The impact of altered realties: implications of online delivery for learners' interactions, expectations, and learning skills.

Although research consistently demonstrates that students learn content in online classes as well as their campus based counterparts and are equally satisfied with the quality of their learning, more information is needed that describes how the learning experiences themselves may vary. A traditional group of students was compared with an online group taking the same graduate class in research methods using the same materials and with the same instructor. Data representing learning outcomes, attitudes toward coursework, and beliefs about the nature of their experiences were gathered and compared. Both groups scored equally on the pre and postquantitative measures of learning outcomes and satisfaction, but described decidedly different learning experiences. They valued different kinds of interactions, held different expectations for the courses, and described development of contrasting learning skills and strategies that led toward success in the course. Online learning was revealed as a distinctly different experience than face-to-face learning, offering insight into better understanding the nature of the experience of online learning and suggesting that online course designers focus their attention on particular elements that support the unique experiences of student who select this delivery mode.

**********

The proliferation of higher education distance learning in the last decade has provided access for an underserved group of individuals (Bickle & Carrol, 2003; Granger & Bowman, 2003; King, 2002; Leasure, Davis, & Thievon, 2000) in part because of the flexibility it affords learners (Billings, Connors, & Skiba, 2001). Online delivery, in particular, can be a solution for a variety of issues and problems such as time availability, distance, and restricted course offering in traditional settings (Perreault, Walman, & Zhao, 2002). Whether or not this mode delivers the same quality as face-to-face settings, however, continues to be a concern (Bernard et al., 2004).

The online environment drastically alters the structural elements of the learning landscape. Learners and teachers are in a "fundamentally different starting situation" (Peters, 2003, p. 87), creating essentially different "learning spaces" (Peters, p. 89) that are completely unlike those in traditional learning settings. Distance learning, therefore, involves more than geography. It is a completely different environmental context; learners and teachers are distanced from their previous expectations of the education process (Lally & Barrett, 1999). This view holds that the online delivery medium dictates the course's structural elements (e.g., the way the course is organized), the kinds of interactions among members of the learning community, the learners' expectations for the course, and the modes they use to facilitate learning.

More than the technologies of distance learning, however, may drive this distancing from previous educational expectations held by learners. Chappell, Rhodes, Solomon, Tennant, and Yates (2003) offered that the need for personal change fuels and organizes the structure of adult learning. In this view, the technology that facilitates learning would not merely be its delivery method (e.g., online) but the learner's "technologies of the self" (p. 2) such as self-knowledge, self-control, self-care, and self-creation used to promote change. Implicit in this position is the notion that adult learners are likely to prefer learning environments, online or traditional, that they perceive will assist them with their personal identity development and provide a good fit with and/or development of their self-technologies such as ways of managing time.

Elements of Online Learning

Structure. Effective online teaching is not simply a matter of adapting the structure and attendant modes of interaction of the traditional classroom environment to this online environment. Cognitive expectations, pedagogical choices, and supportive practices need to be carefully reconsidered, with recognition of the complexity of the issues (Peters, 2003). The medium of online delivery itself has the potential to alter learning experiences in important, and sometimes unforeseen, ways; therefore online teaching requires "different sets of technical and pedagogical competencies to engage in superior teaching practices" (Bernard, et al., 2004, p. 409). Structure includes good organization, clear procedures and expectations, clear timelines, understandable texts, helpful supplementary materials, and quickly accessible technical support (Paloff & Pratt 2001).

Modes of interaction. The modes of interaction experienced by learners through the medium of online learning is dramatically different from those experienced through traditional settings. More so than with the traditional setting, meaningful modes of interaction or dialog in an online setting become an actual learning tool as well as a connection to the learning community (Bernard, et al, 2004; King, 2001; Lally & Barrett. 1999; Moore & Thompson, 1997; Paloff & Pratt, 2001). Interactions are largely, if not exclusively, text based. Chat rooms and discussions boards are the primary vehicles for learner to learner and learner to teacher interactions.

Interactions may be synchronous or asynchronous, extending the learning experience. These kinds of interaction with their altered forms of engagement may increase the depth of learning because they offer more time to think and process information and ideas (Lally & Barnett, 1999). Learners no longer need to submit to the Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) pattern that governs much traditional instruction (Cazden, 1988). It is also possible that for some learners the interactions created in a different learning structure can create a stronger academic focus (Whipp & Schweizer, 2000), and that the self-regulatory skills needed for success in an online class contribute to lifelong learning skills (Garrison, 2003).

On the other hand, distance learning has the potential to be an isolating experience (Whipp & Schweizer, 2000), as this mode makes it far more difficult to address the basic human need of connecting to others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In a recent and extensive review of the literature on online learning, Bernard and colleagues (2004) argued that successful methodology in online classes is linked to effective orchestration of this interactive dimension.

Learning Outcomes and Online Learning

Most studies indicate there are no significant differences in achievement when traditional and online learning are compared (Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, & Mabry, 2002; Lockyer, Patterson, & Harper, 2001; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000; Neuhauser, 2002; Thirunarayanan & Peres-Prado, 2001-2002). However, it is important to note that even when outcome measures show little difference, learning may have been qualitatively different for face-to-face learners that may have affected depth of learning (Allen et al.). Further, the media acts as a filter of "embedded" aspects that serve to confound and distort comparisons on measures of achievement; the actual characteristics and effects of the learning may be very different (Smith & Dillon, 1999, p. 19).

