1

H B O

HYBRID, BLENDED, AND ONLINE LEARNING AT LAUREATE EDUCATION

Barry Sugarman, Ph.D.Gary J Burkholder, Ph.D.Laureate Education, Inc.

Van Davis, Ph.D.Deborah Everhart, Ph.D.Blackboard, Inc.

Exploring Myths and Best Practices

2

INTRODUCTIONFor millions of people around the world, the promise of higher education is the promise of a better life for themselves and their families. Laureate Education is uniquely poised to meet that global need for higher education with its commitment to provide students access to quality higher education around the world. Bringing to life the Laureate spirit, “Here for Good,” means expanding our commitment to students who currently are not able to access higher education. One of the most important ways Laureate can do this is to increase our offerings of quality higher education through hybrid, blended, and online (digital) education. These modalities allow institutions to reach students who otherwise might not have access to quality higher education and to respond to the new ways students are increasingly interacting with technology. Reaching new students is an important driver of Laureate’s hybridity goal.

“In the everyday rush and with three kids to raise, attending classes at a university

has always been very complicated for me; I tried a few times, but always gave up along the way. I chose

to study online and it was the best choice I made for my personal and professional development because I was able

to gain knowledge and adapt my schedule to the course. In this sense, the involvement of UNIFACS faculty members was crucial. Today, I’ve successfully finished my course and I already received a promotion in the company I work at.”

Ederubia dos Santos Itaparica Student, UNIFACS

Digital learning can be daunting for those not familiar with it. Even though digital approaches to education have been around since the mid-1990s, there are still myths, fears, and concerns surrounding it. Some higher education professionals are afraid that online education may be less rigorous or less effective for meeting learning outcomes than traditional face-to-face courses. Others may be concerned that online education heightens the chance for students to cheat or that employers will not value an online degree.

3

Even faculty members with some exposure to digital learning may have concerns that what teachers do in the classroom, and the essence of their relationships with students, will not translate into such technology-rich courses and programs. Finally, faculty may even fear that digital learning might change their role and decrease their importance.

The goal of this paper is to address concerns that many faculty members have about digital education and introduce some of the best practices in this area. In addition, this paper provides faculty and student examples from around the Laureate Network—highlighting the value of digital teaching and learning. Finally, the intention of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive overview of this important subject but, rather, to introduce an aspect of education that will provide tremendous opportunity for current and future students of our institutions.

H B O

4

DEFINING HYBRID, BLENDED, AND ONLINE There are many different terms associated with digital learning, such as distance, blended, hybrid, asynchronous, synchronous, web-assisted, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Some of these terms relate to modality, which describes the how and where of learning. Other terms describe the amount of the course taught through a given modality. For our purposes, we will use the following definitions, adopted by Laureate, to ensure consistency and shared understanding of terminology:

Hybrid programs are comprised of courses with some taught fully online, and some taught fully face-to-face and/or in a blended format. Although blended and hybrid are often used interchangeably in the literature, for the purposes of this paper, the term “blended learning” refers to courses, and the term “hybrid” refers to programs.

Blended courses are taught partially online and partially on campus (i.e., face-to-face). Blended learning draws on technology-mediated instruction while learners are separated by distance (at least some of the time) to assist in the facilitation of learning.

Fully online courses/programs are taught completely online, although there may be limited face-to-face requirements associated with assessments and/or “residencies.” Fully online courses are usually taught primarily asynchronously, although some synchronous learning might take place.

H

B

O

5

MYTHS OF DIGITAL LEARNINGThe use of technology-assisted learning to broaden access to education is not a new concept, and the United States was an early leader in this regard. As early as 1922, Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) offered courses via radio, which preceded the first televised college course at the University of Houston in the 1950s. In the United Kingdom (UK), both the government and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) proposed the idea of developing a “University of the Air,” which was launched in 1969 (The Open University, 2015). Online learning itself is now more than 40 years old, though its size and sophistication has certainly changed since the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute offered the first online program in 1981, and Nova Southeastern University began offering the first online doctoral programs in 1985. In Latin America, institutions such as Anahuac University and Monterrey Institute of Technology have offered online programs for more than 20 years.

