Structure in Distance Learning: A Systematic Literature Review

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 4, 139 - 170, 01.12.2021

Bülent Kandemir Ebru Kılıç Çakmak

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.83.8.4

Cited By: 2

Öz

The research aims to determine the elements under the structural component in distance learning environments. The research was conducted as a systematic literature review. The research was conducted on a total of 54 studies. The studies were accessed through the electronic databases accessible at Gazi University. A PRISMA flow chart was used to select the studies. The classification of the studies into categories and codes was done using content analysis, in terms of the structural component. A total of 78 codes were found in 5 categories under which 5409 codings were made. It was found that under the structural component, the Technology category was the most frequently used. This category is followed by flexibility-rigidity, assessment, guidance and curriculum. The most frequently used code in the studies is individual feedback, which falls under the flexibility-rigidity category. As a result of the study, some suggestions were made for designers of distance education media. They should pay maximum attention to the flexibility-rigidity category to support students’ sense of belonging. It is recommended to use different (textual, audio/video) feedback methods in the learning environment. They are expected to pay more attention to the Curriculum category to support learner success. The roles of teachers and learners should be clearly defined. Technology should be planned to support all processes such as interaction, access to content, communication, sharing, collaboration, and evaluation that may be experienced in the learning environment. Formative evaluation should be considered important and more than one method of performance assessment should be used. Since technological platforms are the basic elements of communication, they should be used extensively in learning environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

distance education, transactional distance, course structure, flexibility-rigidity, curriculum, instructions, technology, evaluation

