Social and Organizational Factors
in Creating and Maintaining
Effective Online Learning Environments

Sandra R. Levin
James A. Levin
Merrill Chandler

College of Education
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign

Paper presented at the annual conference of the
American Educational Research Association
Seattle, WA

April, 2001

Abstract

What does it take to create and maintain an effective online learning environment? We have created an online Master of Education program for practicing teachers and administrators, which is serving as a testbed for addressing this question. This two-year online program focuses on Curriculum, Technology, and Education Reform (CTER). The first cohort of 26 students graduated in May 2000. A second cohort of 29 students, are two-thirds of the way through the program, and a third group of 26 students began in the Fall 2000. The students are mostly K-12 teachers and administrators, and all of the students are currently employed in education.

We report on our evaluation of learning in this testbed, drawing upon qualitative and quantitative course and program evaluation data collected over a three-year period to examine the underlying elements needed to provide an effective online learning environment for teacher and administrator professional development.

Through surveys, interviews and an examination of student-produced artifacts, we have identified social and organizational factors that contribute to online learning. We present a framework for online education that has emerged from our studies in the online testbed, which draws upon the highly effective interactive frameworks for students and teachers that can be supported with new technologies.

Introduction

CTER OnLine

In the spring of 1998, faculty members in the College of Education at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana created an online Master of Education program oriented toward practicing K-16 teachers and administrators, with a focus on Curriculum, Technology, and Education Reform (CTER) http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu. Twenty-six students began their first CTER OnLine course in June 1998; an additional twenty-nine students started in August 1999; a third group of twenty-six students began in August 2000; and a fourth group of approximately twenty-five students is currently being admitted to start in June 2001.

CTER OnLine students take eight courses over a two-year period, with one course during each of the two fall and spring semesters and two courses during each of the two summers. All of the courses are largely online. After a two-day face-to-face orientation meeting, CTER students participate in courses that have one, two, or no face-to-face meetings (as determined by the instructor), with an average of one per course. On-line communication tools include both asynchronous and synchronous media, with a dominant use of asynchronous media including web-based conferencing, email and streaming audio and video. Synchronous media have included text chat and a combination of streaming audio and text chat.

The Effectiveness of CTER

Over the three years that CTER OnLine has been in existence, we have conducted extensive evaluations and in-depth analyses of its effectiveness. Three measures that we have examined closely in relation to the effectiveness of the program include low dropout rate, student satisfaction and student learning transferred into practice.

The drop-out rate, or percentage of the students that start then leave the program before finishing, is often high for online courses. Dropout rates can range from 19 to 90 percent with an overall rate of 40 percent in distance education courses (Potashnik & Capper, 1998). Currently, the dropout rate for the first three cohorts of CTER OnLine students (81 students) is zero. All 26 of the students who began the program in the summer of 1998 graduated in May 2000, after successfully completing all the courses in the program. All 29 students who began in the fall semester of 1999 have successfully completed five courses and are on schedule to graduate in August 2001. All 26 students who started the program in the fall semester of 2000 have successfully completed their first course. Such a low drop-out rate is one indicator of effectiveness.

Student satisfaction in the program is another indicator of a successful program. Students who are happy with the courses tend to continue. The ratings of student satisfaction on program surveys have remained consistently high across all cohorts of CTER students. The post-survey includes the following statement. "Please grade the CTER OnLine program on the following scale: A-F" where A=5 and F=1. The mean grade was 4.5. On a similar question, students were asked to rate their expectations about the program on a five point scale where 5=Far exceeded my expectations and 1=Did not meet my expectations, 15 out of 16 respondents reported that their expectations were met or exceeded with a mean value of 3.56. When the second group of students was asked on a mid-program survey a similar question about whether their expectations had been met by the program, 20 out of 24 responded yes. High student satisfaction is another measure of effectiveness

A third measure examined for program effectiveness is that of student learning and the change that occurs in their practice based on that learning. A simple measure of student learning is course grades. The CTER students have consistently received high grades in their courses while at the same time handling difficult assignments. But a better l measure of learning is the extent to which their teaching practice has improved on the basis of their participation in the program. While we are still conducting follow-up studies of the impact of the program, we have many reports from the students of instances in which knowledge and skills they acquired in the program have been successfully implemented in their own teaching practice. While we have dozens of examples to point to, one such example is the implementation and evaluation of a major project for the very first course. One of the initial activities CTER students engage in is the creation of a personal ePortfolio, a web page containing links to their own exemplary practices. In each cohort, the level of technology experience coming into the program varies widely, from novice to expert. However, in the first course, several students in each cohort implemented and evaluated a major course project in their classroom that included the development of student ePortfolios with their own K-12 students. The teachers in this example rated themselves novice to intermediate level computer users on the pre-survey, but still were able to transfer what they learned to their own practice. This is another indicator of program effectiveness.