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Barriers related to Online Learning

Attitudes. Learners' positive attitudes toward online learning (Lim & Karol, 2002; Lockyer et al., 2001; Lundberg, 2000) have been linked to course success (Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998). Performance-based orientation, group work, collaborative strategies, clear instructor presence, opportunities for reflection, clear directions, an emphasis on ideas rather than facts, and equal opportunities to participate seem to be important for positive course perceptions (Moore, 2002; Sherry et al.). These findings may be confounded by two characteristics of existing studies. First, the variability in groups also applied to learners' reports of satisfaction levels and the fact that the most dissatisfied learners dropped the classes and were not included in post-course surveys (Bernard et al., 2004). Second, there are indications that those who took online courses held qualitatively different initial expectations for their online learning than they did for their traditional learning experiences (Cooper, 2001).

Beliefs. Higher education students who choose online learning have cited advantages of convenience, time flexibility, avoiding the commute to campus to "sit through" a class, and opportunities to be independent learners (Bickle & Carroll, 2003; Billings et al., 2001; Cooper, 2001; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000). Online learners described themselves as self-directed (Garrison, 2003; Leasure et al., 2000); they preferred to choose when and how to work, to be personally responsible for their learning, and to determine for themselves how much time they needed to spend on each task to be successful (Cooper, 2001). They perceived themselves as independent learners who believed in an internal locus of control and in the efficacy of effort (Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000). Online students who lacked these qualities were inclined to switch to the traditional delivery mode (Leasure et al.). Success in online courses, according to these learners, was enhanced when they believed that program offerings were congruent with their own goals, when they were highly motivated and degree seeking, or when they were personally engaged in the excitement of learning new content (Lindner, Dooley, & Murphy, 2001).

Barriers. Four types of barriers may block learners' success and persistence in online learning. These barriers are described as (a) situational barriers, including the individual's learning setting and any responsibilities and obligations outside the course; (b) institutional barriers, including the procedures for access and use as determined by the offering institution; (c) dispositional barriers, including personal background variables, perceptions, attitudes, and self-regulation skills; and (d) epistemological barriers, including learner beliefs about the efficacy of the online learning process (Muilenburg & Berge, 2001). For some learners, the lack of face-to-face communications with teachers and peers resulted in a sense of isolation and lack of connectedness that they found detrimental to their learning (Bernard et al., 2004; Billings et al., 2001). Even those who expressed satisfaction with their online learning experiences were vulnerable to the potential negative effects of isolation inherent in distance learning (Lally & Barrett, 1999).

Statement of the Problem

Benefits of convenience and independence in course work are apparent and highly valued by online learners; however, it is less certain that, when contrasted with face-to-face campus delivery, learners acquire the same content as deeply as their counterparts do. In spite of learners' consistently positive reports of learning and satisfaction in online courses (Moore, 2002), there is, overall, a lack of research that demonstrates the viability of online learning as a substitute for traditional learning modes (Billings et al., 2001). The nationally low completion rate among those who take an entirely online course, which has been estimated as low as 50%, gives reason to reconsider the overall positive picture of this mode of delivery (Carr, 2000; Chyung, 2001; Lim, 2001; King, 2002; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000). Since as many as one third of all learners who were successful in an online course still thought they would have learned more in a traditional setting (Cooper, 2001; Reisetter & Boris, 2004), perhaps learners perceive an inherent quality difference in the two modes of delivery. It is this quality issue that institutions and teachers need to better understand in order to improve the online delivery method that has become so influential and pervasive. The existing assessments of learning, satisfaction, and course efficacy need to be evaluated with some caution until we better understand the important learning processes and outcomes beyond mastery of content as perceived by the learners themselves (Bernard et al., 2004; Billings et al.).

Given that this environment is fundamentally different (Peters, 2003), learners' perceptions of the particular course components that are most effective in delivery of online courses are critical, as is an understanding of why and how these components work and how they could be improved. The question is clearly more complicated than learning outcomes and satisfaction; the very nature of the experience needs further investigation if we are to design courses that meet learner needs, including depth of learning, attitudes toward the experience, perceptions of the process, and beliefs about personal competence as online learners.

Three broad research questions framed our study. First, how did students in the online and traditional classes compare in their learning outcomes and attitudes toward their respective learning experiences? Second, how did the respective groups perceive themselves as competent learners? Finally, how did individuals in each group describe the essential aspects of the course that contributed most to their learning?

METHODS

Our study focused on contrasting experiences of graduate learners in an introductory course in research methods. The strength of a local study, conducted in the context of a particular program, holds potential for revealing a clearer picture of the nature of online learning experiences by decreasing variability and thus focusing on specific characteristics of a delivery mode (Bernard et al., 2004). The first author taught both modes of delivery, which were offered during a summer session and subsequent semesters. Learners used the same text and supplementary materials, and completed identical assignments and requirements. We chose mixed methods to address our research questions because this approach afforded us opportunities to use two different kinds of data to address questions of interest. It allowed us to benefit from the strengths of both paradigms (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Quantitative data were used to compare participants' learning outcomes and attitudes to determine whether the results paralleled the no difference findings of the majority of studies in the literature (Russell, 1999). Although our quantitative comparison would form the basis of the study, our primary purpose was to better understand the experiences of these two groups of learners. This question was addressed with phenomenological qualitative methods, which allowed us to gather insights into the experiences of the respective groups and interpret essential differences and commonalities of their learning experiences (Creswell, 1998).

Participants

All class members of two online and two traditional sections of the instructor's classes were invited to participate in this study at two levels and were offered a minimal number of extra credit points for participation. Demographic data collected on the participants showed them to be similar (see Appendix A). Those students who took the course online did so primarily because of accessibility rather than because they necessarily preferred this mode of learning. Because of distance, online learning was their only option. The study was structured so that that Level One included the quantitative measures and Level Two included interviews; participants were required to complete Level 1 to participate in Level 2. Thirty-eight members of the traditional classes and 27 members of the online classes completed Level One of the study. Fewer participants--21 traditional and 19 online--chose to also complete Level 2 interviews, which were individual face-to-face, individual online, or face-to-face focus group interviews of no more than five participants. Those who chose not to participate in Level 2 listed time and availability constraints as influencing this decision.

