8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

1/15

Call to Legislatively Enact eLearning for All of ArizonasSecondary Level (9-12) Students and Schools: F indings ofStudent Achievement Research in Comparing eLearning toTraditional, Face to Face Learning Environments

By

Jeffery F. Billings

Director of Technology (Paradise Valley Unified School District), and former Information

Technology Policy Advisor (Arizona Department of Education)

and

Timothy Baumgartner

Engineering Undergraduate (University of Arizona), and former High School Graduate

(North Canyon High School, Paradise Valley Unified School District)

January, 2007

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

2/15

Table of ContentsSection Description Page No.1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary 12.0 General Types of eLearning 2

2.1 Knowledge Database 2

2.2 Online Support 2

2.3 Asynchronous Learning 2

2.4 Synchronous Learning 2

3.0 General Advantages and Disadvantages ofeLearning 33.1 Advantages of eLearning 3

3.2 Disadvantages of eLearning 4

4.0 eLearning Technologies 44.1 Course Management System 4

4.2 Wiki 5

4.3 Discussion boards/forums 5

4.4 Video and voice conferencing 6

4.5 Independent web sites 6

5.0 eLearnings Effect on Student Participation,Attainment, Retention, and Progression 65.1 Definitions 6

5.2 Discussion 7

6.0 Efficacy of eLearning Versus Efficacy ofTraditional Learning 86.1 Broad Scope 8

6.2 Efficacy of Peer Feedback 10

6.3 Efficacy of eLearning for Different Learning

Styles 12

7.0 References 12

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

3/15

1.0 Introduction and Executive SummaryElectronic technology has ushered in a revolution of telecommunication methods over

the last two decades that has systemically changed lives in today's society. Nowhere

is this more evident than in the increasing tendency of youth below the age of twenty-

five years to collaborate and share information with others through the internet. Post-secondary institutions have responded to this explosion in internet use by adapting

their instructional delivery methods to include both online courses and by

supplementing traditional face to face (f2f) courses with online communication and

curricular resources. Locally, Arizona State University currently offers over five-

hundred online courses and supplements over 5,000 traditional f2f courses with online

resources and virtual environments/shells (ASU, January 2007).

Online learning, or distance education, collectively referred to herein as eLearning, is

not only quickly gaining in post-secondary institutions but is also becoming a viable

choice of students and their guardians for high school (secondary) education. In

Arizona, eLearning in secondary education has started, but is not widespread, due in

part, to state legislative restrictions discussed later. Arizona entities providingeLearning, while few in number, are diverse, ranging from the small Carpe Diem

Academy in Yuma (http://www.cdayuma.com), to the multi-campus Pinnacle Education

Inc. (Arizona Republic, November, 2005), to complete high school course offerings at

Mesa Unified School District (http://www.mdlp.org/), now offering sixty-nine high

school courses. This increase in eLearning at the secondary level is also occurring

across the nation as evidenced by one of the fastest growing high schools in the

country, Florida Virtual High School (http://www.flvs.net), enrolling over 31,000

students in 2005-2006. The Michigan state legislature now requires that every high

school graduate complete at least one course in eLearning (Watson and Ryan, October

2006). Post-secondary institutions such as Stanford University are now competing for

the high school market (http://epgy.stanford.edu), and entities such as the NationalUniversity Virtual High School (http://www.nuvhs.org) compete across the country.

Clearly the demand for online high school education is present, locally, on a state level,

and nationally. All of public education must, and must be allowed to, compete.

