E-learning and the first year experience:

A framework for best practice1

Kerri-Lee Krause (PhD)2

Celina McEwen2 and Kerry Blinco3

2
Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
3
Link Affiliates, Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern
Queensland, AUSTRALIA

EDUCAUSE Australasia Conference

Perth, Western Australia, 3-6 May 2009

© Copyright 2009 University of Southern Queensland

1
A project funded by the Australian Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and the Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and
Research (DIISR) under the Systemic Infrastructure Initiative (SII) as part of the Commonwealth
Government’s Backing Australia’s Ability – An Innovation Plan for the Future (BAA).
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a progress report on Phase 1 of a project investigating optimal
ways of preparing first year students for adapting to university e-learning
environments, with a view to enhancing the quality of their learning experiences,
particularly in online environments. This paper draws on the outcomes of the
Australian contribution to a cross-national collaboration among a team of
investigators from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United
Kingdom who have identified a series of best practices in relation to introducing first
year students to e-learning at university. The Australian study draws on the
international draft framework – currently under development – with a particular focus
on implications for the quality of the first year experience in Australian higher
education contexts.

INTRODUCTION
The first year experience is pivotal in determining whether university students will
persist with their studies, and engage with peers, faculty, and the learning
environment (Krause et al., 2005). In particular, students’ early university experiences
determine the quality of their engagement with the institution. Information and
communication technologies (ICTs) play an important role in students’ early
engagement opportunities and experiences, especially in e-learning settings (Krause
& Coates, 2008). The last decade has witnessed a rapid growth in the use of ICTs for
learning and teaching in both fully online and blended environments. With this
growth comes the imperative to ensure that the embedding of ICTs in curricula is
characterised by best practice in curriculum design and pedagogy, addressing student
and faculty needs, and enhancing policies and practices.

A recent study of Australian first year students (Kennedy et al., 2008) revealed that
the extent to which they had embraced a range of emerging technologies, such as
blogs or RSS feeds, varied significantly. The findings highlight the considerable
danger in assuming that first year students are capable of employing a range of
technologies in an informed way to enhance their learning at university. Similarly, a
recent UK study of first year students (JISC/Ipsos MORI, 2008) found a notable
disparity between the technologies that students were comfortable using for learning
purposes (e.g. learning management systems), as compared with those with which
they were socially familiar, yet not comfortable using in educational contexts (e.g.
Web 2.0 technologies). These findings challenge the myth of the ‘digital native’ and
further challenge practitioners and policy makers to ensure that the use of ICTs to
enhance learning is underpinned by evidence-based best practice.

This paper reports on Phase 1 of a study designed to identify a range of best practices
in relation to first year students’ early experiences with ICTs in university e-learning
environments. It provides details of a project that builds on the findings of research
undertaken in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, in order to develop a
framework for best practice in assisting students to engage with e-learning early in
their first year. This framework is designed to complement and enhance existing
resources, including the benchmarks for the use of technology in learning and
teaching developed by the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning
(ACODE, 2008).

1
Project findings will feed into an international initiative being undertaken under the
auspices of the IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS) which is an international
non-profit member organization that creates standards and best practices for the
development and adoption of technologies that enable high quality, accessible and
affordable learning experiences (see Endnote 1 for a list of current project members).
The IMS project focuses on a number of key areas as potential candidates for the
development of best practices. These include: assessment and communication of
expectations; student recruitment and advising; learning design; functional
technology; technology literacy and support for students and, staff and faculty; and
broader non-technical online student support for first year students. The project is
premised on the fundamental importance of institutional management, policies and
quality assurance and enhancement practices, though this is not its only focus.

E-LEARNING BEST PRACTICES IN THE AUSTRALIAN

CONTEXT
The Australian project reported in this paper places particular emphasis on the
relationship between the proposed areas of effective e-learning practices in first year
and existing Australian work in this area, particularly the ACODE benchmarks. The
primary goal of Phase 1 of the Australian project has been to contribute to
development of the draft best practice framework and to gather data from a sample of
faculty who are teaching online courses in order to determine the extent to which
these draft guidelines might usefully complement existing benchmarking activities
such as those initiated by ACODE. The results of the study of faculty experiences in
online environments are reported in another paper (Krause & McEwen, forthcoming).

