutional quality assurance programs (Twigg, 2001). Twigg (2001) has stated, "For traditional education, quality equals a tenured full-time faculty member with a doctoral degree teaching the course. Quality equals courses and degree programs offered by and on a residential campus. Quality equals "students learning by sitting with a professor face-to-face" (Twigg, 2001, p. 3). However, in online education, students will not know if the instructor has earned doctoral degree or not, because there is no way to gain the knowledge of the Online education is usually regarded as time saving and cost effective education since students do not need to drive to a classroom.

Some of the challenges and barriers for online learning that have been identified by researchers are the change of roles and responsibilities for instructors (Zheng & Smaldino, 2003; Murihead, 2000), use of technology (Valentine, 2002; Palloff & Pratt, 2000; Berge, 1998; Volery, 2000), interaction with students and the changes in interpersonal relations (Bower 2001), and academic dishonesty of online learners (Muirhead, 2000). O'Quinn & Corry's (2002) in conducting a study on online education pointed out several factors that may deter faculty from teaching online. The factors the authors identified include a lack of professional prestige, delivery method used, change in faculty role, and lack of monetary support. Instructors have many concerns about online education. Their primary concern is how online education changes their roles and responsibilities, and how they can adapt to this change. Online education is widely accepted as student-centered education, and the traditional education is regarded as professor-centered education. Due to a shift to online education, the instructor's role has become more of a facilitator than a traditional lecturer. Therefore, the traditional professor-centered educational environment and student-centered online educational environment will have many differences. Besides the role shifting, the role of the virtual instructor is to select and filter information for student consideration, to provide thought-provoking questions, and to facilitate well-considered discussion (Kettner-Polley, 1999).

Wu & Hiltz (2004) conducted a study of 116 students enrolled in two undergraduate courses and one graduate course at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Their study concluded that variations among instructors or courses are associated with differences in perceptions of student motivation, enjoyment and learning. Wu and Hiltz also found that in traditional professor-centered education, the roles of professor and student are regimented; the professor disseminates knowledge, and the student reflects that information.

Knowton (2000) argued, in the student-centered online education course, the professor and students are a community of learners. The professor serves as coach, counselor and mentor; the students become active participants in learning. During the processes of learning, in teacher-centered classroom, professor lectures while students take notes. In online student-centered education, the professor serves as facilitator, while students collaborate with each other and the professor to develop personal understanding of content.

Murihead (2000) indicated three areas considered to be changed when the education courses are put online: (a) the provision of instructional and emotional support to students, (b) the expectations associated with authoring online courses while maintaining a full teaching load, and (c) the requirement to provide ongoing technological support to students and parents (p. 322). According to Ascough (2002), the role of instructor in an online learning environment should be more of a facilitator or moderator due to less control of the class environment. He noted that because most instructors are more likely to have been trained in traditional instruction, it is a somewhat foreign practice for them to plan interactive strategies in course delivery, and adjusting their change in role from the leading speaker to that of a facilitator. Volery (2000) also suggested that the academic role of instructor should be shifted from intellect-on-stage and mentor to a learning catalyst because the level of interaction has changed in online delivery. Therefore, besides being a facilitator, the instructor should also be an instructional designer (Zheng & Smaldino, 2003). The online environment is different from the traditional classroom, it is important for the instructor to motivate students to adjust their roles when becoming an online learner. In online education, the interaction between students and their instructors have been changed from synchronous in face-to-face (F2F) instruction to an asynchronous virtual community. Thus, a significant role adjustment for students may be required if they are to experience success. Students must move from being a more traditional passive classroom learner into a more active online inquirer. Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, and Fung (2004) conducted a study to validate an instrument regarding online students' role adjustment. Their findings suggest that students do see a difference in the learning process and a need for their role adjustment. The online learning should be viewed as more cognitive or internally oriented. Online learners must take more responsibility, adjust to a new climate, adjust to new context, synthesize ideas, know how to participate, apply ideas or concepts, and stimulate their own curiosity.Technology, as the inter-medium for instructors to delivery courses becomes more important when the level of face-to-face communication is decreased in online education courses. Consequently, how to appropriately use technology to serve an instructional purpose tends to be another challenge for online education instructors. Muirhead (2000) reported teachers' frustration with the reliability of computer technology, working with multiple versions of a software package, providing technology support to students using multiple operating systems, and the absence of mature integrated content development tools. Managing electronic course materials, student participation, student achievement, and course evaluations can be problematic (Schott et al., 2003), interaction with students appears to be more important for online education instructors on encouraging students self-directed, disciplined, and self-motivated. Moreover, because of the needs of different interaction methods to be employed, changes are also needed in the interpersonal relations between the instructor and students (Bower, 2001).