In 1998, the Arizona legislature passed a hybrid test model allowing only certain school

districts and charter schools (HB 2093, revised 2003) to receive full state enrollment

funding for eLearning of students. Known as TAPBI (Technology Assisted Project Based

Instruction Program), the legislative act has been modified over the years to include a

few other districts and charters. Currently, only seven school districts and seven charter

schools have the ability to receive full state funding for student enrollment in eLearning

courses (http://www.ade.state.az.us/stateboard/tapbi.asp). It is the intent of this

paper to help mobilize Arizona leaders, educators and consumers to consider fulladoption of the intent of TAPBI and move Arizona online education to the forefront of

secondary education in this country. In so doing, current legislative restraints would be

removed, allowing competitive online education and full enrollment funding to be enjoyed

by all, instead of currently only by a few. While the consumer demand and the 21st

century need to provide online secondary education is clear, this paper will attempt only

to address current research on the efficacy of student achievement in eLearning

compared to traditional face to face education.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

4/15

Given that the field of instructional technology itself is new, movement and funding of

statistically-valid research on eLearning has lagged. Additionally, more research findings

are evident for post-secondary than for secondary, due in large part to the pool of

available research dollars and the earlier adoption of eLearning by post-secondary

institutions. However, the research that is available suggests that eLearning and

blended learning (the combination of online learning with traditional learning) has

yielded statistics concluding that eLearning is as good as, or better, than pure traditional

learning in terms of student achievement. Contradictions do abound on this research

topic, but none of the findings identified through this paper concluded that eLearning

(including blended learning) has a negative impact on student achievement. In fact, in

testing their hypothesis, many prominent education researchers are beginning to

consider that perhaps the paradigm has already shifted and face to face delivery should

be compared to the benchmark successes of eLearning on student achievement, rather

than the other way around.

2.0 General Types of eLea rningThe following four types of eLearning are very general and are by no means mutually

exclusive. eLearning solutions often utilize some or all of the following types.

2.1 Knowledge DatabaseThis is the most basic type of eLearning. Knowledge databases are simply a collection

of information that students can access. The interaction of the knowledge database

is generally limited to selecting a link on an alphabetized list or searching through the

database's records (Obringer). Online search engines are an example of a knowledge

database, as the user simply searches through the information of stored Web sites onthe search engine's servers.

2.2 Online SupportOnline support is generally more interactive than the knowledge database and comes in

the form of forums, chat rooms, online bulletin boards, e-mail, or live instant-messaging

support (Obringer). Often times, questions can be answered more promptly and more

specifically through online support than through the use of a knowledge database.

2.3 Asynchronous LearningeLearning is typically associated with asynchronous learning. In this type of learning,

interaction does not happen in real time and students can learn at their own pace.

Examples of asynchronous learning include: discussion boards/forums, email, media on

a Web page, etc.

2.4 Synchronous LearningUnlike asynchronous learning, synchronous learning utilizes real-time instructor/student

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

5/15

or student/student interactions. Synchronous learning can include streaming video

communication, instant messaging, VOIP/internet telephony, and chat rooms. Students'

questions can be answered directly in real time, just like what would be possible in a

physical classroom setting. For instance, if a student has a question about a math

problem, the instructor can simply write the problem on a board while being viewed by

the student via a Web cam.

3.0 General Advantages and Disadvantages of eLearning3.1 Advantages of eLearning Reinforces self-regulated learning (such as time management, study environment

management, etc).

Everything from text readings and quizzes to interactive applets and multimediacan be placed online for the student to access.

Texts/graphics can be placed online for students to access, cutting down onpaper usage. For example, an instructor could place their course syllabus online

allowing students to print, if desired. Student collaboration and peer help is easier. For instance, students could post

drafts of an essay to a discussion board for other students from their course to

review and critique. Unlike scheduling a face-to-face meeting, the asynchronous

online posting method does not force students to adjust their schedules to be in

the same place at the same time.

Self-paced learning. Students can digest the online information at their ownpace.

Content that a student already has a strong grasp over can be skipped to allowthem to focus on content that may be newer. This applies more to courses that

make strong use of eLearning and online content.

eLearning resources can be accessed any time.

eLearning resources can be accessed anywhere with a computer and internetconnection.

Different learning styles can be catered to with a variety of text, graphics,interactive applets, and other multimedia.

Blended eLearning courses increase the rate of students passing the coursebecausedifferent delivery methods can be used to cater to different learningstyles.

Encourages more student/instructor contact, depending on the size of classes.This is more evident in large classes than in small classes.

eLearning can offer resources that may never be available in the traditionalclassroom, such as self-paced learning. This is especially true as eLearning

evolves and improves.