Phase 2 of this project will seek to examine ways in which these areas of best practice
might be adapted for use in the school and vocational education sectors. This will be
important if we are to promote e-learning best practice within the school and tertiary
contexts and if we are to facilitate effective transitions between the sectors in relation
to developing the e-learning skills and capacities of Australia’s young people. Phase 2
will also road-test the draft best practice areas with key stakeholders from the
Australian higher education sector to determine their relevance and the extent to
which they might complement existing benchmarking activities. The particular
contribution of the present study is to place the spotlight on the unique needs of first
year students as they make the transition to e-learning contexts in higher education.

The eight ACODE benchmarks for the use of technology in learning and teaching are
listed in Table 1 below. They are designed:

“to support continuous quality improvement in e-learning. The approach reflects

an enterprise perspective, integrating the key issue of pedagogy with institutional
dimensions such as planning, staff development and infrastructure provision. The
benchmarks have been developed for use at the enterprise level or by the
organisational areas responsible for the provision of leadership and services in this
area.” (ACODE, 2008)

2
Table 1: Preliminary comparison: ACODE2 Benchmarks and SIEL3 draft framework

ACODE Benchmark Areas Student-induction to E-Learning BPA4

Draft Framework

1. Institution policy and governance for BPA7: Institutional management; may

technology supported learning and incorporate BPA1: Assessment and
teaching communication of expectations and
BPA2: Recruitment and advisement
2. Planning for, and quality improvement
of the integration of technologies for
learning and teaching

3. Information technology infrastructure BPA4: Functional technology

to support learning and teaching

4. Pedagogical application of information BPA3: Learning and the learner (some

and communication technology overlap)

5. Professional/staff development for the BPA5: Technology literacy and support

effective use of technologies for learning
and teaching

6. Staff support for the use of

technologies for learning and teaching

7. Student training for the effective use of

technologies for learning

8. Student support for the use of BPA3: Learning and the learner (some
technologies for learning overlap)

Specific first year issues addressed

BPA1: Assessment and communication
of expectations

BPA2: Recruitment and advisement

BPA3: Learning and the learner

BPA6: Non-technical online student

support services

2
ACODE: Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning;
3
SIEL: Student Induction to E-Learning project;
4
BPA: best practice areas. See Appendix 1 for more detailed components of each BPA.

3
The proposed “Best Practice Areas” outlined in Table 1 (see also Appendix 1)
provide a complement to the ACODE benchmark areas, with an acknowledged focus
on specific needs of first year students in transition. Several important features of the
proposed framework for best practice in first year e-learning include:

1. the role of advising and assessing commencing undergraduates’ readiness to

engage in e-learning. This may and should occur well before students’ first
encounter with the formal university e-learning environment, particularly at a
time when universities are encountering increased numbers of under-prepared
students who may have limited cultural and social capital as they enter the
arena of higher education.
2. the importance of recognizing the whole student experience, from managing
pre-entry expectations, to supporting first year students with specific
technology training, to providing a range of non-technical support services
online as part of a top quality technology-enabled first year experience.

FOCUSSING ON THE LEARNER IN E-LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS
The Australian contribution to the Phase 1 of the framework development has
focussed particularly on Best Practice Area 3: Learning and the learner. As shown in
Appendix 1, components in this area include:

• Pedagogical underpinning
• Learner-centered approach
• Learner engagement and community building
• Designed for retention
• Assessment tasks, feedback and evaluation

The priority for this project is to ensure that all best practices are derived from a
robust evidence base. Preparation of the best practices has thus entailed an extensive
survey of the literature in this growing field of investigation. What follows is an
illustrative selection of how each component of the best practice areas in the
framework is supported from the literature. Every effort has been made to ensure that
the components are supported by empirical research studies, however we are still in
the process of documenting the research underpinning these best practices. It is our
hope that as a result of presentations such as this, colleagues will contribute their own
research evidence to support these components of good practice by visiting the IMS
Global Learning Consortium Community Forum at
[Link]

Illustrative examples are provided in Appendix 2 of two subcomponents (pedagogical

underpinning and learner engagement and community building) of Best Practice Area
3: Learning and the learner, with selected research evidence. Each illustrates the
extent to which empirical studies have been used to inform development of the
principles of best practice for each area of activity.