Despite the 40-year history of digital education, myths in this area abound, specifically those related to quality, student integrity, student connectedness, faculty importance, effectiveness, and employer attitudes.

5

H B O

6

Myths Around Quality

Certainly, one of the most frequently cited and enduring myths that faculty, students, and the public share regarding online education is that its quality suffers in comparison to face-to-face education. There are legitimate reasons this myth is so pervasive. First, early online education purveyors tended to exist outside of the recognized regulatory frameworks, which provide the seal of quality. Second, there have been well-publicized stories of fraud and abuse among certain digital education providers around the world (Piña, 2010). Finally, the image of the solitary student sitting alone behind a computer screen is one that contradicts centuries of lived experiences in campus-based higher education.

There are online higher education courses that exist outside of traditional regulatory frameworks. For example, the MOOC movement exists almost entirely outside of the regulatory realm. However, current and future Laureate digital programs must pass successfully through the same regulatory processes as its face-to-face programs. These regulatory processes are the first line of defense for academic quality.

Beyond regulatory processes, there are a variety of methods for ensuring quality in digital courses and programs. Organizations, such as Quality Matters, in the United States, and the Open & Distance Learning Quality Council (ODLQC), in the United Kingdom, have developed sets of standards to assess quality in online education. In both cases, an emphasis is placed on clear learning objectives; multiple, aligned assessments; the presence of ample instructional materials; technological tools that support active learning and learner engagement; and structured learner supports.

Shelton (2011) reviewed 12 paradigms for ensuring online education program quality. Across these paradigms, the author identified the following common themes:

Institutional commitment, support, and leadership

Teaching and learning

Faculty support; student support; course development

Technology; evaluation and assessment

Cost effectiveness; management and planning

Student and faculty satisfaction

Laureate utilizes both external quality frameworks and internally developed frameworks to ensure online course and program quality (e.g., Standards for Excellence Digital Content Design and Development, available through the Laureate Network Office).

7

Myths Around Student Integrity

Myths Around Student Connectedness

Another common myth surrounding online education is the notion that online students are more likely to cheat than students are in face-to-face courses. There is mounting evidence to suggest that this is not the case. For example, after surveying 635 undergraduate and graduate students at a mid-size American university, Watson and Sottile found nearly identical rates of self-reported cheating among face-to-face (32.1%) and online (32.7%) students (Watson & Sottile, 2010).

To further underscore the nature of this myth, the same study (Waston & Sottile, 2010) found that in all but one area of cheating (having someone provide answers to an exam or quiz while taking it), face-to-face students were more likely than online students to submit someone else’s work. They were also more likely to get answers from someone who had already taken the exam; copy a paper or answers without the other person’s permission; commit plagiarism; or use a professional writing service.

Similarly, in a study of 225 students, Stuber-McEwen, Wisely, and Hoggat (2009) found that cheating in online courses was less prevalent than in face-to-face courses. Despite the concern that online students are more likely to engage in cheating behaviors than their peers enrolled in face-to-face courses, research has revealed that such a concern is unfounded.

There is a fear that, rather than learning within the context of a community, online and blended learning is a solitary and disconnected learning experience. However, online learners access technological tools that have the capacity to erase distance in ways that are unparalleled with the ubiquitous nature of discussion forums, webcams, and a variety of contemporary social tools. Additionally, blended learners experience the best that both the online and face-to-face teaching worlds have to offer.

“I usually use short videos to explain some concepts or patterns of participation and that

allows me to get closer to students overall in the time we work online. Other times I use videos so that students

present themselves to the rest of the group when the first classroom session does not occur in the beginning of the course and it helps us feel part of the group.”

Sonia Martínez RequejoAssociated Professor,

School of Social Sciences, UEM

In fact, research indicates that the development of a learning community, where students have the opportunity to interact in meaningful ways, can occur equally well in online and face-to-face modalities. For example, Francescato et al. (2006) compared the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and online groups among psychology majors at a European university. The study revealed similar growth in levels of professional competence, academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and self-efficacy for problem solving across online and face-to-face groups.