Students will become more skilled with using technology and the internet. Instructors can more easily track the progress of their class and individual

students and tailor the class to their needs. For instance, if an instructor uses an

online multiple-choice/fill-in-the-blank quiz for homework or testing, he/she can

easily identify the most commonly missed questions so that he/she can correct

the students' misunderstanding of the concepts.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

6/15

3.2 Disadvantages of eLearning The cost to set up the system and the cost of training staff on how to use the

system.

Sufficient hardware and software must be available and set up properly. Forinstance, if a student is expected to regularly use an eLearning feature of a

course, a sufficiently capable computer (in terms of hardware, software, internet

connection, etc.) must be available.

Students not effective in self-regulation (such as managing time) or notmotivated enough are more likely to do poorly in an eLearning course or drop out

of the course completely.

Time investment for students can be greater than a pure face-to-faceenvironment as there are increased distractions for them to deal with outside of

the classroom.

High quality eLearning content can require a lot of work to implement. Technology experience is required for students; a student struggling with

technology will do worse in a course employing eLearning than in a completely

face-to-face course. However, as a positive effect, the use of eLearning will givestudents more experience and familiarity with technology.

Pure distance learning results in social isolation from other students, forcingstudents to use non-standard means of seeking help, such as using email,

discussion boards, instant messaging, etc. However, as students are becoming

more and more savvy with technology, such methods of communication are

becoming more familiar to them, lessening this disadvantage.

4.0 eLearning Technologies4.1 Course Management System (CMS)

Course Management Systems are systems that are used to facilitate eLearning, and are

often Web-based. Other names for Course Management Systems include Learning

Management System (LMS), Learning Content Management System (LCMS), Virtual

Learning Environment (VLE), Managed Learning Environment (MLE), Learning Support

System (LSS), and Learning Platform (LP).

CMSs provide the eLearning environment for students and the eLearning

administration services for instructors. Usually, CMSs provide ways of tracking the

progress of individual students to be monitored by instructors and/or the individual

students themselves. CMSs are generally made up of several components, often

including templates for content (such as text, multimedia, or documents), discussion

boards, a way for students to post files to their instructors, quizzes or exercises, and

chat. Instructors fill in the provided templates with the desired info and then post

them to the CMS for the students to utilize.

CMSs are the cornerstone to complete distance learning courses, where there are no

face-to-face meetings. However, it is also common for CMSs to be in a supporting role

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

7/15

to the main face-to-face meeting portion of the course. In this way the learning

environment becomes a blended environment, mixing both face-to-face and distance

learning techniques.

A few Course Management Systems include:

Blackboard Desire2Learn (utilized by the University of Arizona) Scholar360 WebCT Moodle (Open Source) Edumate ANGEL Learning LON-CAPA (Open Source) Sakai Project (Open Source and utilized by Arizona State University) ATutor (Open Source) Dokeos (Open Source) ILIAS (Open Source)

4.2 Wiki (often integrated into CMSs)Wikis are systems (often Web sites) that allow for users to contribute their knowledge

to add to the collective knowledge already in a wiki. Generally, anyone can create, view,

edit, or delete wiki pages, however most wiki systems have access control features so

that only certain actions from certain people can be permitted.

Such a technology is useful in many aspects of secondary-level education. For

example, students can utilize a wiki to pool collective data for class projects. In this

manner, every group member would have access to the collective group knowledge at

any time and added information can be viewed by everyone in the group instantly.

Page access, a feature found in many wiki systems, can restrict students from viewing

the wiki pages of other groups.

As well as being standalone systems, wikis can also be found built into some

CMSs, such as Moodle.

A few standalone wiki software systems include:

MediaWiki (free, Open Source, full-featured, used by Wikimedia projects such asWikipedia)

Twiki (Open Source) PmWiki (Open Source) UseModWiki (Open Source) PhpWiki (Open Source)

4.3 Discussion boards/forums (often integrated into CMSs)Discussion boards, also known as forums, allow for the posting of user generated

content, including an original post and replies to it. Users can generally embed media

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

8/15

into their posts, but this can often be restricted by administrators. Unlike wikis, users

can often only (if at all) edit their own generated content and are barred from editing

the content of others, although administrators can moderate the board's content.