4
The research underpinning Best Practice Area 3: Learning and the learner points to
the critical importance of taking account of the unique and changing needs of learners
when planning to integrate e-learning into the first year curriculum. It should be
emphasized that many of the components of best practice outlined in this framework
represent best practice whether in e-learning environments or not. However, there are
clearly unique challenges and opportunities inherent in the use of e-learning
approaches and it is these that the framework seeks to highlight.

For example, as for face-to-face learning experiences, first year students in online
environments are likely to remain in a course if they are satisfied with the course and
can commit time to their studies (Herbert, 2008). Nevertheless, some key dimensions
of the e-learning experience may play a particular role in ensuring students’
satisfaction. These include providing a cohort- and team-based learning experience
with extensive faculty feedback and interaction to address isolation concerns that so
often arise when students are studying in online environments; providing application-
based content and activities, and helping students meet expectations for personal
growth, particularly in the first year.

It is also crucial to offer a well-managed program and ensure that faculty members
are both interested and competent in teaching in the online learning environment
(Bocchi et al., 2004). This highlights the critical importance of supporting both
students and faculty (see Best Practice Area 5, Appendix 1) in e-learning
environments.

IMPLICATIONS AND WAYS FORWARD

The framework for best practice in first year e-learning will be relevant to all those
charged with engaging first year students through technology-enhanced learning,
including online distance mode, blended learning or hybrid learning contexts. It is
designed to provide a basis for faculty, administrators, educational designers and
librarians to work together to ensure that e-learning becomes a positive feature of the
first year experience. During Phase 2 of this project we plan to consult widely with
representatives of these key stakeholders, including peak bodies such as ACODE, in
order to explore ways in which these guidelines for best practice might be used to
enhance university learning and teaching, particularly for first year students.

The framework recognises that e-learning good practice shares much in common with
that of effective learning and teaching in face-to-face settings; however it also
recognises the unique challenges that students, faculty, staff and institutions face as
they seek to optimise technology use to enhance the quality of student learning. This
study comes at a time when several studies have identified the dangers about making
assumptions regarding first year students’ digital literacy and their capacity to engage
fully and effectively in e-learning environments (see for example Kennedy et al.,
2008). Moreover, in the context of a global financial crisis, it is expected that the
numbers of students in undergraduate higher education will increase significantly as
the undergraduate degree of the 21st century becomes the higher school certificate of
the 20th century. In other words more students are entering higher education as the
labour market weakens and as industry demands higher qualifications from workers.

5
In this context, we can expect increasing numbers of commencing undergraduate
students who are under-prepared and perhaps even lacking in motivation to complete
their study – particularly if they simply see university study as a placeholder until the
labour market strengthens. These contextual factors mean that it is particularly
important for universities to be proactive in preparing students for engagement in
university learning environments, including providing them with sound induction and
preparation for e-learning experiences. As increasing numbers of students from equity
groups enter our higher education system, the need to take account of the holistic
support represented in this draft best practice framework takes on even greater
urgency.

Phase 2 of this project will take into consideration the importance of fostering best
practice in the school and vocational education e-learning environments. Effective
transitions between these sectors will be fostered if young people are supported
through a framework that prepares them to optimise e-learning opportunities from the
early school years through to post-school education. Consideration will also need to
be given to strategies for supporting mature learners engaging with e-learning for the
first time. This group represents an increasing proportion of the university population
and highlights the need to ensure that any e-learning framework should be adaptable
to the unique needs of various demographic subgroups in the educational arena.

