Project Proposal for a New Online Learning Initiative

Introduction to the Problem/Opportunity 

The traditional graduate and post-graduate educational landscape faces substantial transformation that started almost a decade ago. The proliferation in non-traditional students (those over 35 year of age) in higher education systems increasingly calls for a paradigm shift in pedagogical methods as institutions adjust to respond to the learning needs of diverse student groups (Gast, 2013; Peppers, 2016). The modern workforce experiences monumental transformation courtesy of the technology-driven reduction in traditional careers as new ones emerge. The situation drives the demand for expanded educational options, forcing the institutions of higher learning to reframe the long-held view that college and university education can only be delivered effectively using traditional instruction methods. In 2017, Hussar and Bailey released a report on the findings of the study commissioned by the National Center for Education Statistics in the US, whose aim was to project trends in education enrollment and other factors up to 2025. According to the report, the number of non-traditional students enrolling in colleges or higher would increase by at least 20% while that of traditional students (18-24 years) would rise by 13% (Hussar & Bailey, 2017). The report further indicated that across the groups, approximately one third of the students were enrolled in not less than one distance education course. 

In the last fifteen years, distance learning transitioned to become an integral and indispensable force in the educational sector. The adoption of distance learning in developed and developing countries is dependent on the understanding of the important role in has in the realization of social and economic development for all people worldwide (Moore, Resta, Rumble, Tait & Zaparovanny, 2002). Emphasis is on all countries to grant individuals the fundamental right to education. The exploration of effective distance learning strategies revealed a growing level of interest among educators and trainers to use new instruction methods based on the internet and multimedia technologies (Gerlich & Wilson, 2005; Horzum et al., 2015). The developments call for reinforcement of traditional teaching methods with innovative strategies such as online learning. 

The emergence of distance learning as a global phenomenon offers substantial opportunities for stakeholders in the developing countries to reform their education systems towards the realization of the diverse educational goals. A report from the study commissioned by UNESCO to explore the trends, policy, and strategy in distance learning found out that the rise in interest in the phenomenon of distance learning emanated from: 

a) The incessant desire to upgrade and retain skills continually, 

b) advances in technology that have made it possible to teach full courses or programs at a distance (Moore et al., 2002). 

Fulfillment of the growing demand for distance learning by both traditional and non-traditional students calls for effective, efficient, and reliable online platforms to facilitate the process. The observation stems from an understanding that the rise in non-traditional students implies the education systems have to deal with a high number of students who are time bound. Virtually all non-traditional students who are at least 35 years of age have other commitments such ass careers and family. When these students enroll in educational programs, they need to balance between their education, careers, family, and personal life (Layne et al., 2013; Stone et al., 2016). Distance learning programs that use online platforms prove to be effective in relation to managing time constraints related to non-traditional education. The internet plays an important role in lifelong access to education, though significant demographic differences exist in relation to income and low education levels that need addressing to improve students’ retention levels (Simpson, 2013). 

An Online Learning Initiative as an Appropriate Solution 

Today, various institutions of higher learning offer online learning opportunities covering a range of undergraduate and post-graduate programs, and professional courses. The trend unquestionably brought the role of such institutions and students into question, with observers’ intent on determining the efficacy of massive open online courses. Online learning is perceived to beneficial because it is cost-effective, flexible and convenient it can be implemented anywhere and anytime (Layne et al., 2013). According to Glance et al. (2013) study on the pedagogical foundations of distance learning, an online course involves the use of short videos together with formative quizzes; automated assessment and peer or self-administered assessment, and an online platform for support and discussion. Glance et al. (2013) asserted that the design of online courses does little to optimize learning compared to traditional teaching methods. However, online learning has a sound foundation on pedagogical methods and provides equally effective learning experiences as face-to-face strategies, and could potentially improve learning outcomes in other instances, such as where web conferencing is used to add synchronous online learning to a blended platform (Fadde & Vu, 2014). 