Kaynakça

• Aghaee, N., Byron Jobe, W., Karunaratne, T., Smedberg, Å., Hansson, H., & Tedre, M. (2016). Interaction gaps in PhD education and ICT as a way forward: Results from a study in Sweden. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 360–383.
• Alhih, M., Ossiannilsson, E., & Berigel, M. (2017). Levels of interaction provided by online distance education models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2733–2748. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01250a
• Ali, M. N. (2018). A Correlational Study of Types of Interactions and Student Satisfaction in Online Community College Mathematics, English, or Information Technology Courses. Morgan State University.
• Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
• Anderson, L. (2018). The Influence of Virtual Community Participation on Transactional Distance in an Online Computer Science Course. Arizona State University.
• Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In Handbook of Distance Education.
• Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97.
• Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2013). Communication and Social Presence: The Impact on Adult Learners’ Emotions in Distance Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78–93.
• Atwater, C., Borup, J., Baker, R., & West, R. E. (2017). Student perceptions of video communication in an online sport and recreation studies graduate course. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 3–12.
• Banas, J., & Wartalski, R. (2019). Designing for Community in Online Learning Settings. Library Technology Reports. Retrieved from https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6999
• Barana, A., Marchisio, M., & Rabellino, S. (2015). Automated assessment in mathematics. Proceedings - International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 3, 670–671. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.105
• Bashir, K. (2019). Modeling E-Learning Interactivity, Learner Satisfaction and Continuance Learning Intention in Ugandan Higher Learning Institutions. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), n1.
• Bates, T. (2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources.
• Bazylova, B., Zhusupova, Z., Kazhigalieva, G., Onalbayeva, A., & Kalinina, V. (2019). Subjective Understanding of The Student When Using Open Educational Resources. Periódico Tchê Química, 16, 613–630.
• Berge, Z. (2002). Berge2002_ActiveInteractiveReflectiveLearning.pdf. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181–190.
• Berge, Z. L., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Haneghan, J. (2002). Barriers to distance education and training: Survey results. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education.
• Bignoux, S., & Sund, K. J. (2018). Tutoring executives online: what drives perceived quality? Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(7), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1474254
• Blass, E., & Davis, A. (2003). Building on solid foundations: establishing criteria for e-learning development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 227–245.
• Boelens, R., Wever, B. De, & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X17300258
• Bolliger, D U, & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
• Bolliger, Doris U, & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583.
• Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184.
• Bower, M. (2019). Technology‐mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1035–1048.
• Brannigan, C., Galvin, R., Walsh, M. E., Loughnane, C., Morrissey, E.-J., Macey, C., … Horgan, N. F. (2017). Barriers and facilitators associated with return to work after stroke: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(3), 211–222.
• Brookhart, S. (2020). Five Formative Assessment Strategies to Improve Distance Learning Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. NCEO Brief. Number 20. In National Center on Educational Outcomes. ERIC.
• Çakır, R., Kara, M., & Kukul, V. (2019). Adaptation of the online self-regulation questionnaire (OSRQ) in three types of interaction into Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Educational Technology Theory and …. Retrieved from https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/uc-etkilesim-turunde-cevrimici-oz-duzenleme-olcegi-toad.pdf
• Castillo-de Mesa, J., & Gómez-Jacinto, L. (2020). Connectedness, Engagement, and Learning through Social Work Communities on LinkedIn. Psychosocial Intervention, 29(2), 103–112.
• Cho, M.-H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students’ perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 10–17.
• Cho, M., & Jonassen, D. (2009). Development of the human interaction dimension of the Self‐Regulated Learning Questionnaire in asynchronous online learning environments. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 117–138.
• Chugh, R., Ledger, S., & Shields, R. (2017). Curriculum design for distance education in the tertiary sector. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306552
• Chung, K. S. K., & Paredes, W. C. (2015). Towards a social networks model for online learning & performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 240–253.
• Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
• Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.
• Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. IAP.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. routledge.
• Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. Psychology press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni. Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Crisp, B. R. (2018). From distance to online education: two decades of remaining responsive by one university social work programme. Social Work Education. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02615479.2018.1444157
• Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. International Journal of Phytoremediation. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649609526919
• Desharnais, R. A., & Limson, M. (2007). Designing and implementing virtual courseware to promote inquiry-based learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 30–39.
• Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
• Dockter, J. (2016). The Problem of Teaching Presence in Transactional Theories of Distance Education. Computers and Composition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.009
• Dzakiria, H. (2012). Illuminating the Importance of Learning Interaction to Open Distance Learning (ODL) Success: A Qualitative Perspectives of Adult Learners in Perlis, Malaysia. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
• Eggert, D., & Beutner, M. (2019). Developing the MultiDimensional Communication Channel Model (MDCC model) - A communication model for Virtual Classrooms. Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Academic Conference, 48–71. MAC Praque Consulting s.r.o. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=137297555&lang=tr&site=ehost-live
• El-Bishouty, M. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Tortorella, R., Yang, J., Chang, T.-W., & Graf, S. (2019). Use of Felder and Silverman learning style model for online course design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 161–177.
• Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., & ... (2019). Perceptions of transactional distance in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. Journal of Educational …. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0735633117746169