Data and Measures

The achievement outcome measure was an objective assessment aimed at mastery of course content, and was extracted from items in the teacher's test bank that accompanied the text. Questions were chosen that matched the instructor's learning goals for both groups of students. The attitude instrument, which measured course expectations, students' beliefs about their learning, their value for, and enjoyment of, the course content, and their beliefs about themselves as learners, was created based on online learning satisfaction literature. (see Appendix B for sample items). Pre and post measures of both constructs were administered to all volunteers. Differences in the means were calculated on the learning and attitude measures to determine levels of achievement and perceptions.

To extend the quantitative data, interviews were conducted with volunteer participants by the second author, who had no part in instruction for either class. The interview protocol (see Appendix C) aimed at understanding the contrasting experiences rather than further verifying learning. Interviews were taped and transcribed, using pseudonyms and removing identifying information. Each participant subsequently verified them for accuracy and completeness. The lead researchers using constant comparative methods that characterize phenomenological studies (Creswell, 1998; Moustakas, 1994) independently analyzed the transcripts, extracting important themes that described the essence of the experiences of these two groups. These interviews revealed more information about the nature of the experience and the qualities that support successful online learning in particular.

Researchers' Profiles

In keeping with the transparency required of qualitative researchers, information is included in Appendix D to identify authors' perspectives that may influence qualitative data analysis, which was completed by the first two researchers, and to support the readers' understanding of the experiences provided to the class participants.

RESULTS

Outcome data indicated that both the online and traditional groups made significant learning gains in terms of mastery of the course content. There were no between-group differences in their pretest or posttest scores on outcome measures, as indicated in Table 1.

There were no significant differences on the pretest or the posttest scores on attitude measures of anxiety, confidence, and attitude between the two groups, as indicated by Table 2.

Although our group was small, our measures of learning outcomes and satisfaction were consistent with the preponderance of the literature (Bernard et al., 2004; Russell, 1999). Since we were reasonably assured that learners had equally strong learning experiences and positive responses to their respective delivery systems, we used the information provided by the interviews to gain a deeper and more complex understanding.

There were important differences in perceptions of the nature of the learning experiences, and it was clear that the context itself played a major role in defining these differences. Traditional learners attributed their successful learning to specific classroom variables such as the teacher or the classroom structure. They emphasized the focus and organization provided by the teacher and the classroom setting as key elements to their success. This group repeatedly emphasized the importance of personal interaction, with both their teacher and their peers. For example, "I like the whole experience of being in the classroom setting with the interaction that you can have. I had the professor right there to explain it to me or else other student interaction that helps make it more clear for me also." They also felt that the classroom provided them with multi-sensory learning, especially for audiovisual modalities. These respondents perceived "accessibility" as "immediacy" of access to the instructor and to their peers.

Online learners attributed their successful mastery of the course content to the structure of the website itself in addition to feedback from, and access to, the instructor. They, however, identified self-regulation and self-discipline as the key factors to their success. They recognized that the lack of face-to-face interaction presented unique challenges and responsibilities, as this online learner described: "No one in the class is going to tell you what they're doing, and the teacher isn't really going to explain this to you when you go to class this week. You've got to figure it out yourself." Access to the teacher as the "expert" and her feedback was also highly rated. Online learners perceived "accessibility" as "convenience" of time and distance.

The overall contrasts defined by context also led to identification of particular core ideas, including contrasts in Structural Elements, Interaction, and Learning Preferences.

Structural Elements

Learners' descriptions of important structural elements included organization, support, and responsibility, all of which contrasted depending on the mode of delivery.

Organization. Traditional learners related organization to the physicality of the classroom, the activities of the class (discussions, lectures, small group activities, handouts, attendance, etc.), and the presence of others in the classroom setting. As one traditional learner said "... the best was putting it into action in classroom discussion because if I had questions I could write in the margin. Then if she didn't address it, then we could ask right then. Or a lot of times my questions would be answered by someone else's questions."

Online learners perceived organization as the ease and accessibility of the website itself. They even identified some advantages of not being in the classroom: "As a teacher [myself], I did miss the discussion and the interaction but I also felt I got things done in a more deliberate and timely manner. Sometimes all those class discussions get too carried away and I find myself distracted from the material." Although both groups completed the same assignments and activities, these seemed particularly important as vehicles for online learners. They identified critical elements that provided the necessary organization for learning including an accessible textbook, online chats with the teacher, introductory remarks prefacing each unit, and specific assignments, most notably writing reflective essays.

Online learners valued the resources provided for structured interaction with the course content: "The chat room helped because the instructor gave us a specific question that would relate to the reading material, and then you had to be able to explain it and discuss it with our partners." Online learners also appreciated the coherence and availability of resources: "You had it all there. It wasn't like you had to go to a different website. It was all there."

Support. Traditional learners perceived both their teacher and their classmates as sources of support, making class attendance of primary importance to their learning. One learner described her value for the classroom setting.

  I would write a list of all the words that I didn't know that were the
  terminology but they didn't mean anything to me until I came to class
  and heard her use them and people asking questions and like made a
  picture out of things and worked with the material and so, coming to
  class in this setting was vital to my learning of this material.

Teacher "availability" was supplemented by learner interaction in the traditional classroom setting. Learner-to-learner interactions were frequently mentioned as beneficial to the process.

Online learners did not identify these same sources of support. They accepted the lack of instructor and peer presence as the nature of online learning. One learner summarized it this way: "That's the way an online class goes." However, online participants valued alternative sources of support. The expert voice of the online teacher was especially powerful for some online learners because it led to clearly focused content that could be lacking in a traditional setting. "I would rather be with an expert teacher ... Sometimes (in the traditional class) the expert is kind of in the background. I really want that expert opinion ... I want them to share with me their current knowledge. Because it is really valuable," one online learner said.