An online learning initiative is a necessity to cater for the rising number of students enrolling in online courses, and the attrition rates that remain high (Croxton, 2014). The use of innovative multimedia technologies in instruction, such as virtual learning, enhances the elements of interactivity, and thus, satisfaction and persistence for learners. Researchers continue to recognize the effective role online learning plays in the enhancement of pedagogical discourses. The use of information and communication technology in online learning bridges the interaction gap between the teacher and student in different geographical locations, and attributed of e-learning that serves as the foundation of distance education. Online learning transcends the boundaries of time and place that are synonymous with the traditional classroom or face-to-face based learning because it is applicable anywhere and anytime. There are several online learning initiatives to choose from, depending on the requirements of the course or programs. The most common are web-based training, informal e-learning, and supported online training. The proposal advocates for a review of the supported online training models for use in pedagogy. The model addresses pertinent issues in teaching and learning by focusing on the learner, activity, group learning, interaction with an instructor, and interaction with other learners. The model mimics a traditional classroom in its delivery approach. 

The appropriateness of online learning initiative is evident in a survey on e-learning adoption commissioned by the European University Association, to explore the concept in European higher education institutions. The findings of the study posted by Gaebel et al. (2014) indicated that online learning grew to be an integral component of education in practically all institutions of higher learning; hence, the observed rising interest in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) by both educators and learners. Among the surveyed institutions, 91% used blended e-learning by integrating online methods to conventional learning years while 82% of the institutions reported using offering independent online courses (Gaebel et al., 2014). The increased adoption of online education owes to its effectiveness in addressing the needs of nontraditional students and their instructors. Xu and Jaggars (2013) the association between online learning and course outcomes, and established the existence of little difference between students enrolled in online courses and those in face-to-face learning. A review of literature on online approaches use in pedagogy also showed that the strategies could be varied to ensures appropriate learning interventions are used to realize the desired outcomes. On the other hand, it is crucial to extend the focus of online learning beyond the pedagogical and economic motives to address the growing need for flexibility and resource utilization to benefit all learner’s intent on lifelong education. 

General Characteristics of the Intended Audience 

The integration of learning technologies into higher education systems is synonymous with the use of a virtual learning environment and learning management systems with diverse effects on users. The primary stakeholders in the online learning adoption are the students, the educators, and the institutions intent on offering the online courses. Policymakers in the education sector are also the target audience in the implementation of the initiative because of their mandate to oversee the quality of education. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the target audience in relation to their perceptions of the online learning initiative. 

Exploration of students’ attitudes towards e-learning among Croatian dental students found out that they expressed both positive and negative perceptions towards online learning. The psychometric analysis revealed the presence of highly positive attitudes and minor attitudes towards online learning (Brumini et al., 2014). The differences in opinions among students can be attributed to perceptions on the use of related technologies, even though 99% of students have mobile devices that are useful in the facilitation of online learning, and at least 85% use them in their studies (Al-Emran et al., 2016). Educators have also shown positivity towards the adaptation of mobile learning (Al-Emran et al., 2016). Overall, students have been demonstrated to have positive attitudes towards online learning, and Kar et al. (2014) found out that such attitudes were affected little by demographics such as gender, class, or area of residence. Acceptance of online learning is fundamental to the success of the initiative and calls for exploration of the attributes behind the motivation by learners and educators to use the platforms. 

In a study exploring the characteristics of MOOCs, Kennedy (2014) attributed the high rate of dropouts to challenges in the implementation of online learning. The MOOC models are distinct in terms of the audience they attract, the learning approaches used, and the teaching methods employed. Online learning can occur as formal or informal, and personal differences, including learning style and playfulness, have a role to play in influencing the usage of online platforms (Karimi, 2016). Therefore, learner characteristics have an essential role in determining the type of online learning model to be used. Learner characteristics play a crucial role in student retention, progressions, and completion of an online course or program (Layne et al., 2013). Demographic predictors are critical in determining the students’ categories that fall under dise nrollers ( “ stoppers” ), reenrollers ( “ swirlers” or “ shoppers”), and complete their online program of study ( “ succeeders”) (Layne et al., 2013, p. 1). 

Research on the characteristics of online students focuses on the factors that are required to succeed, an approach that neglects the fact that e-learning comes with a host of challenges that can impair the progression of the learner. Layne et al. (2013) identified four types of online learners: 

The Stoppers – These learners voluntarily disenroll from the online education program for several reasons such as work demands, lack of motivation, family obligations, cost of education, insufficient support from family and friends, lack of educators to provide guidance, securing gainful employment, and other disruptive life events. 