8

Further, many students—especially non-native speakers—struggle with face-to-face interactions in classroom discussions. These students may have difficulty articulating complex ideas or need more time thinking than the typical in-class discussion provides them. Other students may experience significant social anxiety and fear associated with speaking up in class. However, carefully developed online classes provide these learners with greater opportunities for meaningful engagement—and a way to have their voices heard. To this end, Solimeno, Mebane, Tomai, and Francescato (2008) found that students who use learning strategies characterized by lack of perseverance and difficulties in handling study time and finishing tasks punctually benefited more from online settings.

Myths Around Faculty Importance

Many faculty members fear that the importance of their role will diminish as their institutions increase the proportion of digital learning offered to its students. Yet, the role of faculty will remain critical in successful online learning—particularly within the context of curriculum design/development and faculty-to-student interaction.

Faculty members may have key responsibilities for course development tasks, such as writing course content, participating in media development, selecting learning resources, and crafting assessments. Siemens, Gašević, and Dawson (2015), in an extensive analysis of the literature on online

learning funded by the Gates Foundation, identified findings across several empirical studies supporting the notion that the nature of course design impacts student outcomes. The authors reference the Bernard et al. (2009) claim that online education “can be much better and much worse” (p. 5) than face-to-face education. That is to say, faculty developing online courses have the power to create great learning experiences.

Similarly, whether or not a faculty member develops a course that she or he teaches, the faculty member plays a tremendously important role in impacting student learning and satisfaction. Arbaugh et al. (2009) found that “learner–instructor interaction is one of the strongest predictors of student learning… In fact, results from some studies suggest that learner–instructor interaction may be the primary variable for predicting online course learning outcomes” (p. 80). As digital learning increases in prevalence, the role of the faculty member in creating an engaging, interactive course experience will continue to be a significant factor in the teaching and learning process.

9

Myths Around Effectiveness

Closely related to the myths and fears about the quality of online and blended education are the concerns many have regarding the effectiveness of such modalities. As with several other concerns, the growing literature on digital education suggests that these fears are unfounded.

For example:

Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones (2010) conducted a meta-analysis on 50 effects found in 45 studies that contrasted digital modalities with a face-to-face modality. They found that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction” (p. 2).

Allen et al. (2004) found that the effectiveness of online education hinges on the quality of the course content and is independent of the modality. Bernard et al. (2004) discovered that when comparing the effectiveness of asynchronous online with traditional face-to-face and synchronous online delivery, asynchronous online delivery was actually more effective than the other two delivery methods. Ni (2013) compared online and face-to-face students in a graduate public affairs course. The author found that “student performance as measured by grade is independent of the mode of instruction” (p. 199).

The results from these researchers suggest that digital learning offers significant opportunities to teaching and learning pedagogy without sacrificing quality and effectiveness. “When a student who is a slow learner came

forward and said, “Now I have the confidence that I can perform better, thanks for providing such an

interactive course (through Blackboard). I am learning better now.” This is the best motivation for any teacher, I

feel!”

Narasimman SwaminathanFaculty of Health SciencesINTI International University

10

Myths Around Employer Attitudes

Many faculty, students, and parents fear that potential employers will view digital learning as sub-standard—penalizing new graduates—however, little evidence suggests this is the case. Excelsior College, in conjunction with Zogby, administered the “International Distance Learning Survey” to over 1,500 chief executive officers (CEOs) and business owners. They found that 83% of the participants strongly believed that online education was as credible as traditional face-to-face education (Excelsior College, 2009). Additionally, in the U.S., Western Governors University (WGU) reported the 5-year employment rate of its graduates to be 79%—13 percentage points higher than the U.S. national average (WGU, 2015).

Tabatabaei and Gardiner (2012) studied professionals in the information systems (IS) industry with employee recruiting experience. They found that the education mode (i.e., online versus face-to-face) of an IS graduate was not a significant consideration to recruiters. Rather, other factors, such as work experience and academic performance, were more important in the hiring decision. Clearly, there is a significant group of employers less interested in the modality of where a student learns and much more interested in the content of a candidate’s education and prior work experience.

1111

PEDAGOGY IN HIGH QUALITY DIGITAL EDUCATIONIn many ways, digital education is no different from teaching in a traditional classroom. Faculty are still working to develop quality relationships with their students in order to create a supportive environment for intellectual exploration and learning. Just as in face-to-face teaching, the development of relationships between faculty and students (as well as among students) is critical for the creation of a learning community, and the decisions faculty make in their blended (or online) class are largely shaped by their philosophy and approach to teaching.