Boards can be split up into multiple sections and subsections and user access to these

sections and their permissions can usually be controlled.

Discussion boards can be used by students to share knowledge, get help, etc.

A few standalone discussion board systems include:

phpBB (Open Source) Invision Power Board vBulletin

4.4 Video and voice conferencingUsed for synchronous learning, video and voice conferencing can connect students to

instructors in real-time. This can be useful in situations where a student does not

understand a concept and the instructor cannot get the point across using otherinternet technologies. For instance, an instructor could write out a math problem on a

board as the student watches from a Web cam. If the instructor is going too fast or if

the student does not understand what the instructor did, the student can interrupt the

instructor in real-time and ask a question, just as he/she could in a traditional classroom.

Video and voice conferencing can also be used to connect students to others that can

enhance their learning but are too far away or unable to make it into the classroom. For

instance, students could use video and/or voice conferencing to make contact with a

submersible at the bottom of the ocean and ask the on-board scientists questions

relating to their studies.

4.5 Independent web sitesIndependent Web sites should not be ignored as they have a great potential to aid in

student learning. Classes studying a certain topic can utilize Web sites both in and out

of the classroom to provide multimedia and interactive experiences. For instance, the

Smithsonian Education (http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/) has a multitude of

such content and can help students become more engaged in their studies.

5.0 eLearning's Effect on Student Participation,Attainment, Retention, and Progression5.1 Definitions

The following terms used in the discussion are used as they are defined by the article

Impact of e-learning on learner participation, attainment, retention, and progression in

Further Education:report of a scoping study.Pa r t i c i pa t i on - the percentage of the group of learners that take part ineducation.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

9/15

At t a i n m e n t -the percentage of students that successfully complete (andpass) a course.Re t e n t i o n - the percentage of students that complete a course,irrespective of the students' finalgrades or passing status.P rog r e s s io n - the percentage of students that go on to take a higherlevel course in the same subject area.

5.2 DiscussionBased on the UK study entitled Impact of e-learning on learner participation,

attainment, retention, and progression in Further Education: report of a scoping

study and multiple independent sources collaborating the study's findings,

eLearning is thought to have a positive effect on student participation, attainment,

retention (although not for secondary-level environments, as will be discussed

later), and progression. Students tend to have more engaged and exciting

experiences with eLearning over traditional teaching methods because eLearning

environments have the potential to be much more interactive than the physical

classroom with multimedia and interactive programs. Students also find it easier toparticipate and ask questions in an eLearning environment because they do not fear

embarrassment in front of their peers. Student motivation can also be increased by

providing a more tailored learning environment through the use of new ways to

transfer information (multimedia, interactive programs, etc.), self-paced learning,

and more individualized help.

However, concrete numbers on eLearning's effect on the above student attributes are

impossible to come by using currently available methods. This is because of the

multitude of factors contributing to a student's behavior and achievements in classes

and because of the newness of eLearning. The study The Effects of Distance Education

on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, sponsored by the North Central Regional

Educational Laboratory (NCREL), puts completely distance based education using both

synchronous and asynchronous means on par with traditional academic learning as

measured mainly by state and federal tests. Additionally, a study from the University of

Zagreb Medical School in Zagreb, Croatia titled Blending problem-based learning with

Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology

compared results of a final examination from distance learning (eLearning) students to

students partaking in a traditional classroom-based, face-to-face course. The study

found that eLearning students scored significantly better on the final acid-base

physiology examination [than their traditionally taught peers] and expressed a positive

attitude to the new learning environment in the satisfaction survey (Taradi, 2004).