The Swirlers – Swirling students are characterized by their inconsistent flow in and out of college programs, or institution-to-institution due to life challenges, academic skills, background, and commitment to succeed. For instance, family commitments, lack of skills in technology, poor understanding of e-learning concepts, and lack of motivation. 

The Shoppers – Before enrolling in online programs, this category of students engages in researching, comparing, and narrowing their college choices. They prefer to remain anonymous until the final decision to enroll is made (Layne et al., 2013). 

The last group of online learners, the succeeders, reflects some student’s wish, which is to join, advance, and complete their e-learning course. Many of the online learners’ characteristics are linked to the succeeders group. Succceders are characterized by self-motivation, learning independence, computer literacy, persistence, time management skills, and effective communication. They also demonstrate exceptional levels of personal commitment to learning through academic readiness and technological preparedness (Layne et al., 2013). 

P edagogical Considerations that May Affect the Learning Initiative 

Successful implementation of online learning is dependent on intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting the learner. Intrinsic motivation is a concept related to the internal energy of an individual, while extrinsic is concerned with external factors that motivate learners. Some of the extraneous factors that affect learners include the behavior of instructors, course topics, and teacher-student interaction. Selvi’s (2010) thematic review of the factors affecting online learning identified five key categories namely: 

The role of instructors in the teaching-leaning process, 

Student engagement through participation and attention, 

The setup of the virtual learning environment including systemic infrastructure, and 

Management of time (Selvi, 2010). 

The above factors need to be examined from the dual perspective of learners and instructors. For instance, it is vital to take into consideration the fact that many online courses are designed to be short and may influence outcomes in many ways. Exploration of the effects of the short online pedagogical course on teachers revealed a change in perceptions from knowledge-transmission to learning facilitation (Vilppu et al., 2019). The potential of online education to affect individual interpretations of learning scenarios is an element that can influence the outcomes of the learning process. Moreover, there are barriers related to each factor under consideration namely, student, instructor, and infrastructure and technology barriers. Solangi et al. (2018) proposed the study model in figure 1 below for the study of pedagogical considerations and their effect on the successful implementation of online learning. 

Figure 1: Proposed research model for exploration of pedagogical factors influencing online learning (Source: Solangi et al., 2018, p. 227) 

The need to understand the pedagogical factors influencing online learning is informed by evidence of the challenges in the implementation of the initiative. Examination of pedagogical practices in MOOCs found the presence of heavy reliance on objectivist individual instruction strategies, while constructionist group teaching strategies were limited (Toven-Lindsey et al., 2015). Therefore, innovative online instruction strategies should seek to enhance the use of constructionist learning to nurture persistence and improve retention (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba, 2014; Toven-Lindsey et al., 2015). Chai et al. (2013) advocated for the use of the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework for the integration of ICT teaching and learning strategies. The approach is critical in addressing the diverse perceptions of MOOCs and their pedagogical purposes, stemming from lack of prior exposure that leads to a lack of a consensus on the role of online learning initiatives (Evans & Myrick, 2015). 

The emphasis on factors influencing online learning initiatives draws from Kim and Frick's (2011) frameworks that identified three major categories: internal factors, external factors, and personal factors. According to Kim and Frick (2011), internal factors refer to features of the online course. Online courses with cognitive overload and difficult learning tasks increase anxiety among learners while decreasing their motivation to use e-learning platforms. Convenience and flexibility are also paramount given the characteristics of students pursuing online education (Stone et al., 2016). Learner control through sequencing, pacing, and access to support, also influence motivation (Kim & Frick, 2011). Student retention can be realized through instructional strategies that encourage content flow and playfulness (Kim & Frick, 2011; Karimi, 2016). Focus on interactivity is critical to ensure continuous communication and eliminate technical difficulties that lead to the propensity to drop out of an online course. 

Kim and Frick’s (2011) framework centralizes on the role of the online learning environment to motivate students and influence satisfaction. The ability of online learning environments to support technical difficulties and other challenges faced by non-traditional adult learners is critical to the successful implementation of the initiative. Sufficient training for learners and instructors plays an integral role in improving satisfaction with online classes. The learner has the potential to influence their motivation in online education through their learning style and media preferences (Kim & Frick, 2011). The major pedagogical concepts for consideration before beginning an online course termed by Kim and Frick (2011) as predictors are the perceived relevance of the course, age of the learner, and competence of the technology in use. 