REFERENCES
Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning. (2008). ACODE
Benchmarks. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
[Link]

Barnard, L., Paton, V. O., & Rose, K. (2007). Perceptions of online course
communications and collaboration. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 10(4). Available online from:
H[Link]

Beetham, H. (2007). An Approach to Learning Activity Design. In H. Beetham & R.

Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering
E-Learning (pp. 26-40). London & New York: Routledge.

Bilham, T. (2006). Creating and sustaining online communities of practice, AISHE

Conference 2006: All Ireland Society for Higher Education (AISHE).

Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the Online Learner:
Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications for Teaching
Them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245-253.

Britain, S. (2007). Learning Design Systems. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.),

Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-Learning
(pp. 103-114). London & New York: Routledge.

Carr, S. (2000). As Distance Education Comes of Age, the Challenge Is Keeping the
Students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39-41.

Chickering, A. W., & Erhmann, S. C. (2008). Implementing the Seven Principles:

Technology as Lever.

6
Conole, G. (2004). E-Learning: The hype and the reality. Journal of Interactive
Media in Education, 12, 1-18.

Craig, A., Coldwell, J., & Goold, A. (2007). Roles and responsibilities in online
learning: Perceptions of students. Presented at Institute of Teaching and Learning
Conference. Melbourne, VIC: Institute of Teaching and Learning, Deakin
University. 24-25 September, 2007.

Delialioglu, O., & Yildirm, Z. (2007). Students' perceptions on effective dimensions

of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 10(2), 133-146.

Denholm, J. W. (2004). Flexible delivery in Higher Education: Global scan: Case

studies (Discussion paper). Glasgow, UK: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education (QAAHE).

DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating Learning Communities and

Distance Education: Possibility or Pipedream? Innovative Higher Education,
31(2), 99-113.

Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2008). University students' approaches to learning:

Rethinking the place of technology. Distance Education, 29(2), 141-152.

Hameed, S., Badii, A., & Cullen, A. J. Effective E-Learning Integration with
Traditional Learning in a Blended Learning Environment. Paper presented at the
EMCIS 2008. 2008. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from
[Link]
ibutions/C%2037/Blended_Learning%20efficiency%[Link].

Hannon, J., & D'Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: student engagement with
learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5),
418-432.

Herbert, M. (2008). Staying the Course: A Study in Online Student Satisfaction and
Retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4).
[Link]

Hu, C. (2007). "Here are my best online contributions and why": Students'
perceptions of good online participation. Presented at 22nd ASCILITE
Conference. Singapore: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). 2-7 December, 2007.

Hung, D. & Chen, D. (2001). Situated Cognition, Vygotskian Thought and Learning
from the Communities of Practice Perspective: Implications for the Design of
Web-Based E-Learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 4-12.

Ipsos MORI. (2007). Student expectations study: Key findings from online research
and discussion evenings held in June 2007 for the Joint Information Systems
Committee (Briefing paper). Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC).

7
Ipsos MORI. (2008). Great expectations of ICT: How higher education institutions
are measuring up. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from
[Link]

Joint Information Systems Committee. (2004). Designing for Learning: An Update on

the Pedagogy Strand of the JISC Elearning Programme. Retrieved February 8,
2009, from [Link]/elearning_pedagogy.html.

Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance

Education, 29(2), 175-185.

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krause, K. (2008). First
year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First year
students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.

Kenny, J. (2003). Student Perceptions of the Use of Online Learning Technology in

Their Courses. Melbourne: RMIT

Krause, K. (2007a). Beyond classroom walls: Students’ out-of-class activities and

implications for teaching and learning. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 7,
301-318.

Krause, K. (2007b). E-learning and the e-generation: The changing face of higher
education in the 21st century. In J. Lockard & M. Pegrum (Eds.), Brave new
classrooms: Educational democracy and the internet (pp.125- 140). New York:
Peter Lang Publishing.

Krause, K. (2007c). Social involvement and the transition to higher education. The
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(1).

Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.

Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in
Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra:
Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.