Why has CTER been effective?

Why has the CTER OnLine program been successful in providing an effective online environment for learning? Through extensive evaluation across the first three years, we have developed a framework for effective online teaching and learning. Our earlier studies have identified the following five dimensions of effective online learning and teaching (Levin, Waddoups, Levin, & Buell, 2001):

• Relevant and challenging assignments
• Providing adequate and timely feedback through teacher-student interaction
• Flexibility in teaching and learning
• Constructing coordinated learning environments
• Constructing rich environments for student-to-student interaction

Relevant and challenging assignments focus on providing course content to the students that the students can use in their work and engaging them in activities with fellow students on challenging problems in the education domain. In this sense, we have seen a different attitude in our online students where they react and are more vocal about what they are learning. Providing adequate and timely feedback refers to the need for online students to be heard by the instructor and to be acknowledged for their work on a continuous basis. Flexibility in teaching and learning highlights the aspect of "anytime, anywhere learning" that is frequently associated with online instruction. Students can participate with fellow students and faculty at a time that is convenient to the students, who in most cases are working professionals. Constructing coordinated learning environments refers to the organizational factors involved in organizing learning online. Constructing rich environments for student-to-student interaction involves social factors, especially those among the students themselves as they form and participate in a learning community. While all of these dimensions are extremely important for any online instruction, in this paper we will focus on the last two dimensions.

Methods

We have used quantitative and qualitative methods in the evaluation of CTER OnLine across its first three years. Each instructor at the University of Illinois is required to administer an Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) survey at the end of each course. Instructors have some flexibility in choosing prewritten questions that have been tested for validity and reliability. In addition, instructors have the option of adding open-ended questions to this survey. We have examined data related to organizational and social factors from each of these ICES surveys. Three program surveys (pre-, mid- and post-surveys) were administered to the CTER students at the beginning, the mid-point (after one year), and the end of the two-year program. In addition, case studies were conducted to gain insight into the impact of the program on the CTER students and in turn on teaching in their own classrooms. We have collected artifacts of student work during most of the courses, and have asked the first cohort of CTER students a set of questions regarding their participation in the program that are now posted as a public CTER Yearbook (see http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/Graduation/Yearbook2000/). Gleaned from this data are results focusing on social and organizational issues.

Results

Constructing coordinated learning environments (organizational factor)

Constructing coordinated learning environments involves organization on the part of instructors and students. The instructors must organize their course material; make decisions about what technologies and methods of instruction to use in their online teaching; and decide how they will conduct office hours for students to ask questions. Instructors must think about how students will work together for group activities or independently on individual assignments. They must also think about different learning styles that the students will have and anticipate curriculum changes for students with special needs. Students, too, must organize their learning. As working professionals, they must set aside time to read course material, to participate in class discussions, and to complete written assignments. For group activities, they must find ways to coordinate their schedules with other group members. All of this coordination and organization takes a fair amount of time and effort.

Faculty members organizing coursework for students

CTER OnLine faculty members have found that utilizing multiple technologies and multiple learning frameworks allowed them to create a learning environment in which web pages, communication tools, and electronic portfolios were woven together relatively seamlessly. The instructors have combined multiple methods of instruction to enhance student learning (Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999).

Prior to developing a new online course, a faculty member meets with the technical support staff to discuss course goals and technologies available for online courses. Together, they decide on a combination of synchronous and asynchronous technologies to use in the course. The design of each course is slightly different in that the technologies chosen are what is judged by the group to be the best fit for accomplishing the instructor's goals while also considering the technology expertise of the instructor. A generic template is used to display course descriptions, syllabi, grading procedures, student participation and expectations that are made available on the web.