Online learners also emphasized the value of readable resources, including teacher-created materials and well-chosen textbooks. Occasionally, online learners commented on the alternative support provided by interactions with peers. One online learner's experiences with online chats contributed to a sense of a connectedness: "I felt like a part of a learning community because of the chats with my partner and some various other classmates who happened to be online when we were chatting."

Responsibilities. Responses indicated that discipline and self-regulation were important, but were defined differently by the two groups. The traditional group as a whole expressed the need for external regulation of their learning, motivation, concentration, and accountability. The very existence of the class supported learning for one traditional learner: "It kept me focused. I wasn't distracted. If I would have done that online class I know I would have been probably at home and [doing other things]." The classroom context was a signal to engage academically: "The whole idea of coming to a classroom ... I am better able to concentrate. There are fewer distractions ..." In addition, peers provided an important context for some traditional learners as they felt responsible to the learning community: "I think that even if you don't feel the responsibility to yourself or to your professor for the learning, you might feel it towards your peers, in that if you don't do your part that lets them down also."

Online learners defined their responsibilities differently. They acknowledged the self-discipline requirements of their online course and recognized their inherent advantages. They described themselves as more focused and prepared and valued their self-reliance. Independent effort was important to these online learners because they realized that they couldn't rely on others to supply the learning: "It probably made me study harder because I was in charge of my own responses to things." These responsibilities also contributed to the development of life-long learning skills: "I've learned to be more organized and know that this has to be done by this date and this has to be done by this date."

Online learners recognized that the online learning environment required a different set of learning skills from them: "When you first jump in it's a whole different style of learning." They frequently described the strategies used to function in this new context.

  I set aside specific times to study and write and worked that into my
  current work schedule. I did not let anything around me distract me
  from studying. I need a very quiet place to study and I "demanded"
  that of myself and my environment ... I understand that something
  needs to replace the face-to-face discussions and the interactions in
  a standard classroom. I have also talked to many learners who have
  told me they had a very hard time with online classes because they
  could not keep up. So I also knew I would need to be very disciplined.

Interaction

Peer interaction. Traditional learners valued "seeing" others and appreciated the immediacy of their teacher and peers. These traditional learners perceived working with others in groups as an important factor in their success, including the informal interactions outside of instructional time: "I think the small talk before and after class and on breaks was real beneficial to me to get other people's feelings or thoughts or feedback on how they are feeling about the course, not necessarily the content but just to know that you are on the same track." Other participants stated that both formal and informal peer interaction provided the necessary structure, support, and stimulation. They appreciated the dynamics of classroom discussions: "I love conversations. I love questions. So that's what it was like. I just really felt that people were giving input and there was certainly time allowed for that." Another traditional learner identified the importance of "bouncing other ideas off of people verbally." This interactive dynamic used students' varied backgrounds and expertise as a source of support for growth and learning. One described some classmates who "had a lot of education in research. So it was nice if you could sneak into one of those groups and talk to some of them ..."

Traditional learners also perceived that contrasting perspectives and responses indicated to the learning process: "Now, maybe I came out with one interpretation of what was said in that chapter and someone else came with another interpretation of the same materials ... being able to discuss that with your peers." The physical arrangement of the room and the subsequent interactive nature of the class were vital to these traditional learners: "We were working in kind of a semi-circle ... so that we could see who was talking, we could look at them, and interact with the class ..."

Online participants acknowledged that peer interaction was not as readily available in their course, and many of them saw this as a weakness in the online format. "... you didn't really have anyone in the classroom to talk to ... I learn a lot from my peers. Even though I loved the convenience of not having to drive to class, I really did miss all the input and the learning that you get from your peers in a classroom." However, other participants felt that certain aspects of online learning provided an alternative to fill this gap. "Having a chat partner made it easier to discuss material and get another perspective on things. We didn't get to know all the other learners that well, but [we were in contact with] at least one." Some learners went above and beyond classroom expectations and requirements for their peer interactions. "We talked on the phone, we talked on e-mail, we kept in touch, and we still are in touch even after the class is over."

Interaction with the teacher. Both groups emphasized the importance of learner-teacher interaction, although it took different forms and included different expectations depending on the class format. Traditional learners again referred to the visibility and accessibility of the instructor: "She's friendly. She smiles. And she knew our names." Traditional learners described this interaction as both personal and instructional in nature.

  I think the face-to-face interaction with [the instructor] was really
  helpful because you know she would go through with overheads and
  examples and just getting her in conversation and giving more examples
  of how everything applied and it was really valuable ... so much of it
  really for me made sense when I heard her restate the concepts and
  when I talked through it with somebody else.

Online learners concurred with the value of instructor interaction, but they described ways this communication differed from that in the traditional setting. Instructor feedback was a particularly important form of interaction for them: "She was very specific in her comments and suggestions and I felt I received a great deal of direction from her during the class." Timelines were also critical to these learners for receiving support and reassurance. One learner described his perception of this type of interaction: "I did contact the instructor a few times during the course via the chat room times that were set aside. I felt that the feedback I got helped or was reassuring to me." However, the limitation of online communication was clearly noted: "But, you know, how many times do you have to e-mail back and forth to make it clear?"

Learning Preferences

Learning modes. Traditional learners specifically emphasized the importance of the multi-sensory nature of the classroom experience: "I am a visual person and I liked seeing people's faces and seeing the nuances and the expressions." Some learners from the traditional class were very specific and detailed about their perception of the importance of this dimension. One traditional learner put it this way: "Being in the class helps me a lot because I listen ... and maybe I am a better learner by my ears so I listen and listen and something gets into my long term memory eventually because I remember everything," and "I am one of those people who kind of has to see it right in front of me all the time and hear the stories and the things that go along with that and to read it." Another traditional learner appreciated the diversity of learning styles afforded by the traditional setting: "She did different things, there were group activities, individual ... a lot of different ways of learning and I think if a person was a certain, maybe visual or whatever, auditory learner, I think you could have gotten something out of it somewhere."