• Falowo, R. O. (2007). Factors impeding implementation of web-based distance learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal.
• Fede, B. (2018). Guidance in the Design and Implementation of an Online Mathematics Education Course. ERIC.
• Feenberg, A. (2008). Critical theory of technology: An overview. In Information technology in librarianship: New critical approaches.
• Friesen, N., & Kuskis, A. (2013). Modes of interaction. Handbook of Distance Education, 351–371.
• Galusha, J. M. (1998). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education. ERIC.
• Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137910100403
• Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
• Gavril, M., Andrei Mihalache, M., & Lucian, T. (2019). E-Learning In Romanian Technical University For Mechanical Engineering Students. 110–123.
• Gil-Jaurena, I., & Domínguez, D. (2018). Teachers’ roles in light of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Evolution and challenges in higher distance education. International Review of Education, 64(2), 197–219.
• Gin, D. H. C., Lester, G. B., & Blodgett, B. (2019). Forum on seminary teaching and formation online. Teaching Theology & Religion, 22(1), 73–87.
• Goh, C. F., Tan, O. K., Rasli, A., & Choi, S. L. (2019). Engagement in peer review, learner-content interaction and learning outcomes. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(5), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2018-0038
• Grigorovici, D., Nam, S., & Russill, C. (2003). The effects of online syllabus interactivity on students’ perception of the course and instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 41–52.
• Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.
• Gronseth, S., & Hebert, W. (2019). GroupMe: investigating use of mobile instant messaging in higher education courses. TechTrends. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-018-0361-y
• Guffey, M., Loewry, D., & Griffin, E. (2019). Business communication: Process and product . Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
• Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2013). Distance education. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 361–401). Routledge.
• Hancock, T. B. (2018). The Relationship Between Online Students’ Perceptions of the Quality of Online Instruction and New Students’ Intent to Persist. Grand Canyon University.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
• Hertzog, P. E., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Student perceptions of audio feedback in a design-based module for distance education. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 20(2), 100–106.
• Holbeck, R., & Hartman, J. (2018). Efficient strategies for maximizing online student satisfaction: Applying technologies to increase cognitive presence, social Presence, and teaching Presence. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), n3.
• Holland, A. A. (2019). Effective principles of informal online learning design: A theory-building metasynthesis of qualitative research. Computers & Education, 128, 214–226.
• Holmberg, B., & Ortner, G. E. (1991). Educational Theory and its Application to Distance Education. International Symposium on Distance Education in Theory and Practice.
• House-Peters, L. A., Del Casino Jr, V. J., & Brooks, C. F. (2019). Dialogue, inquiry, and encounter: Critical geographies of online higher education. Progress in Human Geography, 43(1), 81–103.
• Howard, N. R. (2020). “How Did I Do?”: Giving learners effective and affective feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–4.
• Huang, X, Chandra, A., DePaolo, C., Cribbs, J., & ... (2015). Measuring transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An initial instrument development. … of Open, Distance …. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02680513.2015.1065720
• Huang, Xiaoxia, Chandra, A., DePaolo, C. A., & Simmons, L. L. (2016). Understanding transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12263
• Jelena, A. L., & Ana, N. (2019). Designing e-learning environment based on student preferences: conjoint analysis approach. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 7(3).
• Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web‐based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525–534.
• Kara, M, & Can, G. (2019). Master’s Students’ Perceptions and Expectations of Good Tutors and Advisors in Distance Education. International Review of Research in Open and …. Retrieved from https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl04703/1061336ar/abstract/
• Kara, Mehmet, & Yildirim, Z. (2020). Identification of the optimal faculty behaviors for performance improvement in distance education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 83–97.
• Karipi, E. (2019). Experiences of the Namibian College of Open Learning Tutors in Using Multimedia Resources in Distance Education. African Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 14–21.
• Kayode, B. K. (2018). Effect of communication management on distance learners’ cognitive engagement in Malaysian institutions of higher learning. International Review of Research in Open and …. Retrieved from https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl04233/1055526ar/abstract/
• Keegan, D. (2005). Theoretical principles of distance education. Routledge.
• Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. IGI Global.
• Kyei-Blankson, L., Ntuli, E., & Donnelly, H. (2019). Establishing the importance of interaction and presence to student learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive …. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/161956/
• Lawyer, D. J. (2018). Freshman English Composition, Course Modality, Transactional Distance Theory, and Student Success. ProQuest LLC.
• Lemak, D. J., Shin, S. J., Reed, R., & Montgomery, J. C. (2005). Technology, transactional distance, and instructor effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 150–159.
• Marchisio, M., Sacchet, M., & Salusso, D. (2019). Instructional design to “train the trainers”: the start@ unito project at the university of Turin. International Conference E-Learning 2019 Part of the Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems 2019, 195–202. Iadis Press.
• McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1996). Distance education. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 403–437.
• Miles, M B, & Huberman, A. M. (2016). Genişletilmiş bir kaynak kitap: nitel veri analizi. SA Altun, A. Ersoy Çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Miles, Matthew B, & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Theoretical principles of distance education. https://doi.org/doi:10.4324/9780203983065
• Moore, M. G. M., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A sysyems view of online learning. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Moreno-Marcos, P. M., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2018). Analysing the predictive power for anticipating assignment grades in a massive open online course. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(10–11), 1021–1036.
• Muljana, P. S., & Luo, T. (2019). Factors contributing to student retention in online learning and recommended strategies for improvement: A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Technology …. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_fac_pubs/80/
• Naidu, S. (2018). Editorial:to interact or not to interact is NOT the question! Distance Education, 39(3), 277–280.