In What the Best College Teachers Do, a 15-year study across many disciplines and institutions, the author suggested that the best college teachers “help their students learn in ways that made a sustained, substantial, and positive influence on how those students think, act, and feel” (Bain, 2004, p. 5).

“I believe [online education] shows me every day that it is possible to “change the world” and

that it is possible to be and do better and better, since the experiences and outcomes I go through in teaching

online assures me of the dimension and responsibility of being an educator and not just someone to pass along content.”

Suzana CoelhoProfessor, Social Work

UNIFACS

12

All of the college teachers studied share six basic characteristics:

Bain’s discussion of college teaching focuses on face-to-face classrooms; however, the characteristics of high-quality college teaching apply equally well to digital classrooms.

Further, Siemens, Gašević, and Dawson (2015, p. 114) analyzed the literature on instructional practices in online education and identified seven shared concepts:

Finally, in a qualitative analysis of online faculty practices, Lewis and Abdul-Hamid (2006) suggested that exemplary online faculty engage in four primary practices: fostering interaction, providing feedback, facilitating learning, and maintaining enthusiasm and organization.

Looking across the research presented in this section, we will focus our further discussion on three emergent areas that impact the online learner experience: creating community, fostering feedback, and maintaining student engagement.

Online courses should provide good support for student-to-student and student-to-content interactions.

Those interactions should include cooperative and collaborative learning.

The most common approach to fostering interactions within the online learning environment is through structured online Discussions.

The instructor’s moderating role in guided Discussions is of great importance.

Instructors should be able to provide timely, formative feedback on learning progress for every student.

Instructional scaffolds should be wisely considered, and applied, according to student needs.

Content provided should be visually engaging and interactive.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

They know their disciplines and understand the principles of learning.

They view preparation for teaching just as important as any other scholarly endeavor, such as research.

They set high expectations for their students.

They create a supportive and collaborative learning environment that fosters critical analysis and includes significant formative feedback.

They treat their students with respect.

They engage in continuous improvement—assessing, evaluating, and changing, as needed, to make teaching and learning better.

1

2

3

4

5

6

13

Creating Community

The best college teachers create relationships with their students. They invest time with their students and believe that “students wanted to learn… until proven otherwise” (Bain, 2004, p. 140). From the research discussed earlier, the evidence also indicated that successful learning environments are characterized by cooperation, collaboration, and a multiplicity of interactions (student-to-teacher, student-to-student, and student-to-content). Put simply, great teachers create great communities.

Therefore, the ability of any faculty member, particularly those teaching in a digital environment, to create a community of learners is essential (Grandzol &

Grandzol, 2006). One central aspect for fostering these interactions is an instructor’s ability to establish a presence and rapport with students while assisting them in becoming actively and socially engaged learning community members. Although there are a number of ways to go about establishing presence, all of them have in common the willingness of the faculty member to be authentic. This means that faculty should be willing to share themselves with their students, as well as being authentically interested in their development.

Most faculty, when teaching face-to-face courses, spend at least part of the early class sessions getting to know their students. This form of establishing rapport is an important first step in creating a sense of community in any class—whether the class is taught face-to-face or digitally (Lewis & Abdul-Hamid, 2006). In earlier asynchronous online education, establishing rapport was limited to faculty creating textual introductions. Today, however, the ubiquitous nature of tablets and webcams makes it easy to record a video introduction (Brinthaupt, Fisher, Gardner, Raffo, & Woodard, 2011) to share with students virtually.

Equally important is the opportunity for students to introduce themselves to each other and the instructor. One construct that describes such interactions is social presence. Boston et al. (2009) described social presence as “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (p. 76). In their study of 28,000 online students, the authors found that social presence is a significant predictor of course-to-course (or term-to-term) retention. In other words, the degree to which online students perceive their instructor and other students to be “real people” predicts their persistence. Again, authenticity is a key attribute among successful online faculty.