A variety of communication tools have been used depending on the type of interaction needed. At the present time, instructors use the WebBoard® conferencing system for asynchronous discussions and synchronous chat sessions. Individual email and group reflectors are also used for one-to-one or one-to-group correspondence. RealPlayer® is used to stream audio and video files. Text translations of audio files are provided to hearing impaired students. Books on tape and special software are provided to seeing impaired students when available and needed. Audio-narrated PowerPoint® presentations have been created for some topics. TappedIn, a multi-user object-oriented environment (MOO) coordinated by SRI, International to provide interactions between the CTER students and educators across the country was also used (Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 1998). A specialized tool, known as C-Base, was developed by the program to help faculty provide individual text feedback to students, grade assignments, and publish exemplary work on the web (Levin, Buell, & Levin, 1999). In each course, the instructor first determines the type of interaction he/she wishes to have with the students then picks the technologies that best handle the interaction.

CTER OnLine instructors also combine multiple methods of instruction to enhance student learning (Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999). The framework developed for online asynchronous discussions allow students flexibility to participate on their own time. Students currently teaching in K-12 and college settings are given the opportunity to implement their coursework into their classroom practice. The multiple instructional formats used in CTER OnLine include large and small group discussions, online office hours, simulations, reading text books and web sites, virtual classrooms, remote and face-to-face student presentations, asynchronous discussions via email and web-based conferences, and project progress and final reports. We also have had students who participate in an electronic field trip of a conferencing system designed for professional development of teachers. Indeed, many students have incorporated these methods into their own teaching practice (Levin & Waddoups, 2000).

Eight instructors added an optional question to their ICES course survey that asked CTER students how well they thought the course was organized. On a scale of 1-5, with 1=very unorganized to 5=very organized, instructors who used multiple methods of communication and teaching in their courses had mean scores between 3.25 to 4.96. One course received a mean score below 3.0 and was subsequently dropped from the program.

Online office hours. Two formats were used for online office hours. In several courses, instructors used the text chat mechanism of WebBoard. Sometimes, the instructor was joined by a teaching assistant in the chat space at specified times for an hour. In some courses, all students were required to attend these chat sessions, while in other courses, chat times were used to answer questions raised by the students and were an optional activity. A third format used for online office hours includes the use of the text-based chat augmented by the broadcast of the instructor's responses via digitized audio (using the RealPlayer plug-in). As with face-to-face hours, students used these online office hours most often to clarify assignments. Sometimes the students used them to seek resources for their class projects (Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999). Selected student comments below gives one a sense of the level to which they were engaged in online office hours.

One student captured nicely their thoughts on the use of Web Board to mediate discussion.

Students Organizing Group Work

Several techniques were utilized in forming student groups. At times, students were allowed to self-select their group partners; at other times, the instructor assigned students to the groups; and a third technique included the combination of providing the students with a choice of either self-selecting their group partners or selecting a particular topic to investigate in a more in-depth manner.

Small project groups. In several of the CTER classes, students were clustered into small groups (3 to 4 per group) to conduct group projects. In some cases, these groups were self-selected and in other cases the course instructor created the groups. Group discussions took place with both synchronous and asynchronous technologies. In most cases, the groups reported on their progress, mostly on-line but in one case in a face-to-face poster session. The students’ comments speak to the issue of how groups are an integral part of CTER OnLine.

One student comment about what he liked best in the program.

This same student summarized the following about his small group experience in CTER.

Another student commented:

Large reading discussion groups. In some of the CTER classes, students were clustered in fairly large groups (10-12 per group) to conduct discussions of class readings. An asynchronous conference was created in WebBoard for each large group, and each group member entered their commentary on readings in his/her group conference and read and responded to the comments of the other members of the group. This provided the critical mass needed for in-depth interaction surrounding the readings being discussed without overwhelming the group members with message postings. (Levin, Levin, & Waddoups, 1999)

Student comments are taken from various course surveys:

Learning in informal learning groups. From our case studies we have found that online learning cues up face-to-face interactions that would not otherwise exist. Many of the CTER students make their own arrangements for informal face-to-face, telephone, email or conference interactions with other students. For example, one case study student participated in a group that met weekly at a local Pizza Hut restaurant — they call themselves the "Pizza Hut Group." Other students pair up to create groups they call "study buddies." Each of these groupings created new contexts for learning, different from the ones described previously. Again, we get a sense of these groups through students’ comments:

The fact that asynchronous networks worked so well to facilitate collaboration gives one some hope that they could be used to develop collaborative relationships and to improve teaching. Further research needs to be conducted in this area to see what kinds of communication tools and online communication practices best facilitates this kind of sharing. This research builds on the work by Levin and colleagues and clearly demonstrates that advanced learning technologies can be utilized to facilitate professional development and collaboration. What is clear is that these technologies do create the conditions for teachers to develop collaborative relationships far beyond their schools and districts. (Waddoups, Levin, & Levin, 2000)

Students' attitudes about learning

CTER OnLine courses were designed to be primarily project-based where students work together in groups. This decision was made prior to the first course offering based on educational research in these two areas. Responses from the students have reinforced our decision even though more time and effort is needed in the process. Students were asked a series of attitude questions about their own learning styles on pre-surveys administered to all three cohorts (81 students). We have summarized this data to better profile the type of students in our program.

When students were asked if they learn best working on their own or in groups, all cohorts had higher mean scores for learning best in groups. The mean rating for the question about "working on my own" was 2.96 (on a five point rating scale, with 5=strongly agree and 1=strongly disagree. The mean rating for "working in groups" was 3.49.

When comparing the responses between learning in a lecture or project-based format, again all cohorts had higher mean ratings for project-based learning. The mean rating for learning in a lecture format was 2.30. The mean rating for learning in a project-based format was 4.00.

Students responded favorably to learning by reading with a mean rating of 3.43. This is very important since each course requires a large amount of reading before discussions occur in groups. Students are provided readings on the web and in some cases they are asked to purchase textbooks. The university also has an extensive education library for off-campus students to draw upon.

Students organizing their time

Survey and interview data has also highlighted the need for students to organize their time. When students were asked how they managed to complete the program with their busy schedules, we found a variety of responses, some that we would not have guessed. The flexibility of asynchronous activities allows students to complete their coursework when they had time available.

Students were asked to respond to the following statement: I can budget my time well and prioritize activities effectively. On a scale of 1-5 where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, mean scores were relatively high. On the pre-survey with 80 responses, the mean rating was 4.01. While we only have mid-survey results on the first two cohorts, their mean rating for the same question increased to 4.28.

While the CTER students said that it was important to budget their time in their busy schedules, we also asked them: Do you have specific time set aside to work on this program? Pre-survey results indicated that more than half of the students in each cohort had responded "yes" to this question (55% to 73%). As shown by the qualitative data below, students thought this was very important.

Of the 44 student responses to this question about budgeting time, establishing a structured study time and calendar was mentioned most frequently (20%) as the way in which they managed CTER. Students would establish a set time and place to focus solely on their coursework in order to get the job done.

Family activities and obligations came first, so one out of five students (20%) would count on the late night hours to work on CTER courses. Working after the family was settle in for the evening was often the only time, outside of the school day, that they would have for doing coursework.

Students (16%) recognized that they could not have completed the CTER program without the support and assistance of their study mates, be it a study partner or a study group. They relied on each other not only for assistance with understanding the materials, but also technical assistance such as helping to walk the other through their presentation after the system crashed.

Other students (11%) managed CTER with the support of their families. While the CTER student was navigating the program, other family members assumed a greater share of the household and family duties.

For those (11%) who could not do much coursework during the week, weekends were their bastions for CTER work. They did not want to ignore their family responsibilities during the week, so they sacrificed on the weekends.

A few respondents (7%) indicated that they worked out an arrangement with their school or district to do some of their CTER work during the school day. For example, one student used the opportunity to do CTER coursework after school before going home to their other responsibilities.

Other students (5%) commented that flexibility in the program made it possible for them to work on coursework. Without such flexibility, completing an Ed.M. program would be nearly impossible. Still others managed to complete the CTER program doing assignments ahead of time (2%) and by using the early morning hours to work through CTER.

Constructing rich environments for student interaction (social factor)

Moller (1998) states that communities are developed to provide social reinforcement and intellectual exchange. We argue that it is necessary to address all five of the dimensions for effective online education described earlier in order to create a highly interactive and effective online learning environment. However, social factors have played prominently in the CTER OnLine program.

