Abstract
Increased enrollment in online programs and courses has prompted a plethora of research on instructional strategies that impact online students’ learning. Most of these strategies came from instructors, and others were solicited from students. While the literature notes that students who have more university experience tend to provide more substantive responses when solicited, there seems to be limited representation of online master’s students’ preferences on what instructional strategies work for them. There is paucity in the literature on how these preferred instructional strategies inform existing theoretical and practical frameworks that could impact online learning performance. This article discusses the Top Ten Instructional Strategies preferred by master’s students who responded to a dissertation survey question - What specific things would you like your online instructors do to help you learn successfully? - and relates these strategies to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and the Quality Matters Rubric.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. SLOAN Consortium: A Consortium of Institutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/growing_by_degrees_2005
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson survey research group, e-Literate, and WCET. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States (rep.). Babson survey research group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Castano Bishop, M., & Yocom, J. (2013). Video projects: Integrating project-based learning, universal design for learning, and bloom’s taxonomy. In Smyth, E. G., & Volker, J. X. (Eds.), Enhancing instruction through visual media: Utilizing video and lecture capture (pp. 204–220). Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). The seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. Faculty inventory. Racine: Johnson Foundation.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Jossey-Bass: Wiley.
Chyung, S. Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and dissatisfying factors in e-learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 97–113.
Clinefelter, D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2016). Online college students 2016: A comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville: The Learning House, Inc..
Crews, T. B., Wilkerson, K., & Neill, J. K. (2015). Principles for good practice in undergraduate education: Effective online course design to assist students’ success. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1) Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol11no1/Crews_0315.pdf.
Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/cuthrell.pdf.
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2014. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ss14/ERS1406.pdf
Danielson, C. (1998). Is satisfying college students the same as decreasing their dissatisfaction? Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED422812.pdf.
Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13 Retrieved from https://www.iupui.edu/~josotl/archive/vol_10/no_2/v10n2dixson.pdf.
Ferdinand, D. (2017). Asynchronous debates. In J. A. Bowen and C. E. Watson (authors), Teaching naked techniques: A practical guide for designing better classrooms, (p. 154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Gautreau, C., Street, C., & Glasser, B. (2008). Best practices in graduate online teaching: Faculty perspectives. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(6) Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/jun_08/article01.htm.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Jacobi, L. (2016). The trifecta approach and more: Student perspectives on strategies for successful online lectures. In i.e.: inquiry in education. Center for Practitioner Research at the National College of Education, National-Louis University, Chicago. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=ie.
Johnson, S. (2014). Applying the seven principles of good practice: Technology as a lever - in an online research course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 41–50.
Kaid, L. L., & Wadsworth, A. J. (1989). Content analysis. Retrieved from http://uconnpublicspeaking.wikispaces.com/file/history/kaid+%26+wadsworth+1989+content+analysis.pdf.
Katt, J., & Condly, S. (2009). A preliminary study of classroom motivators and de-motivators from a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education, 58(2), 213–234.
Knowles, M. (1992). Applying principles of adult learning in conference presentations. Adult Learning, 4(1), 11–14.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. Retrieved from http://www.distancelearningcentre.com/access_2014/assessments/Criminology/Research/Content_Analysis.pdf.
Online Learning Consortium. (2017). Quality framework. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/quality-framework-five-pillars/.
Quality Matters (2014). Standards from the quality matters higher education rubric, 5th Edition. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric.
Shattuck, K. (2015). Research inputs and outputs of quality matters: Update to 2012 and 2014 versions of what we’re learning from QM-focused research. Quality Matters: Annapolis. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/QM-Research-What-We're-Learning-2015update.pdf.
Tobin, T. J., Mandernach, B. J., & Taylor, A. (2015). Evaluating online teaching implementing best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1989). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. Retrieved from http://archive.gao.gov/d48t13/138426.pdf.
Watson, F. S., & Ferdinand, D. (2015). Debating: A dynamic teaching strategy for motivating students and teachers. In Quick hits session presentation at the 16 th annual Midwest conference on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Indiana: Indiana University South Bend.
Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice (2nd ed.). ASCD: Alexandria.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watson, F.F., Castano Bishop, M. & Ferdinand-James, D. Instructional Strategies to Help Online Students Learn: Feedback from Online Students. TechTrends 61, 420–427 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0216-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0216-y