Learners in the online course identified important aspects of the learning experience that "fit" their learning preferences. These included flexible time frames, independent learning, and the emphasis on the visual modality typically used in this type of learning. Many of their comments reflected a different perspective from that of traditional class learners. One online learner identified an advantage of the distance from the teacher and fellow learners: "It gives you more time to think than if you and I were sitting in a classroom talking face-to-face and you say, 'Okay this is the question--answer it.' Now I have to give you an on-the-spot answer whereas if I'm online, I can think about that for a while before I structure that answer."

Online learners perceived independence as an important factor in their learning preference. An online learner had this to say: "I am a person who learns best on an independent level. Working in this environment matches." Online learners also looked at the modality aspect of their learning: "I really think I retained a great deal from this class because it matches my learning style so well. I am very visual and this was fun for me." One learner described her reluctance to interact with others in the format that was provided in the course website, suggesting her preferred learning mode: "I wasn't a big fan of getting online and chatting about questions--I guess I don't really learn well that way."

Community needs. An important contrast that emerged between the two groups was between independent versus group learning preferences. Traditional learners tended to emphasize the need for a group context and emphasized their value for, and connection to, the learning community. "I feel lost without a community; it would be hard to do it by yourself," said one, and "I can't imagine trying to learn that content without having the rest of the group to be able to help explain, or bring questions in that we haven't thought of," another stated.

Online learners perceived the group process as less beneficial than did their traditional counterparts. The individualized approach of online learning appealed to many of them. One online learner said, "I feel a little more relaxed to perform when it is WebCT because there is no pressure. You set your own pace." Another stated, "I am not a group type of learner." Many learners identified the additional responsibility that online learning requires: "I felt like I learned a lot, but I felt you really did have to teach yourself. I think it is very much a class where you have to be self-motivated to read the information and if you don't understand it, to make sure you get online when the teacher is online ..."

Accessibility

There was also a vivid contrast between the perceptions of accessibility for these two groups of learners. For the traditional learners, accessibility implied that they had easy physical access to their teacher. They focused on the personal support and learning community inherent in the traditional setting: "She was always accessible ... she stayed, she was here, she was available. If anybody ever needed her she was there."

The online learners defined accessibility as having contact with the "user-friendly" course itself and the flexibility offered in this format. This was expressed in various ways. One online learner said, "I could fit it into my time schedule-I didn't have to take my preschooler to daycare for it." Another stated, "It gave me the freedom to study when I could and did not lock me into a schedule." Still another said, "I love the convenience of being able to do the work at home. Basically everything I looked up for the class I did online. I never had to go to a classroom or a library or anything ... I loved that part of it, especially not wanting to have to drive ..."

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The course content, materials, requirements, and instructor were identical as possible for both groups, which were initially comparable. The only difference was delivery mode. Performance measures indicated that learners in both groups learned the course content equally well. Although most learners expressed initial anxiety about the material, by course completion all had positive attitudes toward themselves as effective learners and were equally positive about the importance of research for education professionals. Attitude surveys indicated that both groups were satisfied with the learning experiences they had. These findings are consistent with other comparison studies (Cooper, 2001; Leasure et al., 2000; Lindner et al., 2001; Smith & Dillon, 1999).

However, qualitative data collected in interviews gave deeper insights into the learning experiences of the two groups. Learners, although demo-graphically similar, were very different in other ways. They contrasted in terms of reasons for initial course engagement, descriptions of personal needs, and preferred modes of learning, including the need for interactions and contextual expectations. They also relied on very different skills to be successful in course work and to maintain levels of engagement (Lindner et al., 2001). Although both groups learned the content and according to outcome measures demonstrated virtually identical performance and satisfaction, their experiences by nature were different in important ways. Online learners emphasized the different context created by the mode of delivery and consequently held contrasting expectations for the whole experience; traditional learners, in turn, described expectations for the campus delivery which they were convinced would not be available in online delivery.

Learners accounted for their successful course learning in three contrasting themes that characterized their experiences. Traditional and online learners (a) placed value and emphasis on different interactive modes, (b) had different expectations of the course and themselves, and (c) developed different learning skills as a result of course participation. The delivery mode itself was apparently responsible for drawing out these contrasts.

Interactive Modes

Previous literature has identified three kinds of learner interactions that are equally important to promote learning--Learner-to-Content, Learner-to-Teacher, and Learner-to-Learner, indicating that each of these modes should be addressed for optimal learning to occur (Moore, 1989).

In the traditional setting, learners noted that all three were important. However, the comments from learners in the traditional setting showed that Learner-to-Teacher interactions were critical. Important to this group was an accessible teacher who served as a mediator of learning. These learners looked to the teacher to translate content, clarify issues, scaffold their learning, define terms, and use examples to connect content to experiences. Learner-to-Learner interactions were also important. To further develop and support their learning, these students drew upon on interactions with peers through small group processing. They perceived that course materials and accessibility of ideas--Learner-to-Content variables--were mediated through the teacher's organization and presentations that were supported by well-designed group activities.

In contrast, Learner-to-Content variables were given highest value by learners in the online setting, indicating that their strongest interaction priority was for a coherent, accessible course. Their primary value was for course materials with clear procedures and expectations, models of previous learner work, and resources that explained difficult course concepts. Second-place value was placed on Learner-to-Teacher variables. Online learners drew upon the resources of an expert teacher who mediated content primarily through "teacher voice" documents that created structure, linked meaningful ideas, and connected their experiences to course concepts. They valued real time accessibility to this teacher through online communications, but did not emphasize that dimension as much as the teacher voice woven throughout the course. Unlike the face-to-face learners, most of the online learners perceived required Learner-to-Learner interactions as less important in meeting their goals.