The general consensus, such as that found in the aforementioned UK study, is thateLearning offers positive effects for students. The extent of these effects on students,

like in traditional classrooms, is at least partly dependent upon the instructor

administering the eLearning portion of a course. Because of this, instructors utilizing

eLearning solutions should be trained on how to properly utilize the technology. Without

training, instructors could simply view eLearning as a new way to post text clippings that

would normally be handed out in class while ignoring the multimedia and interactive

experiences possible with the technology.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

10/15

However, many of the studies done on eLearning focus on college and university level

students rather than primary and secondary-level students. These higher-level students

are generally more likely to be motivated about their schooling and are often more able

to self-regulate than K12 students. Because of this, pure distance learning classes at

this level have a higher retainment rate than that of K12 pure distance courses. To

counteract the often negative effect of pure eLearning on retainment in lower-level

classes (such as high school classes), blended learning can be used in place of a

completely distance learning oriented course. With blended learning, courses can offer

both the benefits of eLearning (such as self-paced learning and interactivity) with the

benefits of a traditional classroom that are helpful to secondary-level students (such as

a more structured environment). The paper A hybrid course model: one solution to

the high online drop-out rate by Thomas E. Oblender documents the transition of the

Manheim Township Virtual High School (MTVHS) from a completely virtual school to a

blended high school, offering both eLearning and face-to-face interaction. Before the

switch to a blended learning environment, the courses at MTVHS recorded a 75%

retention rate of students. After the switch to a blended environment, MTVHS courses

recorded a 99% retention rate of students. Blended courses at the school were a

minimum of 65% distance learning.

While eLearning's effect on college/university-level student participation, attainment,

retention, and progression is positive, the apparent key to success in these areas for

secondary-level students is the use of a combination of both traditional, face-to-face

learning and eLearning. Unlike higher-level students, secondary-level students require

the added structure of at least some face-to-face learning. Through the blended use of

traditional and distance learning, the positives of both techniques can be utilized,

enhancing secondary-level student participation, attainment, retention, and progression

in their courses.

6.0 Efficacy of eLearning Versus Ef ficacy of TraditionalLearning6.1 Broad Scope (General Information)

Currently, the efficacy of pure eLearning solutions is about the same as a pure traditional

learning solutions. A paper sponsored by Cisco Systems and Metiri Group entitled

Technology in Schools: What the Research Says found that students from pure

eLearning courses slightly outperformed their peers taking the same course by

traditional means. However, the paper also reported that pure eLearning classes also

have a slightly lower retention rate than traditional courses. Students that need the

greater structure provided by traditional classrooms have a harder time dealing with the

flexibility of an eLearning course, although this same flexibility offered by online courses

can also be a positive consequence for sufficiently motivated students able to cope with

the decreased structure.

Additionally, the study Analysis of the Effectiveness of Online Learning in a Graduate

Engineering Math Course examines the efficacy of a math course taught in three styles:

traditional, eLearning, and blended. The study found that there was little measurable

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

11/15

difference between the styles of learning but that this could be attributed to the fact

that each group was taking the class using the mode of delivery with which they are

most accustomed to taking a class (Karr, 2003). Nonetheless, each style of learning

was found to have its strengths. First, students enrolled in the traditional class were

found to have performed slightly better on in-class examinations, possibly because of in-

class hints given by the instructor as to the content of the examinations. Second,

students taking the eLearning course were found to have performed slightly better in

the analytical and problem-solving portions of the course, possibly attributable to the

fact that students had to learn and analyze the material on their own, giving them a

deeper understanding of the material. Third, students enrolled in the blended course

performed the best of the three groups because students had access to their preferred

mode of delivery: students who desired the hands-on approach of the traditional mode

had it and students who desired the interactive learning experience of the online mode

of delivery could utilize it (Karr, 2003). The drawback of the blended course was that

it required more time and effort from the instructor as the instructor had to come up

with material for both traditional and online mediums.

The study Comparing the Effectiveness of a Supplemental Online Tutorial to TraditionalInstruction with Nutritional Science Students also indicates that the efficacy of blended

learning is higher than the efficacy of pure traditional learning. The study recorded the

50 question pre-test and post-test scores of both students attending a lecture only and

of students participating in an online tutorial to supplement the lecture. Students

utilizing the online tutorial supplement showed a greater margin of improvement

between their pre-test and post-test scores (on average, improving by 10.7 correct

answers) compared with the improvements of students attending lecture only (on

average, improving by 8.6 correct answers). Also, students using the tutorial

supplement indicated a favorable attitude toward computer supplemented instruction

(Zubas, 2006).