McAlister, Rivera, & Hallam (2001) raised another concern about the difficulty of ascertaining students' identity when communicating over the Internet. Cheating, plagiarism, and integrity in taking test are also other issues in ensuring quality online instruction (Hanson, 2001; Simonson et al., 2003). While many critics have suggested that there is no sure way to hold students accountable for academic dishonesty, Heberling (2002) concluded that while maintaining academic integrity in the online instructional setting may be a challenging, he asserts that many strategies may be employed to detect and prevent plagiarism, such as reversing an Internet search, tracking back to an original source. Those are technical expertise, administrative structure, evaluation and effectiveness, organization change, social interaction and quality, student support services, threatened by technology, access to technology, faculty compensation and time, and legal issues. Understanding these challenges and barriers will help instructors know how their roles have been changed, what qualifications they need, and how to ensure the quality of online education instruction with the help of various strategies.

As the primary key to ensuring the quality of online education instruction, instructors need to adjust their attitudes to teach online, understand what qualifications are needed, and know what they could do ensure the quality of online education instruction.Furthermore, most students do not view online instruction as a replacement for traditional classroom instruction. However, with the right subject matter, with the right instructor and facilitator, and for the right student, Internet or online courses can provide an effective educational environment that is a viable alternative to traditional classroom instruction. Since the role of instructors has been changed in online education courses to facilitator, mentor and coach, the instructors will need to adjust their attitudes towards technology and new teaching styles to meet the challenge. Attitudes towards technology, teaching styles, and control of technology are the three instructor's characteristics that influence learning outcomes (Webster and Hackley, 1997 as cited in Volery, 2000).The transition from the traditional face-to-face classroom to online learning can be successfully achieved and quality can be ensured if several key factors closely examined. According to Palloff and Pratt (2000), those key areas are: ensuring the access to and familiarity with the technology used, establishing relatively loose and freeflowing guidelines and procedures, striving to active maximum participation of participants, promoting collaborative learning, and enabling online participants to reflect their learning. Levy (2003) also suggested that when planning, developing, and implementing online learning programs in higher education six factors should be considered, which are: visions and plans, curriculum, staff training and support, student training and support, and copyright and intellectual property. Levy concluded that if institutions want to have effective online learning programs they must analyze all of these areas and make changes as necessary in order to successfully implement online learning programs.

What is considered a good online course? According to Keasley (2000) there are at least ten critical elements for a good quality online course: They are content, pedagogy, motivation, feedback, coordination/organization, usability, assistance, assessment, workload, and flexibility. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP 2000) has also proposed 24 benchmarks for measuring quality Internet-based learning which should be considered by institutions planning, developing, and assessing the quality of their online learning programs.

Some studies have suggested that a team approach be used as a method to ensure the quality of online education instruction (Care & Scanlan, 2001; Levy, 2003; Southern Regional Education Board, 2001). Such a team might consist of the instructional designer, graphic/interface designer, technical support personnel, content expert, direct instructor, information resource personnel, mentors/tutors, and assessor. The instructor, however, remains as the center of the team to guarantee academic integrity, with the assistance from other partners.

To ensure the quality of online education instruction, the qualification of instructors should be the first consideration for quality assurance. Instructors who conduct online education courses should understand what their roles are and adjust their attitudes for this role change. Second, it is important for instructors to master design and delivery strategies, techniques, and methods for teaching online courses. Third, the institution should provide technical and financial support for faculty. Fourth, school administrators should also realize what their role and responsibilities are in ensuring quality online instruction. Critical to this process, administrators should recruit qualified faculty or instructors for their online education programs. Moore (2001) also noted that to effectively deliver online courses, faculty must promote student to student interaction with minimal faculty intervention, engage students in regular assignments, promoting students' self-direct ability, and providing specialized attention to students who are lack of self-directedness.

The increasing diversity of the nation's student population and advancements in the development of educational technology has encouraged the popularity of online education instruction (Bi, 2000). However, academic institutions that offer courses online still face many challenges.Therefore, administrative support is crucial if programs are to be successful. Administrators must consider issues related to intellectual property, pedagogical rigor and methods, course management, and instructional compensation of faculty (McAlister, Rivera, & Hallman, 2003). In essence, successful online education instruction does not happen by magic. It is a collaboration of instructors, administrators, students, and the community at large. Courseware development industries should also provide online instructors with product updates and provide training and technical service support to them as well. The government, community, and parents should also help the school to ensure the quality of online education.Moving from traditional methods of teaching to online methods of instruction often create dramatic shifts in the perspectives of instructors and their students (Dringus, 2000). Moreover, many issues have been raised about the quality of online education. To resolve some of the problems and concerns associated with online education instruction, Dringus (2000) suggested that administrators and faculty should prepare students for the online learning experience. She recommends the development a valid and reliable pre-assessment process to determine the educational and technical skills background of the learners before allowing them to register for an online class, understanding learners' attitudes and perceptions about online learning. Utilisation of tools to profile and determine the extent of learners' fears, anxieties, and the capacity for self-motivation as learners begin their online courses. Also she suggested determining the extensive stream of requirements, roles, and responsibilities that must be supported and maintained in online classes by faculty, students, and administrative staff.