Quality Assessment Indicators and Procedures in the Design, Content, Engagement, and Teaching Effectiveness 

Institutional reviews of policies on online education have focused on the quality of learning by highlighting the necessity stems from the fact that the associated contexts, constraints, and issues make it fundamentally different from traditional learning. Successful design and implementation of the online education initiative is dependent on several critical factors: 

Institutional support in solving problems about technological infrastructure, planning, and incentive for faculty. 

Course development through benchmarking the production of courseware by individual faculty or experts in the subject area. 

Instruction and learning process that resolve major pedagogical issues, including interactivity, collaboration, and learning. 

Course structure that established benchmarks for the development of policies and procedures to facilitate instruction and learning, and cover course objectives, library resources availability, materials availed to students, students’ expectations, and response time. 

Student support covers an array of services that include admissions, finances, and assistance, and training on the use of online education platforms. 

Faculty support through activities that assists instructors in using online teaching strategies by establishing policies to facilitate transition and guarantee continued support. 

Evaluation and assessment protocols that dictate the methodological approach for data collection and outcome determination to ascertain the efficacy of the online education initiative. 

The above benchmarks are essential in the realization of the balance between pedagogy, student motivation, and accessibility (van Rooij & Zirkle, 2016). The benchmarks address individual and institutional factors that affect the implementation of online education initiatives. They portray the need for universal design of online courses to enhance flexibility and accessibility and enhance student experiences. The use of the TPACK framework proves particularly important in the alignment of online education to other pedagogical discourses (Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015). 

Frameworks for quality assessment of e-learning vary depending on the context and the course. For instance, Arevalo et al. (2013) proposed the use of haptics, including Haptics in Technology Enhanced Learning and Universal Dental E-learning, because of their ability to incorporate several assessments and evaluation tools. On the other hand, Romero et al. (2015) advocated for the use of ontological frameworks that prove to be useful tools in guiding the development, organization, and personalization of content for an online education initiatives. The different suggestions illustrate the diversity aspect of e-learning, which implies that no single approach can be regarded as the standard for measurement of quality across the platforms. 

The study by de Leeuw et al. (2018) on the consensus on the quality indicators of e-learning corroborated the initial findings by Thair, Garnett, and King (2006) that based quality on a number of organizational activities. Quality indicators revolve around the improvement of core institutional activities, including teaching and research. The events must also demonstrate alignment with budget resources and the strategic plan. The interest of students and other stakeholders must also be captured. The primary goal is to give the learner a sense of importance, responsibility, allocate sufficient time, and define the purpose of the online education initiative in relation to the knowledge, skills, and attitude (de Leeuw et al., 2018). Quality indicators reflect the simplicity of the online education platform to meet the expectations of the learner and the instructor and prove teaching and learning effectiveness. 

References  

Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education.  Computers in Human behavior ,  56 , 93-102. 

Arevalo, C. R., Bayne, S. C., Beeley, J. A., Brayshaw, C. J., Cox, M. J., Donaldson, N. H., ... & Reynolds, P. A. (2013). Framework for e-learning assessment in dental education: a global model for the future.  Journal of Dental Education ,  77 (5), 564-575. 

Brumini, G., Špalj, S., Mavrinac, M., Biočina‐Lukenda, D., Strujić, M., & Brumini, M. (2014). Attitudes towards e‐learning amongst dental students at the universities in C roatia.  European Journal of Dental Education ,  18 (1), 15-23. 

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge.  Journal of Educational Technology & Society ,  16 (2), 31-51. 

Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning.  Journal of Online Learning and Teaching ,  10 (2), 314. 

de Leeuw, R. A., Walsh, K., Westerman, M., & Scheele, F. (2018). Consensus on quality indicators of postgraduate medical e-learning: Delphi study.  JMIR Medical Education ,  4 (1), e13. 

Evans, S., & Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses.  Distance Education ,  36 (3), 295-311. 

Fadde, P. J., & Vu, P. (2014). Blended online learning: Benefits, challenges, and misconceptions.  Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits, and challenges , 38-48. 