The study "Learning Hands-on Skills in an Online Environment: The Effectiveness of

Streaming Demonstration Animation finds the efficacy of online learning higher than

that of traditional classroom learning. The course studied focused on multimedia

authoring and compared the results of students in a purely online course to the results

of students taking the same course in a traditional classroom setting. The students in

the purely online class received more passing grades on projects (100% of participants)

than the students enrolled in the traditional class (80% of participants received passing

grades). The students in the purely eLearning course also reported a higher satisfaction

with the quality of their projects than their traditionally taught counterparts. The

eLearning course displayed a slightly higher project completion rate (88%) than the

traditional course (87.5%) and both had the same number of student withdrawals from

the respective courses.

Concerning eLearning students' motivation and satisfaction with online courses, the

study Learner-Centered E-Learning: An Exploration of Learner-Centered Practices in

Online and Traditional Instruction in Higher Education compares the results of a course

taught both online and traditionally and finds in both cases, The degree to which the

students perceived the courses as learner-centered revealed a positive relationship

between the levels of learner-centered practices and the students motivation and

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

12/15

satisfaction with the courses (Ware, 2006). Additionally, The results showed that

there was no significant difference in the students perceptions of learner-centered

practices between the online and the traditional courses (Ware, 2006). Students'

motivation and satisfaction can be the same for courses taught in both the traditional

and eLearning manner. The motivation of a student can directly affect his/her

performance in a course.

An exhaustive statistical study on the differences in academic achievement between

eLearning and f2f instruction was conducted by Shachar and Neumann in October 2003,

entitled, Differences Between Traditional and Distance Education Academic

Performances: A meta-analytic approach. Shachar and Neumann reviewed over 1,600

research studies, narrowing their analysis to 86 studies that had both a control group

and no methodological flaws. Their results showed a strong positive trend that not only

is eLearning an effective instructional delivery, but also that eLearning students actually

outperformed their f2f counterparts in objective academic achievement measures. So

strong were the findings of Shachar and Neumann that they pondered not whether

eLearning is suitable for all students, but whether traditional f2f learning is suitable for

all students, and that possibly a shift in the way education is pedagogicallyconceptualized has begun.

6.2 Efficacy of Peer FeedbackPeer feedback is not always strongly associated with eLearning although it is a highly

valuable component of traditional learning. However, like in a traditional setting, peer

feedback in an online setting also provides benefits for students, both those

receiving and giving the feedback.

The study Efficacy of Peer Feedback in Online Learning Environments looks at the

efficacy of peer feedback used in place of instructor feedback and the overall effect of

peer feedback on the students' learning. The findings show that peer feedback can be

just as effective as the instructor feedback that it replaced, although students would

have preferred instructor feedback in addition to the peer feedback. The findings also

show that the learning and understanding of students over their subject matter

increased by both giving and receiving peer feedback.

Peer interactions can also be successfully simulated in an eLearning environment to

mimic the effects of those in traditional learning environments. The paper

Empathetic Virtual Peers Enhanced Learner Interest and Self-Efficacy examines the

use of virtual peers in an online environment and finds that online interactions with

virtual peers seem to be consistent with human relationships in traditionalclassrooms (Kim, 2005).

Just as in traditional classrooms, the efficacy of eLearning solutions can be increased

by peer interactions. This is because, in the same way as traditional classroom peer

interactions, online peer interactions can increase the learning and understanding of

students.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

13/15

6.3 Efficacy of eLearning for Different Learning TypesThe efficacy of eLearning is fairly consistent for students with different learning and

personality types. The study Efficacy of Present e-learning Content to Student

Personality Types looks at the results of test scores for eLearning students of different

personality types and found there to be no significant difference in the e-learning

between personality-types (Younis, 2004). Multiple forms of media (text, pictures,

video, etc.) and interactivity can allow eLearning solutions to cater towards multiple

personality types.

7.0 ReferencesArizona Department of Education, January 2007, Technology Assisted Project Based

Instruction Program, .