Importance of building and maintaining a learning community

One general aspect that stands out from our research is the importance given to the active learning community that was created and maintained over the three years of CTER OnLine.

Community Building.

Sometimes a learning community will "spontaneously" emerge from a given course or program of courses. But many times such a community fails to grow. In CTER OnLine, explicit efforts at community building were made from the very beginning and community maintenance efforts continued throughout the two-year program. All of the students and many of the initial faculty members participated in a face-to-face orientation at the beginning of each new cohort program. A wide variety of techniques were used to help establish the community: nametags, icebreaker activities, group activities, social activities, welcome greetings from the Dean of the College and others, taking a digital individual picture and establishing an personal website with a template ePortfolio for each student, group pictures posted on a CTER website, etc. These techniques contributed to the idea that the students were part of something larger, a CTER OnLine community.

CTER Orientation and other social activities

Community building begins with a two-day face-to-face meeting on campus. During these two full days, new CTER students and faculty get a chance to meet one another through formal introductions and informal conversations over coffee and rolls in the mornings or during lunch where the group stays together. The first half of the first day is spent on these and other administrative tasks such as course registration, establishing email accounts and obtaining their school ID cards. We also conduct a getting-to-know-you activity where students circulate to find others in the group that teach in the same curriculum area, would like to implement a project in the same subject domain, share a common concern about education and have similar goals for educational change. This activity has been very valuable to the students whom over the course of the next two years will need to form groups in the various courses they will take. We also have a number of digital cameras available and take individual and group pictures. The group pictures are posted to our website where we list the students' names and email addresses for easy communication among the students. Individual pictures are used by the students for their electronic portfolios that they develop over the two-year program and in asynchronous discussion boards so that students will have continuous reminders of the person associated with the text messages.

After lunch on the first day, students are introduced to the software and networked tools that they will be using during their program. This portion of our orientation changes slightly from year-to-year as new products or versions become available.

The evening continues with more community building activities off-campus as faculty and students drive to a faculty member's home for a CTER picnic. This is an informal time to get to know one another on a more personal level. We also have another getting-to-know-you activity asking students to locate the faculty member associated with a personal statement. This activity gets everyone laughing as students find out some interesting trivia about their instructors.

Day two of the orientation includes more training on the tools the students will use in the program with activities that get them started on the first course they take in the program.

Community Maintenance.

Once a community is created, sometimes it will "spontaneously" grow and reach maturity. But often a new community will wither and die. In CTER OnLine, explicit efforts at community maintenance are taken over the course of the program. A wide variety of techniques are used to maintain the community: high interactivity in courses (both with faculty members and TAs, and with other students), substantial and timely support (technical, administrative, and social), and active involvement by the CTER director and the CTER coordinator to provide alternative channels of communication. These techniques reinforced the idea that the students were members of the CTER community, not just fellow students in a course or set of courses.

The importance of communities of practice for the professional development of teachers is becoming increasingly clear in the literature. Early literature on communities have referred to stages of building a community as forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). After the initial forming of the community during orientation, individual personalities come through in online asynchronous and synchronous discussions as the students feel their way through the courses. We encourage students to share their thoughts and work with one another, which also helps them learn not only from the instructor, but also from each other. For example, one student was telling an instructor why his assignments were always submitted just before the deadline. While the instructor thought that the student was simply busy or procrastinating, the student confided that he learns best by first reading how others responded to the assignment, then felt comfortable that he was not only doing the assignment correctly, but also doing the assignments at a higher standard set by his fellow students.

Establishing norms also helps to maintain communities. The first few minutes of chat sessions often are personal conversations -- students say hi, and type about illnesses, things that happen in their lives including interesting things that happened in their classrooms. Some have shared new jobs or advertised jobs at their school or district.

We have noticed four of the five stages of group and organizational behavior identified by Tuckman (1965) in all three cohorts of CTER students, the exception being the last stage -- adjourning. The CTER program keeps email reflectors active even after students finish the program. After graduation, we asked students if they would like to be taken off the list and their response was a unanimous no. Most often it is CTER faculty members who use the reflectors to disseminate technology news and information that they feel would be of interest to current and alumni CTER students. The students find that this community is a way to keep informed about the latest technology news. Occasionally, a CTER student will post something to the reflector, as in the following example.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) emphasize that "in distance education, attention needs to be paid to the developing sense of community within the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful". Our evaluation of CTER OnLine supports that concept. Each of our courses involves teamwork and collaborative learning facilitated by the instructor. By aligning course assignments that can be transferred into practice, students buy into shared goals and outcomes. Student reflections on readings, interactive discussions with their peers and feedback from the instructor combine to create new knowledge and build on existing knowledge.