“Networking with classmates is possible with the Stamford Online MBA Program through Blackboard

Collaborate so I am not feeling left out or on my own. I also have opportunities to use technology to conduct

group work with my Online MBA friends, without having to be in the same location.” Student, Online MBA ProgramStamford International University

14

Fostering Feedback

The early forms of digital education were characterized by (a) one-to-many relationships (e.g., a faculty lecture broadcast to many students over radio or television); (b) little opportunity for student-to-faculty interaction, other than via summative assessments (e.g., examinations and assignments); and (c) very little, if any, opportunity for student-to-student interaction (e.g., discussion, group projects, etc.). In this section, the interaction (or feedback) that takes place between faculty and students—and the importance of such interaction in the digital environment—will be discussed.

It is reasonable to assert that useful feedback provided by faculty members assists students in the learning process. Siemens, Gašević, and Dawson (2015) identified this theme in their meta-analysis.

Espasa and Meneses (2010) analyzed feedback processes between online faculty and their students at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC, Open University of Catalonia). From their research, they proposed three types of feedback that, when provided by faculty, help “regulate” the learning process:

Interactive regulation (response to questions about course content)

Retroactive regulation (following an assignment)

Proactive regulation (after final assignment)

Clarify what constitutes good performance (goals, criteria, and expected standards).

Facilitate the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning.

Deliver high quality information to students about their learning.

Encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning.

Encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem.

Provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance.

Provide information (feedback) to teachers that can help shape teaching.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

As the authors noted in their discussion, retroactive regulation corresponds to formative feedback on assignments across the course, and proactive regulation corresponds to summative feedback after a final assignment. Significantly, their research highlighted a positive correlation between receiving formative feedback and academic outcomes.

Of course, feedback is only useful to the extent that it aids the student in learning. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) conducted an analysis of the research literature on teacher-to-student feedback and identified seven positive feedback practices. Although the literature they analyzed focused primarily on face-to-face settings, the following practices also apply to digital settings:

15

In the physical classroom, there are many opportunities for faculty to provide formal and informal feedback to students. Sometimes feedback comes in the form of formative and summative feedback on assignments, whereas—at other times—it may take the more informal forms of chance conversations, such as while walking to and from class or stopping in during an instructor’s office hours. Fortunately, the online learning environments of today provide many opportunities to leverage both formal and informal feedback.

“I’ve received a lot of thanks from students who value my feedback, which focuses on how they

can improve their thinking processes and make their arguments clearer and convincing. Helping students close

the loop in their application of concepts is a critical part of what we bring that is of great worth.” William SchulzProfessor of Strategy and Leadership

Walden University

Maintaining Student Engagement

Terms like “student engagement” and “engaged learners” occur throughout the popular and scholarly literature on education. Yet, as much as faculty members and others at their institutions are dedicated to improving engagement, there is no well-accepted definition of student engagement. Bigatel and Williams (2015) offer the following definition based on their analysis of the literature: “… engagement involves the student’s efforts to study a subject, to practice, to obtain feedback, to analyze, and to solve problems.”

Rabe-Hemp, Woollen, and Humiston (2009) compared engagement among online and face-to-face students in undergraduate criminal justices courses. Although the authors did not propose a formal definition of engagement, it is clear from their discussion that they are operationalizing the meaning of “engagement” in a manner that is consistent with Bigatel and Williams (2015). Rabe-Hemp et al. found: “Students in the online course may be more reflective in their learning process, indicated by the findings that online students spent more time preparing for the course and that they felt more connected to faculty” (2009, p. 213). Similar to the descriptions used by Espasa and Meneses (2009), it appeared that online students were more self-regulating than face-to-face students were, given their propensity to reflect and prepare.

Within the online environment, strategies to increase engagement may include posting a welcome message to students that is motivating and energetic; responding to all student queries in a reasonable amount of time (e.g., within 24 hours); and ensuring that all formative feedback is both encouraging and detailed. The popular literature is replete with examples of how to improve engagement, and research indicates that the very same methods of encouraging student engagement in face-to-face classrooms may also be applied to digital settings.

16

Conclusion

In the early days of digital education, significant research focused on comparing the effectiveness of online instruction relative to face-to-face learning. Given the novelty of the modality at the time—and the need for early online providers to prove their worth—such focus is not surprising. As was demonstrated throughout this paper, however, research has indicated that digital learning is at least as effective as face-to-face learning. Yet, myths are typically difficult to put to rest, and myths that have personal impact (e.g., relating to a chosen career) are even more difficult to eliminate.