Arizona House Bill 2093, revised 2003

(http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/46leg/1r/bills/hb2093c.pdf)

Arizona Republic, November 14, 2005, Tips for finding a virtual school.

Arizona State University, January 2007, Personal Communication Instructional

Technology Department.

Carpe Diem e-Learning Community, January 2007, .

Cavanaugh, Cathy, Kathy Jo Gillan, Jeff Kromrey, Melinda Hess, and Robert Blomeyer,

2004. The Effects of Distance Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-

Analysis. Available at: .

Comprehensive E-learning Tutorial. Available at:

.

Dillenbourg, Pierre, 2000. Virtual Learning Environments.

eLearners.com. Available at: .

Ertmer, Peggy A., Jennifer C. Richardson, Brian Belland, Denise Camin, Patrick Connolly,

Glen Coulthard, Kimfong Lei, and Christopher Mong, 2006. Efficacy of PeerFeedback in Online Learning Environments. Available at:

.

Fish, Shlomi. Which Open SourceWiki Works For You?. O'Reilly ONLamp.com. Available

at: .

Florida Virtual High School, (http://www.flvs.net/), January 2007.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

14/15

Harris, Rachel , John Hall, and Alison Muirhead, 2004. Impact of e-learning on learner

participation, attainment, retention, and progression in Further Education: report

of a scoping study. Available at:

.

Karr, Charles L., Barry Weck, Dennis W. Sunal, and Timothy M. Cook, 2003.

Analysis of the Effectiveness of Online Learning in a Graduate Engineering Math

Course. Available at: .

Kim, Yanghee, 2005. Empathetic Virtual Peers Enhanced Learner Interest and Self-

Efficacy. Available at:

Kruse, Kevin. e-Learning Alphabet Soup: A Guide to Terms. e-Learning Guru.

Available at: .

Lynch, Richard, and Myron Dembo, 2004. The Relationship Between Self-Regulationand Online Learning in a Blended Learning Context. Available at:

.

Meger, Z, 2005 or 2006 (exact year not known). Experiences in Physics-e-learning in

Poland. Available at: .

Mesa Unified School District, (http://www.mdlp.org/), January 2007.

National University Virtual High School (http://www.nuvhs.org).

Oblender, Thomas E., 2002. A hybrid course model: one solution to the high online

drop-out rate.

Obringer, Lee Ann. How E-learning Works. Howstuffworks. Available at:

.

Richardson, Julie A., Anthony Turner, 2000. A Large-scale 'local' evaluation of students'

learning experiences using virtual learning environments. Available at:

.

Shachar Mickey, Neumann Yoram, October 2003. Differences Between Traditional and

Distance Education Academic Performances: A meta-analytic approach. International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning .

Siemens, George. Categories of eLearning. elearnspace. everything elearning. Available

at: .

Stanford University Online High School (http://epgy.stanford.edu)

Taradi, Suncana Kukolja, Milan Taradi, Kresimir Radic, and Niksa Pokrajac, 2004.

8/14/2019 eLearning01 07

15/15

Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student

learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Available at:

.

Technology in Schools: What the Research Says. Sponsored by: Cisco Systems

and Metiri Group, 2006. Available at:

.

Wang, Shiang-Kwei, 2006. Learning Hands-on Skills in an Online Environment: The

Effectiveness of Streaming Demonstration Animation. Available at:

.

Watson, John and Jennifer Ryan, Keeping Pace with K12 Online Learning: A

review of state-level policy and practice, October 2006.

Ware, Helen B., 2006. Learner-Centered E-Learning: An Exploration of Learner-

Centered Practices in Online and Traditional Instruction in Higher Education.

Available at: .

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available at: .

WorldWideLearn. Available at: .

Younis, Nazar, Raied Salman, and Rafi Ashrafi, 2004. Efficacy of Present e-learning

Content to Student Personality Types. Available at:

.

Zubas, Patrice, Cindy Heiss, and Mary Pedersen, 2006. Comparing the

Effectiveness of a Supplemental Online Tutorial to Traditional Instruction with

Nutritional Science Students. Available at:

.