Frehywot, S., Vovides, Y., Talib, Z., Mikhail, N., Ross, H., Wohltjen, H., & Scott, J. (2013). E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low-and middle-income countries.  Human Resources for Health ,  11 (1), 4. 

Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, E. (2014). E-Learning in European Higher Education Institutions: Results of a Mapping Survey Conducted in October-December 2013.  European University Association . 

Gast, A. (2013). Current trends in adult degree programs: How public universities respond to the needs of adult learners.  New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education ,  2013 (140), 17-25. 

Gerlich, N., & Wilson, P. H. (2005). Distance learning and the faculty: An analysis of perceptions, concerns, and opportunities.  Academy of Educational Leadership Journal ,  9 (1), 1. 

Glance, D. G., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses.  First Monday ,  18 (5). 

Horzum, M. B., Kaymak, Z. D., & Gungoren, O. C. (2015). Structural equation modeling towards online learning readiness, academic motivations, and perceived learning.  Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice ,  15 (3), 759-770. 

Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2017). Projections of Education Statistics to 2025. NCES 2017-019.  National Center for Education Statistics . Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017019.pdf 

Kar, D., Saha, B., & Mondal, B. C. (2014). Attitude of university students towards e-learning in west Bengal.  American Journal of Educational Research ,  2 (8), 669-673. 

Karimi, S. (2016). Do learners’ characteristics matter? An exploration of mobile-learning adoption in self-directed learning.  Computers in Human Behavior ,  63 , 769-776. 

Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014). Promoting effective e-learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy.  Education and Information Technologies ,  19 (4), 887-898. 

Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009-2012.  Journal of Interactive Online Learning ,  13 (1). 

Kim, K. J., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning.  Journal of Educational Computing Research ,  44 (1), 1-23. 

Layne, M., Boston, W. E., & Ice, P. (2013). A longitudinal study of online learners: Shoppers, swirlers, stoppers, and succeeders as a function of demographic characteristics.  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration ,  16 (2), 1-12. 

McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face‐to‐face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education.  Journal of advanced nursing ,  71 (2), 255-270. 

Moore, M. G., Resta, P., Rumble, G., Tait, A., & Zaparovanny, Y. (2002).  Open and distance learning: Trends, policy and strategy considerations . Unesco. 

Peppers, G. J. (2016). Higher education trends with focus on the future of teaching and learning.  National Teacher Education Journal ,  9 (2). 

Romero, L., North, M., Gutiérrez, M., & Caliusco, L. (2015). Pedagogically-driven ontology network for conceptualizing the e-learning assessment domain.  Journal of Educational Technology & Society ,  18 (4), 312-330. 

Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education ,  47 (3), 186-210. 

Selvi, K. (2010). Motivating factors in online courses.  Procedia-social and behavioral sciences ,  2 (2), 819-824. 

Simpson, O. (2013). Student retention in distance education: are we failing our students?.  Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning ,  28 (2), 105-119. 

Solangi, Z. A., Al Shahrani, F., & Pandhiani, S. M. (2018). Factors affecting Successful Implementation of eLearning: Study of Colleges and Institutes Sector RCJ Saudi Arabia.  International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning ,  13 (6), 223-230. 

Stone, C., O'Shea, S., May, J., Delahunty, J., & Partington, Z. (2016). Opportunity through online learning: Experiences of first-in-family students in online open-entry higher education Cathy Stone, Sarah O'Shea, Josephine May, Janine Delahunty and Zoe Partington.  Australian Journal of Adult Learning ,  56 (2), 146. 

Thair, A., Garnett, P., & King, S. (2006). Quality assurance and change in higher education. In  The Realities of Change in Higher Education  (pp. 70-81). Routledge. 

Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses.  The internet and higher education ,  24 , 1-12. 

van Rooij, S. W., & Zirkle, K. (2016). Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: A case study in collaborative online course development.  The Internet and Higher Education ,  28 , 1-7. 

Vilppu, H., Södervik, I., Postareff, L., & Murtonen, M. (2019). The effect of short online pedagogical training on university teachers’ interpretations of teaching–learning situations.  Instructional Science , 1-31. 

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system.  Economics of Education Review ,  37 , 46-57.