Laws, D., Howell, L., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Scalability in Distance Education:
"Can We Have Our Cake and Eat It Too?" Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 6(4).

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: The role of theory. In H.
Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing
and delivering e-learning (pp. 13-25). London & New York: Routledge.

McLoughlin, C., & Visser, T. (2003). Quality e-learning: Are there universal
indicators?, 16th Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia. Canberra:
Open Distance Learning Association of Australia (ODLAA).

8
O'Brien, B. S., & Renner, A. L. (2002). Online Student Retention: Can It Be Done?,
ED-MEDIA Conference. Denver, CO.

Sheely, S., Veness, D., & Rankine, L. (2001). Building the Web Interactive Study
Environment: Mainstreaming Online Teaching and Learning at the University of
Western Sydney. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 80-95.

Siragusa, L. (2002). Research into the effectiveness of online learning in higher

education: Survey findings, Western Australian Institute for Educational Research
Forum. Edith Cowan University: Western Australian Institute for Educational
Research (WAIER).

Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A

presence in mind?, TAFE Conference. Mooloolaba, QLD: TAFE Queensland.

Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in
the UK: Final report. York: The Higher Education Academy

i
IMS Global International Project Group, as at February 2009

Gloria Pickar, Compass Knowledge Group, US; Ken Udas, Penn State World Campus, US; Ross
MacKenzie, British Open University, UK; Heather Chakiris, Penn State World Campus, US;
Stephen Marshall, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ; Bryan Polivka, Laureate Online
Education, US; John St. Clair, Tennessee Board of Regents, ROCC, US; Rick Fort, Education Sales
Management, US; Kerry Blinco, Link Affiliates, AU; Kerri-Lee Krause, Griffith University, AU;
Bob Lasiewicz, Crossroads of Learning, US; John Falchi, IMS Global Learning Consortium, US.

9
APPENDIX 1
Student Induction to E-Learning: A Draft Framework
Best Practice Areas
(Note: these headings represent the draft framework as at February 2009. It is subject
to change and revision based on stakeholder and project member feedback through
2009)

1. Assessment and communication of expectations

2. Recruitment and advising
3. Learning and the learner
4. Functional technology
5. Technology literacy and support
6. Non-technical online student support
7. Institutional management

Each best practice area comprises a series of components, drawn from the literature,
as outline below.

BPA 1: Assessment and communication of expectations

includes

Identify rationale for expectations

Incorporate expectations in formal systems and processes

Identify student expectations

Communicate expectations to students
BPA 2: Recruitment and advising
includes

Academic and professional advisement

Assessment of readiness and appropriateness for e-learning

Management plan for students at-risk
BPA 3: Learning and the learner
includes

Pedagogical underpinning

Learner-centered approach

Learner engagement and community building

Designed for retention

Assessment tasks, feedback and evaluation

10
BPA 4: Functional technology
includes

Definition and management of minimum expectations for software and hardware

Front-end interface and functionality

Back-end systems and functionality
BPA 5: Technology literacy and support
includes

Minimal initial competency and access

Student training and support

Faculty induction into the e-learning community and all that entails

Faculty members’ technical skills training

Faculty e-learning pedagogy
BPA 6: Non-technical online student support
includes

Tutoring (professional and peer)

Textbooks

Registration

Financial services

Personal counselling

Transcript and records

Learning resources and library

Introduction to support teams and primary contact

Student governance

Time, workload and information load management

Remediation
BPA 7: Institutional management
includes

Economic imperative

Legal and historical context

Policies and mission statements

HR and division of labour

11
APPENDIX 2
Selected components of Best Practice Area 3: Learning and the learner

3.1. Pedagogical underpinning

3.1.1. Understand the learning process (Bilham, 2006; Conole, 2004; Hameed, Badii,
Cullen, 2008).

3.1.2. Hybridise the pedagogical philosophies, theories and instructional-design

(Delialioglu & Yildirm, 2007)

3.1.3. Design learning environments that are more holistic (Goodyear & Ellis, 2008;
Ipsos MORI, 2007, 2008).

3.1.4. Manage learning: provide navigation and learner control (Beetham, 2007)

3.1.5. Align discourse and practice (Sheely, Veness & Rankine, 2001).

3.1.6. Consider content and the learning object: discipline and the program type,
make it relevant to students’ personal life experience, integrate interpersonal and
social

elements (Conole, 2004; Hameed, Badii, Cullen, 2008; Laws, Howell & Lindsay,
2003).