Both groups aimed at the same learning outcome: mastery of course content. However, the path to this goal was decidedly different depending on the class medium and consequently, the role of the teacher as expert was experienced differently by the learners. In both environments, teacher knowledge of the content appeared equally important. The way this knowledge was imparted to the learners, however, was a crucial discerning element that affected teaching practices such as method and timing of scaffolding, communication format, and the relative importance of certain teacher characteristics. Online learners perceived organizational skills, written language abilities, and website expertise as key characteristics of the effective teacher. Lacking the benefit of personal interaction during the learning process put additional demands on the instructor for careful preparation of website materials in order to prevent confusion while students were engaged in their independent learning.

In summary, since the traditional learners stressed the immediacy of a teacher's scaffolding skills, they valued the oral communication skills, and an approachable personality in their teacher as key to their success. In the online course, the teacher's anticipatory skills were pivotal to preventing mistakes and misconceptions. The timing of teacher input was a critical pedagogical difference for these two learning environments.

Expectations

Learners had different expectations for the nature of their experiences in the two different modes of delivery, which, in part determined their explanations for their own success. After course completion, traditional learners believed that they were unlikely to be successful online because their learning needs included a face-to-face teacher presence and learning tasks that responded to the dynamic of immediate group and individual needs. This translation and mediation could take place as the needs became apparent. They also credited their positive learning outcomes to good teaching and supportive fellow learners.

Online learners knew that the environment would be dramatically different from their face-to-face learning experiences but were relatively confident of their ability to manage those requirements. Good teaching as represented in effective course design was critical for their learning, but they expected little of fellow learners. Instead, they consistently referred to their own self-regulation and effort as fundamental to their success. This perspective is also consistent with the literature (Bernard et al., 2004).

Expectations of the teacher also contrasted. The campus groups expected her to interact effectively, to mediate the content to support their learning, and to be available for help other times. The online class members expected her to create a course that was well-structured, organized, coherent, and user-friendly--one they could use without further support. They expected also that the course not make too many real-time demands that reduced the flexibility they valued.

Development of Learning Skills

Both groups of learners believed that they gained valuable learning skills in these two delivery systems, but these skills were also different. The traditional group members stated that they learned to rely on the interactive and supportive learning community to develop their understanding. They commented on their individual responsibilities to be prepared for class discussion with information and questions to further and support group learning. They believed their contributions were important and they needed other group members to enrich their own understanding. The dynamic of the community defined good learning, which meant active engagement in the process itself to actually structure their knowledge through interaction.

The online groups, consistent with research (Bernard et al., 2004; Garrison, 2003; Lindner et al., 2001) believed that they developed self regulation skills, including time management, self discipline, independence, effective use of resources, and problem solving skills. They learned to recognize their preferred cognitive modes and to make use of optimal learning times to process content and expected that most of their learning and scaffolding would be independent. As a result, they looked for and appreciated opportunities to improve their individual learning skills. Peers and immediate teacher presence did not play a role in developing this set of skills. A few online learners did recognize a personal need for face-to-face interaction and they attempted to meet these needs by finding convenient face-to-face partners who were either enrolled in the class or who had prior knowledge of course content.

A different set of assumptions about learning seemed to underlie these contrasting approaches and assessments of learning skills. The face-to-face group emphasized the learning community and clearly operated from a social constructivist view (Barron, 2000; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1997; Gauvain, 2001), whereas the online learners emphasized the individualist cognitive perspective and the self-regulation aspects of the experience (Pintrich, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). The interactive learning community was central to the actual process and product of learning for the traditional groups; the online groups focused on individual mastery of content.

CONCLUSIONS

Two elements in the experiences of the online learners appeared particularly important--their lack of expectation for the support of a learning community and their representations of the role of expert teaching. Their responses support the contention that online learning is by nature quite different from the kinds of learning experiences they expect and value in traditional learning environments.

Online learners did not expect to experience a virtual learning community and had less value for it in their online learning process. Instead, they developed self-regulation skills and self-efficacy perspectives--and they saw the opportunity to refine these skills as critical to lifelong learning. This finding, which is contrary to prevailing evidence and efforts (Lally & Barrett, 1999; Paloff & Pratt, 2001; Reeves & Reeves 1997; Whipp & Schwietzer, 2000), has significant implications for online course design. A good deal of time, research, effort, and expense has been aimed at creating a virtual online learning environment that approximates as closely as possible the environment and learning community of a face-to-face class. Of particular interest has been creating an interactive environment to replicate the dynamic of traditional delivery. Learners' responses in this study indicated that this effort might not be appropriate or necessary. Since those who choose online learning have very different needs and expectations, perhaps efforts could better be directed toward a focus on strong course designs that allow learners to systematically build and develop the self-regulatory skills necessary to lifelong learning. This variety of learner needs and motivations for selection of online learning experiences may also be addressed by emphasizing course design efficacy and optimal use of asynchronous learning opportunities and reducing real time exchanges or required interactions.

Online learners' descriptions of the role and function of the expert teacher are noteworthy as well. Personality, oral communication skills, and other teacher traits typically identified as important were not highly rated by these learners. They valued written communication, an organized course structure, and supportive resource materials as indications of expert teaching.

This new role for the teacher, perhaps a result of the lack of power learners perceive in online interactions, demands that a good deal of anticipation of the process of learning frame online course design. A through understanding of the role of cognitive learning theory and to implications for systematic and scaffolding of knowledge structures are fundamental for effective course design, since teachers cannot rely on the dynamic of classroom interactions to supplement learning via questions and immediate re-teaching. Materials should include a good deal of teacher voice material, whether audible or written, to engage the learner in content beyond academic materials.