Through this paper, the hope is that the many positive attributes associated with digital learning have been demonstrated, and the important role faculty members play in the digital teaching and learning process have been highlighted. Digital learning offers tremendous opportunities for the expansion of educational access and opportunity. At a time when it is impossible to meet the growing international demand for higher education through existing physical structures, digital education can expand access beyond classroom walls and reach place-bound students.

Access is not just about the physical proximity (or lack thereof) to a campus, though. Access is also about finding the time to attend college. Many potential students are juggling work, family, and school responsibilities, which can limit opportunities for students to travel to and from campus for scheduled courses. For these students, studying may happen late at night after putting their children to bed or during lunch breaks at work. Many of these potential students believe that higher education is not possible for them.

Digital education represents a way forward and an opportunity for many of the underserved students of today to achieve their dreams of a college (or even a graduate) degree. Laureate is uniquely poised to meet the needs of such students as it brings to life the very essence of being “Here for Good.”

17

References

Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. A. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 402–420.

Arbaugh, J. B., Godfrey, M. R., Johnson, M., Pollack, B. L., Niendorf, B., & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 71–87.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., … Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 74(3), 379–439.

Bigatel, P., & Williams, V. (2015). Measuring student engagement in an online program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2).

Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 67–83.

Brinthaupt, T. M., Fisher, L. S., Gardner, J. G., Raffo, D. M., & Woodard, J. B. (2011). What the best online teachers should do. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/brinthaupt_1211.htm

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., Prosser, M., & O’Hara, A. (2006). How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: Conceptions, intentions and approaches. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 244–256.

Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analyzing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292.

Excelsior College. (2009). The power of an online education. Retrieved from http://www.excelsior.edu/power-of-online-education

18

References

Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163–176.

Gallup, Inc. (2014). Great jobs. Great lives. The 2014 Western Governors University alumni report. Retrieved from http://www.wgu.edu/sites/wgu.edu/files/custom_uploads/WGUgallupreport.pdf

Grandzol, J. R., & Grandzol, C. J. (2006). Best practices for online business education. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/246/475

Laureate Education, Inc. (2015). Standards for excellence in digital content design and development. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/BEC-SHARING/SE_DigitalContentDesignDevelopment.pdf

Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary Faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83–98.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

Open & Distance Learning Quality Council (ODLQC). (2012). About ODLQC. Retrieved from http://odlqc.org.uk/

The Open University. (2015). The OU story. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/strategy/ou-story

Panova, O., & Erakovich, R. (2005). Defining quality in online education: Definitions and factors from the US and Ukraine. Journal of Business Inquiry, 4(1), 26–31.

Piña, A. A. (2010). Online diploma mills: Implications for legitimate distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 121–126.

Quality Matters. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org

19

Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S., & Humiston, G. S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207–218.

Shelton, K. (2011). A review of paradigms for evaluating the quality of online education programs. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring141/shelton141.html

Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University.

Solimeno, A., Mebane, M. E., Tomai, M., & Francescato, D. (2008). The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 51(1), 109–128.

Stuber-McEwen, D., Wiseley, P., & Hoggatt, S. (2009). Point, click, and cheat: Frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3).

Tabatabaei, M., & Gardiner, A. (2012). Recruiters’ perceptions of information systems graduates with traditional and online education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23(2), 133.

Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1).

Western Governors University (WGU). (2015). Graduate success. Retrieved from http://www.wgu.edu/about_WGU/graduate_success

References

CreditsIllustrations:Badge by Aha-Soft from the Noun ProjectThief by André Renault from the Noun ProjectNetwork by Greg Pabst from the Noun ProjectTeacher by Musavvir Ahmed from the Noun ProjectCheckboard by Jose Luis HenriquezEmployeer by Jose Luis HenriquezDigital Pedagogy by Jose Luis HenriquezCommunity by Jose Luis HenriquezFeedback bubble by Jose Luis HenriquezStudent by Samuel de Angelis from the Noun Project

Images by Getty images http://www.gettyimages.com

Design and Layout Jose Luis Henriquez for Laureate Education Inc.