3.1.7. Consider structure: Sequencing of units, implement effective modularisation of

content (Siragusa, 2002).

3.1.8. Consider processes: encourage deep-learning experiences, promote active

learning, reward collaboration, negotiation as well as autonomy, be goal-oriented,
re-use materials, provide sufficiently complex learning tasks, balance individual
and collaborative tasks, allow time and space for reflection on learning, cultivate
self-directed learners, engage with students, provide a range of activities to meet
the various needs, styles, etc. (associative, cognitive and situative), implement
different kinds of conventions for different types of learning medium, provide
high quality assessments that focus on unique and demonstrative products, visual
delivery modes that promote higher level thinking and inquiry and high quality,
and visual design that promotes understanding and student satisfaction (Beetham,
2007; Bilham, 2006; Hung & Chen, 2001; Mayes & de Freitas, 2007; McLoughlin
& Visser, 2003)

3.1.9. Consider context: usability; student prior learning and social background;
professional learning opportunities (JISC, 2004; Kennedy et al., 2008; Krause,
2007b; Yorke & Longden, 2008).

3.1.10. Consider learning outcomes and objectives: Align assessment processes with
learning outcomes, create new learning experiences and expand the knowledge
base (Britain, 2007).

3.1.11. Provide flexible, clear and easy to follow courses that allow them to move at
their own pace (Denholm, 2004; Kenny, 2003).

12
3.3. Learner engagement and community building

3.3.1. Generate interdependencies that benefit from the diverse expertise in the
learning community by encouraging students to interact and dialogue with staff
(community of learning) as well as by developing reciprocity and cooperation
among students (Barnard, Paton & Rose, 2007; Delialioglu & Yildirm, 2007;
DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006; Keller, 2008).

3.3.2. Ensure students are comfortable with collaboration in order to negotiate and
construct knowledge (Chickering & Erhmann, 2008).

3.3.3. Build and sustain motivation by providing prompt and regular feedback,
gathering data about the students, gathering information about the learning
environment, carrying out an audience analysis to determine potential
motivational problems, (Keller, 2008; McLoughlin & Visser, 2003; Yorke &
Longden, 2008).

3.3.4. Encourage students to engage with course material (Barnard, Paton & Rose,
2007; Keller, 2008).

3.3.5. Engage students both in and out of class (Krause, 2007a,c).

3.3.6. Train faculty members in ways of stimulating and nurturing online students'
interests as well-trained academic tutors contribute to student course completion
and quality of programs (Craig, Coldwell, & Goold, 2007; Hu, 2007).

3.3.7. Provide quality course design (Siragusa, 2002).

3.3.8. Capitalise on social and collaborative communication with others who have
shared interests (Topper, 2007).

3.3.9. Carry out an environmental analysis to critique the existing material and
systems (Hung & Chen, 2001).

3.3.10. Develop the learning environment (Beetham, 2007; McLoughlin & Visser,
2003).

3.3.11. Provide a space / place for social interaction (a discussion area 'just 4 fun' for
example) (Siragusa, 2002).

3.3.12. Bridge "the psychological or perceptual gap between students and tutors"
(Wheeler, 2005, p. 8).

3.3.13. Create a dynamic course by integrating motivational tactics into the

instructional design, by encouraging regular participation in discussion forums
(Beetham, 2007).

3.3.14. Allow for incentive maintenance that provides motivational momentum

(Hameed, Badii, Cullen, 2008).

3.3.15. Use learning contracts to encourage students to take responsibility for their
own learning as well as initiate and maintain trust (DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006;
O'Brien & Renner, 2002).

13