Both learning theory and content knowledge impact pedagogy, but this relationship is mediated by characteristics of the learning environment. The filter of the medium itself (Peters, 2003) has to reframe our decisions about effective course design. Teaching to support online learning requires a different set of skills and strengths, particularly when asynchronous learning is emphasized (Bernard et al., 2004). Results of this study suggest that contextual differences between online and traditional classroom courses dictate the selection of specific teaching practices conducive to successful learning in that environment. Instructional practices and designs that are effective working within the conditions of the structure should become central so that the medium becomes simply another delivery mode, creating conditions for "purposive learning" (Bernard et al., p. 411).

Although we may be able to compare and verify comparable objective learning outcomes and satisfaction levels of online learning gains and those of traditional learners, the experiences are markedly different. Valued interactions, expectations, and learning skills achieved contrast with traditional modes in important ways. As the participants described their online experiences, it was apparent that they encountered the mode as a new environment that calls for a new pedagogy. The approach must fit the filtered realities of online learning, which distances teachers and learners in more than geographic terms (Peters, 2003). Educators cannot simply copy teaching practices that work effectively in a face-to-face classroom and "paste" them into the electronic classroom. Future research focused on what direction and shape these changes should take will help move the pedagogy of online learning to the multi-dimensional modes achieved in the most successful traditional classrooms.

References

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.

Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 391-398.

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

Bickle, M. C., & Carroll, J. C. (2003). Checklist for quality online instruction: Outcomes for learners, the professor, and the institution. College Student Journal, 37(2), 208-215.

Billings, D. M., Connors, H. R., & Skiba, D. J. (2001). Benchmarking best practices in web-based nursing courses. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(3), 41-53.

Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourses: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Chappell, C., Rhodes, C., Solomon, N., Tennant, M., & Yates, L (2003). Reconstructing the lifelong learner: Pedagogy and identity in individual, organisational, and social change. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Chyung, S. Y. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 36-50.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, L. W. (2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer applications classes. Technological Horizons in Education, 28(8), 52-58.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guilford Press.

Granger, D., & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance: The learner in context, In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 169-180). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

King, F. B. (2002). A virtual student: Not an ordinary Joe. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 157-166.

King, K. P. (2001). Educators revitalize the classroom "bulletin board": A case study of the influence of online dialogue on face to face classes from an adult learning perspective. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 337-354.

Lally, V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community online: Towards socio-academic interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2), 147-163.

Leasure, A. R., Davis, L., & Thievon, S. L. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a traditional vs, world wide web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 149-154.

Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self concept, and other predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41-40.

Lim, J., & Karol, J. (2002). Student achievement, satisfaction and instructional delivery modes. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research on distance education in South Dakota (pp. 77-85), Pierre, SD: South Dakota Star Schools Project.

Lindner, J. R., Dooley, K. E., & Murphy, T. H. (2001). Differences in competencies between doctoral students on-campus and at a distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 25-40.

Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., & Harper, B. (2001). ICT in higher education: Evaluating outcomes for health education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 275-283.

Lundberg, D. (2000). Integrating online technology into counseling curricula: Emerging humanistic factors. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 38(3), 142-152.

Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial: What does research say about the learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61-64.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7-22.

Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15-35.

Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.

Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Zhao, M. A. J. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 313-318.

Peters, O. (2003). Learning with new media in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Web based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. Quarterly Journal of Distance Education, 54(4), 227-291.

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomena. Chapel Hill: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Question Psychology, 25(1), 54-57.

Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.

Smith, P. L., & Dillion, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6-23.

Thirunarayanan, M. O., & Peres-Prado, A. (2001-2002, Winter). Comparing web-based and classroom based learning: A quantitative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 131-137.

Whipp, J. L., & Schweizer, H. (2000). Meeting psychological needs in web-based courses for teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1), 26-31.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by a Research Development Grant from the University of South Dakota.

APPENDIX A -- DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

                 Total     Traditional  Online
                 (N=45)    (n=38)       (n=7)
                 n   %     n   %        n  %

Female           37  82.2  32  84.2     5  71.4
Male              8  17.8   6  15.8     2  28.6
Master's Level   23  51.1  21  55.3     2  28.6
Doctorate Level   3   6.7   1   2.6     2  28.6
Age  18-24       14  31.1  14  36.8     0   0
     25-34       16  35.6  14  36.8     2  28.6
     35-44       10  22.2   8  21.1     2  28.6
     45-54        4   8.9   2   5.3     2  28.6
     55-65        1   2.2   0   0       1  14.3

APPENDIX B: SELECTED ITEMS -- OUTCOMES AND ATTITUDES MEASURES

Pre & Post: Objective Test Measure

1. Research outcomes that are accurate and grounded in data are referred to as

a) Valid

b) Reliable

c) Ethical

d) Purposeful 

2. Which of the following is generally NOT true about qualitative procedures?

a) Findings are usually considered unique and are not generalized to other settings.

b) Random selection and assignments are used frequently.

c) Sample sizes may be smaller than those in quantitative studies.

d) Purposeful sampling is seldom used to provide rich data for the study.

3. The results of a survey can only be generalized to a population if the

a) sample was significantly large

b) sample was selected randomly

c) sample was selected using a non-randomized strategy

d) survey data were specific and systematic

Pre: Attitude Measure

1. I am confident that I will succeed in this course.

2. I expect that I will learn important information in this class.

3. I know how to function in a class set up as this one is.

Post: Attitude Measure

1. I am pleased with my level of success in this course.

2. I have learned important information in this class.

3. I functioned well in the traditional delivery medium.

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

WebCT or Traditional?