• Olpak, Y Z, & Çakmak, E. K. (2018). Learning strategies predicting the perception of social presence of distance education students. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi …. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buefad/article/365218
• Olpak, Yusuf Ziya, & Çakmak, E. K. (2014). Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Farklı Geribildirim Stratejilerinin Öğrencilerin Sosyal Bilişsel ve Öğretimsel Bulunuşluk Algıları ile Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 243–261.
• Özbay, Ö., & Sarıca, R. (2019). Ters yüz sınıfa yönelik gerçekleştirilen çalışmaların eğilimleri: Bir sistematik alanyazın taraması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 332–348.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 119–140.
• Peacock, S., Cowan, J., Irvine, L., & Williams, J. (2020). An Exploration Into the Importance of a Sense of Belonging for Online Learners. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(2 SE-Research Articles), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4539
• Piña, A. A. (2018). AECT Instructional Design Standards for Distance Learning. TechTrends, 62(3), 305–307.
• Quong, J., Snider, S. L., & Early, J. (2018). Reducing transactional distance in online and blended courses through the use of a closed social media platform. Journal of Educational …. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0047239518766654
• Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.603
• Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J., & Choi, J. (2018). Universal design for learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1045159517735530
• Saba, F. (2016). Theories of Distance Education: Why They Matter. New Directions for Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20176
• Sajjadi, M. S. M., Alamgir, M., & von Luxburg, U. (2016). Peer grading in a course on algorithms and data structures: Machine learning algorithms do not improve over simple baselines. Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, 369–378.
• Salter, N. P., & Conneely, M. R. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forums as tools for student engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18–25.
• Sarrab, M., Al-Shihi, H., Al-Manthari, B., & Bourdoucen, H. (2018). Toward educational requirements model for Mobile learning development and adoption in higher education. TechTrends, 62(6), 635–646.
• Sato, T., & Haegele, J. A. (2018). Undergraduate Kinesiology Students’ Experiences in Online Motor Development Courses. Online Learning. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/hms_fac_pubs/72/
• Saykili, A. (2018). Distance Education: Definitions, Generations, Key Concepts and Future Directions. International Journal of Contemporary Educational …. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207516
• Schreiber, B. R., & Jansz, M. (2020). Reducing distance through online international collaboration. ELT Journal. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/74/1/63/5650732
• Seaman, J., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group, 1–49.
• Simonson, M, Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education 7th Edition. books.google.com. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qh-3DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=transactional+distance+online+course+online+course+structure&ots=EcFgyZ9jIO&sig=FVrX850vZXGXp70ogpAIRlIXRRc
• Simonson, Michael. (2019). Research in Distance Education: A Summary. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 20(3), 31–52.
• Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(97)00004-6
• Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2020). The polarizing effect of the online flipped classroom. Computers & Education. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131519303392
• Strachota, E. (2006). The use of survey research to measure student satisfaction in online courses. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education, University of Missouri-St. Louis.
• Swerling, J., Thorson, K., & Zerfass, A. (2014). The role and status of communication practice in the USA and Europe. Journal of Communication Management.
• Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, A. E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. Epsilon.
• Thomas, L., Herbert, J., & Teras, M. (2014). A sense of belonging to enhance participation, success and retention in online programs. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(2), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i2.233
• Thorpe, M. (2014). Online interaction: Why it matters to use forums strategicallyOnline strategically. Distance Education in China, (7), 3.
• Uppal, M. A., Ali, S., & Gulliver, S. R. (2018). Factors determining e‐learning service quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 412–426.
• Vaughn, S. D. (2018). Online Doctoral Student Satisfaction as Influenced by Personality and Transactional Distance. ERIC.
• Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213–230.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
• Wakeling, V., Doral, M., Robertson, P. R., & Patrono, M. (2018). Perceptions of Undergraduate Students of Student-Regulated Online Courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(3), n3.
• Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters - The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3417
• Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
• Xing, W. (2019). Exploring the influences of MOOC design features on student performance and persistence. Distance Education. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553560
• Yates, A., Brindley-Richards, W., & Thistoll, T. (2020). Student engagement in distance-based vocational education. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 18(2), 29–43.
• Yaylak, E. (2020). A Case Study on the Social Studies Interactive Notebook (SSIN) Practices. TeEği̇ti̇m VBi̇li̇m, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2020.8809
• Yazici, A., Altas, I., Wagga-Australia, W., & Demiray, U. (2001). Distance education on the net: A model for developing countries. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 24–35.
• Yiğit, M. F., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2020). Investigating the Effect of Video-Based Feedback on Perceived Feedback Quality1. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1–31.
• Yilmaz, F. G. K., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). The impact of feedback form on transactional distance and critical thinking skills in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
• Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2019). Assigned roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: comparison of transactional distance and knowledge sharing behaviors. Journal of Educational …. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0735633118786855
• Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods, and authorship patterns. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 21–50.
• Zilka, G. C., Rahimi, I. D., & Cohen, R. (2019). Sense of challenge, threat, self-efficacy, and motivation of students learning in virtual and blended courses. American Journal of Distance …. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08923647.2019.1554990
• Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses | Zimmerman | The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1302
• Zydney, J. M., McKimmy, P., Lindberg, R., & Schmidt, M. (2019). Here or there instruction: Lessons learned in implementing innovative approaches to blended synchronous learning. TechTrends, 63(2), 123–132.