Most of the body of research points to the duties of the institution and ways of assessing and accomodating students on their journey to e-learning at the postsecondary and graduate level, institution administration is also a major stakeholder in establishing quality markers for e-learning.To ensure the quality of online education, the instructor must ensure that the students' learning outcomes can be achieved. However, this does not seem as easy as the teaching in traditional face-to-face classroom. Several researchers have expressed their concern about how students' learning outcome could be achieved through online education (Wu & Hiltz, 2004; Koory, 2003). Does asynchronous online discussion improve students' perceived learning (Wu & Hiltz, 2004) ?Does online teaching and learning have particular strength in ensuring students' learning outcome (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2000)?

As early as in 1997, Althaus examined 142 undergraduate students' learning outcomes through comparing the blended (face-to-face and computer-mediated) discussion and the traditional classroom discussion. The author found that this combination provides a superior learning environment compared to the traditional classroom alone. Koorey (2003) taught two years of "An introduction to Shakespeare" at the University of California Berkley.

One course was offered online, and the other was in a traditional face-to-face (F2F) class. Through two years' teaching and observation, the author found that her online students achieved dramatic higher learning performance than her traditional lecture class. The author's conclusion was determined by whether course objectives have been fulfilled, and measures of course grade distribution. Koorey reported that fifty-eight percent (58%) of her online students received an a or a-, as opposed to the more usual 15% of students making similar grades in the face-to-face course.

Learning outcomes should not be only measured through students' grades, but also through their deep learning, higher order thinking, critical thinking, or problem-solving skills. Online discussion is usually regarded as the major communication tool between the online instructor and learners, and is regarded as the major vehicle to promote deep learning, and high quality learning outcomes. Larkin -Hein (2001, as cited in Wu & Hiltz, 2004) found that: (a) online discussion provided an additional learning and teaching vehicle, (b ) online discussion facilitated the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills, and (c) students became more adept at transferring and applying information learned in class to novel situations (p.141).

In addition to ensuring the online students' learning outcomes with effective online teaching, the instructor should be able to accommodate the students' learning styles. Koorey (2003) concluded from her two-year field study that students who possess the following learning styles are more likely to be successful in online class: experienced, self-directive, task-oriented, independent, value composed, textual communication, less social, but values some give-and-take, interested in problem-solving and immediate application.Clark (2002) pointed out that the online learner must be active in the process, cognitively complex and motivated. According to Clark, motivating factors in the learning process include self-reference, personal goals, control and autonomy. Howland & Moore's (2002) study examined 48 students' experiences in online environments. Their results confirmed that the students who were the most positive in their perceptions of online learning were those with attributes consistent with constructivist learners. The most positive students were more independent, proactive and responsible for their learning.

Distance education refers to technology-based instruction in which students are at a location physically separated from their instructor during the entire course of study (Simonson et al., 2003; Ormrod, 2008). Distance education through webbased learning is a concept that is relatively new to modern educational practices . It is a method of learning outside of a typical classroom environment. Initially, distance education was created for students who were unable to attend school. Prior to all technological advancements, distance education, in the form of "pure" correspondence study, was created to give those students a chance to study who could not attend ordinary school or university due to social, medical, financial, or geographical reasons (Holmberg, 1977). This web-based form of instruction allows instructors to reach a much larger audience and encourages more flexibility with student's schedule.

Web-based teaching and learning are changing the face of higher education and rapidly working at a frenzied pace to develop the skills needed to instruct in an online environment (Boettcher and Conrad, 1999). Moving from the classroom as the primary center of organized instruction to the web changes how educators approach instructional design. Advances in teaching and learning in a web environment have brought new curiosities, excitement, and challenges to educators (Boettcher and Conrad, 1999).

While online learning at the college level has grown at an astonishing pace, it has done so in ways that no one predicted (Doyle, 2009). Total student enrollment in distance education courses went from 754,000 in 1995 to 1.6 million in 1998 (Harasim, 2000), and over 3 million students enrolled in distance courses in the 2000-2001 academic year (Waits and Lewis, 2003). By fall 2007, 3.9 million students were taking at least one online course (Doyle, 2009). According to some educators, higher education has been revolutionized.

Presently, distance education has never been so popular. A large, diverse group of students comprise the target audience of distance education. Regardless of their demographic backgrounds and academic disciplines, students all over the globe are embracing these educational resources. While there are many benefits of distance education, many drawbacks go hand-inhand with these emerging technologies. Administrators, faculty, and students can embrace these technologies in distance learning, but must be aware of all its drawbacks and educational implications.