Pseudonym ______

Expectations

1. Why did you take this class? Why in this medium?

2. When you enrolled in this class, what did you expect? Why?

3. Were your expectations met? Why/not?

Learning

1. How satisfied are you with your learning in the class?

2. How satisfied were you with [traditional: classroom experiences; WebCT: course procedures]

a. What elements in the class were most important for your success?

b. What strategies did you use learn course content?

c. What elements gave you difficulty?

d. Where did you find help if you had difficulties?

e. What did you particularly like about this class?

f. What did you particularly dislike?

Medium Comments

1. How did the [classroom context] or [WebCT environment] facilitate your learning?

2. How did the [classroom context] or [WebCT environment] impede your learning?

3. To what extent did you feel part of a "learning community"? How important is that to you?

4. To what extent did the medium of delivery influence your learning? Your attitude toward the class?

Teacher

1. What did the teacher do that made it possible for you to learn course content?

2. What else should the teacher have done?

3. In what ways was the teacher accessible to you? Was that enough?

4. What would you like to tell the instructor of this course?

Future

1. What suggestions would you give future students who enroll in this course?

2. Would you like to take another course like this one? Explain.

APPENDIX D: RESEARCHER PROFILES

Marcy, first author: My areas of study are cognitive learning theory and motivation. I think of myself as a social constructivist. In online settings I try to scaffold student learning from a distance. Lengthy unit introductions and teacher created support materials are used to address particularly difficult content and tried to capture a dynamic community in entirely web-based learning environment. There are opportunities for student to student and student to teacher exchanges built into the courses. Logged partner discussions of questions I post have been required parts of my online courses.

Lory, second author: I am a doctoral student in Educational Psychology with a background in teaching and administration. My practices and beliefs are grounded in psychological need theory, particularly Self-Determination Theory. I believe that the degree to which learners' needs are met in a learning environment significantly impacts their subsequent performance and satisfaction.

James, third author: I am a counselor educator. Philosophically, I approach teaching from the social constructionist and constructivist perspectives. David Kolb's construct of experiential learning guides my course design. Every course I teach has an online component, a format that can be adapted to any part of the learning cycle. I teach one course entirely online; two more are in the works. My primary role in this research project was to structure the content for the manuscript and to provide an outside perspective on the qualitative data.

MARCY REISETTER, LORALEE LAPOINTE, AND JAMES KORCUSKA

University of South Dakota, USA

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Table 1 Pre-Post Outcome Data

                         Traditional N=38
                     M    SD    t        df  p

Pre-Post Difference  7.6  4.00  -11.702  37  <.001*

                           Online N=27
                     M     SD    t       df  P

Pre-Post Difference  8.57  5.74  -3.951  26  .008*

Table 2 Group Comparisons on Outcome and Attitude Measures

                Traditional   Online
Variables       M      SD    M      SD    t       df    p

Preobjective    16.48  4.14  17.57  6.5    -.583  43    .563
Postobjective   24.08  3.94  26.14  5.55  -1.194  43    .239
Preconfidence    5.18  2.01   5.00  4.18    .097   4.2  .927
Postconfidence   8.40  1.07   8.60  1.67   -.379  41    .707
Preattitude     54.03  5.30  52.60  7.37    .541  41    .591
Postattitude    36.89  3.12  35.20  3.27   1.137  41    .262

Table 3 Summary: Core Contrasting Ideas

                Traditional Delivery       Online Delivery

Structure
Organization    Physical nature of class;  Ease and accessibility of the
                Focused nature of the      Website, Organization of
                activities, participation  resources provided
                with others in problem
                solving
Support         Immediacy of instructor    Expert voice of online
                and classmates             instructor represented in
                                           course materials. Focus
                                           provided by resources. Clear
                                           information.
Responsibility  Learn best when            Learn best when are
                responsible to a group,    responsible for own
                instructor. External       achievements, self-
                regulation appreciated     discipline. Prefer internal
                                           Prefer internal regulation

Interaction
Peers           Valued "seeing" others to  Not important to interact
                consider contrasting       with peers, though considered
                perspective, problem       a resource if needed.
                solve as a group           Individual choices to pursue
                                           connections.
Teacher         Valued visibility,         Valued specificity of
                accessibility,             individual feedback,
                approachable and engaging  individualized guidance as
                manner                     needed

Learning
Preferences
Mode            Valued multi-sensory,      Valued flexibility,
                variety of activities,     independence
                diversified opportunities
Community       Valued community and       Valued individualized, self-
                group context for support  motivated approach. No need
                in processing, exchange    for a cohesive learning
                of ideas                   community
Accessibility   Of the group, in and out   Primary definition of
                of class meetings, and of  accessible was to the course
                an engaged, available      itself; secondary to the
                teacher                    teacher

Table 4 Summary: Defining Characteristics of the Experiences

                 Traditional                      Online

Valued           1. Teacher as a mediator of      1. Interaction with
Interactions     content                          course structure
                 2. Peers to support the process  2. Interaction with
                                                  teacher online voice
                 3. Individual interaction with   3. Interaction with
                 content                          peers-distant 3rd
Expectations
for the success
Self             Expected success from good       Expected success from
                 teaching and supportive peers    strength of individual
                                                  learning skills
Teacher          Expected good interactive        Expected clear and
                 skills, content mediation,       user friendly course
                 availability for clarification,  design. Expert voice
                 feedback, support                to facilitate
                                                  learning, minimal
                                                  real-time demands
Development of   Learned to work effectively in   Expanded self
Learning Skills  a learning community, to         regulation skills,
                 collaborate with peers and to    became metacognitively
                 fulfill responsibilities to      aware. Honed
                 group.                           independence and
                                                  self-discipline.