The CTER OnLine program takes community maintenance a step further by requiring approximately one face-to-face meeting every semester. These on-campus meetings are used to make final presentations, to participate in field trips, and to introduce students to the next course. This is also a time for students to see one another reinforcing that personal contact for more lasting friendships. In fact, there have been occasions where no face-to-face meeting was held within a six-month time frame and the students were upset because they would not get together with their classmates. Whenever possible, instructors try to make special accommodations for students who live in other states. Technologies used in these cases include participating with the class in an audio conference call and presenting their final projects over the Internet using audio-narrated PowerPoint slides. While more sophisticated videoconferencing technologies are available on the market, we have found that these technologies are not always available in the students’ homes or schools.

Some students got together informally to work on class assignments as mentioned earlier in this paper. These informal groups seem to be forming in each cohort mostly based on geographic clusters rather than students who happen to teach at the same school.

The data clearly shows that organizational and social factors are of prominent importance to CTER OnLine students.

What's important to online students

In a yearbook survey given to graduating CTER students, we asked them to describe what they liked best about the CTER OnLine program. Of the 49 responses made to this question, nearly half (47%) referred to the flexibility and convenience of the program, an important characteristic for CTER students who were full-time educators with families who could not travel to Champaign-Urbana for daily or evening courses.

In one-fifth of the responses (20%), students commented that they really liked working and talking to their classmates, be it in groups, projects or individually. In CTER, students had the opportunity to work on projects in groups, creating a dialogue on the various topics of interest. CTER Online helped to develop this collegiality by grouping students for course activities.

CTER students (10%) appreciated how the CTER program expanded their knowledge base and their technology skills.

Students (4%) also liked the fact that CTER opened opportunities to learn about important conceptualizations about teaching, learning and technology. Students (4%) enjoyed the access that they had to technology and other web related resources that could be used in the classroom. Finally, students noted that they liked the CTER program because: a) they could explore their own areas of interest (2%), b) they were exposed to technology that they would not have been exposed to without CTER (2%), c) they were able to explore the impact that technology has had on educational reform (2%) and d) CTER program practiced what it preached (2%).

The purpose of our evaluation research was to explore effective online learning environments. What we have learned so far is that there are key elements that the researchers think must be present in order for a program to be effective and ultimately successful. Based on the results of three measures: 1) low dropout rate; 2) high student satisfaction; and 3) high student learning transferred into practice, we have argued that online programs with these measures can be effective online environment for teaching and learning. Our previous findings have pointed to five dimensions of effective online learning environments:

• Relevant and challenging assignments
• Providing adequate and timely feedback through teacher-student interaction
• Flexibility in teaching and learning
• Constructing coordinated learning environments
• Constructing rich environments for student-to-student interaction

In this paper, we focus on the impact of the last two dimensions, which refer to organizational and social aspects. Using data conducted over a three-year period, we examined the ways that the organization of coordinated learning environments (organizational factors) and rich environments for student interactions (social factors) contribute to the learning of these online students.

Based on our evaluation of organizational and social factors, several themes have emerged.

• Courses that are well organized, utilizing multiple technologies, multiple learning frameworks, and multiple instructional methods contribute to enhanced student learning.
• Successful students tend to be well organized individuals who set aside specific time for their coursework, prefer project-based group learning, and increase their knowledge through communities of learning.
• Formal and informal social activities and interactions help to build and maintain effective learning communities. Students formed informal support groups, so that they could work together on course work.
• The combination of these organizational and social factors are very important to online students and in some cases has been the deciding factor in staying in the program.

These analyses not only show the importance of organizational and social factors for effective online learning, but they also support the general framework presented here of dimensions for effective online learning.

References

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank UI Online, Ed-Online, the Department of Educational Psychology, and the College of Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for their financial and moral support of CTER Online and of the evaluation reported in this paper. We also would like to thank the CTER Online students, faculty and support staff, without whom CTER Online would not be such an effective context for learning and research.