There are major benefits of distance education from an institutional perspective. By now, it is obvious to most educators in higher education that distance-learning technology is transforming instructional delivery in profound ways (DeNeui and Dodge, 2006). They (2006) state that the most significant online technological development is the way that the former constraint of time and space has largely been removed by networking capabilities. Though not all instructors teach distance education courses, few can deny that online technology is transforming the way students learn and the way instructors teach (DeNeui and Dodge, 2006).

Even in the midst of a major budget crisis, colleges and universities still embrace the same educational mission and philosophy: to educate its students (Gould, 2003). While not a panacea, online courses allow institutions to maximize their available resources to meet the educational needs of their students (Gould, 2003). Online courses can reach a much larger audience, with students from greater geographic regions than traditional classroom courses. Online courses may help disabled and geographically isolated students, as well as students with busy schedules obtain quality higher education.

On a resource level, online instruction decreases overcrowded classrooms. Online courses allow institutions and faculty to offer more classes at peak demand times of the day and week, thus maximizing the scanty available resources by increasing flexibility in class scheduling (Gould, 2003). Students who have a class schedule conflict may enroll in online courses. On a pure cost level, online courses significantly decrease paper and photocopying costs. One of the major benefits to students is the unfettered access to virtually anything instructors present in the classroom. For instance, all course documents, including syllabi, lecture notes, handouts, assignment sheets, interactive demonstrations, and audio or videotaped lectures are easily accessible to students on the course website (DeNeui and Dodge, 2006). Institution costs decrease as students become familiar with the vast resources available on the web. Institutions will effectively communicate with their faculty and students electronically, thus reducing the costs of printed bulletins, class schedules, advertisements, as well as upcoming academic and campus events and activities (Gould, 2003). Regular electronic communications are one way to save money at the university level. Educators and students often believe that using distance education technology promotes the concept of "green revolution."

Despite some benefits of distance education for institutions, there are a number of drawbacks as well. At the present time, increasing student enrollment size and budgetary constraints are challenging higher education institutions to effectively serve their students (Gould, 2003). With enrollment projected to continue to increase and with little hope for an improved economic climate nationwide and worldwide, many institutions are facing a major crisis situation. Classroom space, especially computer lab access, is at a premium (Gould, 2003). Institutions have insufficient physical resources to meet the growing technological demands of faculty and students (Gould, 2003). With the current state budget projections, significant help from state government will not be forthcoming. Institutions must, therefore, look within for immediate remedies (Gould, 2003).

Administrators in each higher education institution must select the appropriate computer hardware and software in order to promote distance education. Initially, administrators must convince faculty and students that using selected online software programs will be beneficial in the long run. The benefit/cost analysis must indicate that the benefits of distance education will clearly outweigh the costs. Although distance education may reach a much larger audience, students with lower socioeconomic (SES) are generally difficult to target and recruit. Because institutions are profit-driven, students will have to pay some online technology fee each time they register for a distance education course to partially offset high technology and equipment expenses. Initial resistance to learn online computer technology from some faculty and students are expected partially because it takes time to learning a new online technology. Both faculty and students will be temporarily removed from their comfort zone of teaching and learning, respectively.

Financial costs, user-friendly programs, motivation for faculty and students to learn online technology, and paying extra online technology fees are important factors that must be considered. Periodic upgrading, along with regular repair and maintenance costs of hardware and software must also be considered. During and shortly after upgrading or changing online software program, both faculty and students will again have some initial resistance, and they will be temporarily removed from their comfort zone, more so with the latter situation. Both faculty and students may also experience incompatible technology issues and frustration largely due to technological differences (e.g., different software versions) at home and school.

Administrators must realize that learning online technology and developing online course materials are extremely timeconsuming. It can be quite expensive to train many instructors. Administrators in each institution may periodically invite online technology experts to campus in order to train their faculty and staff members. In some cases, administrators will send selected representatives from various academic departments to an online technology conference for training and professional development. Unfortunately, during the current economic downturn, faculty compensation, faculty travel to learn new online software, along with professional development funds have been among the early casualties in the budget wars (Gould, 2003). Hence, incentives and motivations for learning a new online software program may not always be there. After a while, however, faculty and students should once again be comfortable with electronic communication. They should view their upgraded or changed online program as essential to their teaching and learning, respectively.

For online courses, instructors and students have relied heavily on writing communication and visual layout to carryout the task to assess learning and instructional effectiveness due to the absence of social cues, such as voice, body language, and physical appearance (Liang and Creasy, 2004). A major issue in this study was that poor writing was confounded with interactive and performance-based assessment. During course development, it is imperative for webbased instructors to distinguish between the assessment of the course objectives and the assessment of writing. The assessment criteria and assessment procedures also need to be accurately written in order to clarify the instructional goals and objectives (Liang and Creasy, 2004).