International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 1(1), 55–69
Who Is Running Online Education
Programs?
Mary K. Cook-Wallace
University of Tennessee Martin, USA
Successful online education programs are paramount at higher education
institutions. In a recent study to examine the state of online educational
commitment in higher education there was a diverse variety of academic and
administrative occupations. The wide range of occupations provided a view
into institution-wide creative endeavors proposed to broaden the teaching
and learning objectives of higher education. Principles, themes, implications
and important aspects of online teaching and learning programs and their
administrators from state and private four-year institutions with existing pro-
grams were explored. A major theme that emerged from the occupations was
a student-centered approach to teaching and learning.
Keywords: administrators, distance education, higher education, knowledge,
learning, management, occupations, online education, teaching
Introduction
In an original study which examined distance education programs and their
commitment to online teaching and learning in higher education, respon-
dents to a survey identified their employment titles from a diverse and sur-
prising variety of occupations.
The wide range of occupations exposed a vacillating and technology-
driven domain of online teaching and learning that trumps other teach-
ing and learning genres. Institution-wide creative endeavors proposed to
broaden the teaching and learning objectives of online education programs
in higher education seemed ambiguously extant in the occupational titles.
This naming convention comprised deeper implications than mere occupa-
tions and may, perhaps, have extolled the virtues of online teaching and
learning, as the result of which much foresight and prudence of academi-
cians occurred toward online education. A major theme that emerged was
the student-centered approach to teaching and learning.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to investigate occupations of those adminis-
tering online education programs in higher education. Themes, implications
and important aspects of online teaching and learning programs from state
and private four-year institutions with existing programs were explored.
www.issbs.si/press/ISSN/2232-5697/1_55-69.pdf
56 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Literature Review
Online education administrators’ occupations were so varied in nature that
the literature review builds a foundation from which this variation of roles
can be better understood. Marcus (2004) stated that researchers have not
been able to define all the various aspects of an online education leader.
Online education administrators frequently come from diverse faculty. Care
and Scanlan (2001) posited that the experiences of traditional leaders in
distance education are not yet understood. Managers and coordinators of
online education programs are different from traditional leaders, adminis-
trators, faculty and staff (Dede, 1993). More recently, online teaching and
learning has evolved into an enormous industry, replete with challenges not
fully understood and practices not completely experienced. Distance edu-
cation is no longer an isolated program for continuing education but an
entity to be absorbed into every field of study in education and almost every
enterprise of industry.
Early research, in online education, indicated that the lack of institutional
commitment was one of the biggest complaints (Shea, Motiwalla, & Lewis,
2001). The Institute for Higher Education Policy performed an analysis of
online teaching and learning research literature and found it had not kept
pace with online education use (Merisotis & Phipps, 2000); additionally,
leadership had not emerged as an effective aspect. Lee (2001) posited
that higher education institutions have rarely been scrutinized for specific
leadership in the areas of online education. Beaudoin (2002) believed that
leadership in online education was obscured. McLendon and Cronk (1999)
argued that not much had been written about academic management and
administration of online education programs.
Oftentimes, the online teaching and learning program director position
is a temporary assignment; after a few years of service, another faculty
member may receive the assignment. Online education administrators may
face steep learning curves and feel overwhelmed with administrative duties
as they integrate themselves into the field of online teaching and learning
(Wright & Howell, 2004), now deeply immersed with technology.
More recent research indicates that commitment to online teaching and
learning research has improved (Ding, 2005). Furthermore, and more re-
cently, both quantitative analyses and qualitative analyses, in particular re-
gard to interaction, has ensued (Grandzol & Grandzol, 2010). Managers of
online education were cautious in the beginning of the ‘new’ online move-
ment. Researchers sifted through the online teaching and learning studies
searching for validity and reliability. Regardless of the robustness of re-
search in online teaching and learning, or the lack thereof, some skilled
faculties rate their experiences with online teaching and learning as posi-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 57
tive (Wiesenmayer, Kupczynski & Ice, 2008; Ward Ulmer, Watson & Derby,
2007).
Much research on perceptions of online students has revealed positive
student experiences. The US Department of Education released a report,
based on data collected between 1996 through 2008, which concludes that
online students perform better than face-to-face. Online students ranked
in the 59th percentile in tested performance, compared with the average
classroom student scoring in the 50th percentile (Means, Toyama, Murphy,
Bakia, & Jones, 2010).
The responsibility of course administrators is the most important fac-
tor in the short-term success of online education (Brooks, 2003). Current
research has yet to define what an online teaching and learning leader is
made of; however, Marcus (2004) indicates that online education leader
characteristics and their requirements and actions define the effective on-
line education leader.
Methodology
The instrument was designed using a modification of Dillman and Bowker’s
(2001) 14 principles of design of Web surveys. Questions were aligned on
the survey based upon Babbie’s (1998) recommendation for the optimal
survey design. A 7-point Likert-type scale was used for the response key of
the 27-question survey. The reliability of the instruction is based upon Nun-
nally’s (1978) notion that a 7-point scale or higher is more likely to reach
the upper limits of reliability. Ensuring a high degree of construct validity,
the instrument was reviewed for content, clarity and brevity by a panel of
seven PhD faculty members from two universities and who served in var-
ious university departments: Continuing Education, Agricultural Education,
Workforce Education and Development, and Human Resources. Since this
instrument was not first a paper-based instrument but was designed specif-
ically for the Web, its reliability and validity was strengthened.
A pilot of the instrument was sent to 32 randomly selected institutions
from the 2005 Petersen’s Guide to Distance Learning Programs. All respon-
dents declared themselves as responsible for online teaching and learning
programs.
A census was used for obtaining the data for this study since the entire
population was identified and available for participation (Robinson, 2005).
The researcher obtained respondents from e-mail requests. Along with the
linked survey, the name, title, organization, email, and comments were re-
quested. The reporting phase of the online survey involved extracting the
data from two hypertext pre-processor databases designed by an instruc-
tional technologist. Data were collected in 2006, and research took place
from a non-participating university in 2007.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
58 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Table 1 Hierarchy of Administrator Occupations, Their Frequencies, Percentages,
and Overall Percentages
Administrator Occupation (n=74) Frequency Percent Overall
Vice Provost 1 1.35 0.82
Vice President 1 1.35 0.82
Associate VP 1 1.35 0.82
Director 44 59.46 36.07
Associate Director 5 6.76 4.10
Assistant Director 7 9.46 5.74
Registrar 1 1.35 0.82
Manager 6 8.11 4.92
Coordinator 4 5.41 3.28
Instructional Designer 1 1.35 0.82
Academic Advisor 1 1.35 0.82
Administrative Assistant 1 1.35 0.82
Graduate student/assistant 1 1.35 0.82
Total 74 100 60.66
Survey Participants
The criterion for selection of the participants was specific to the institu-
tion and not the individuals. Individuals responsible for online teaching and
learning programs represented institutions of different sizes and types and
came from different departments and colleges of the institutions surveyed.
Noteworthy in this study, and the focus of this paper, were the variety of
titles that individuals responsible for online teaching and learning programs
identified themselves as holding in their prospective online teaching and
learning occupations.
Out of 4,800 online learning programs listed in Peterson’s Guide to Dis-
tance Learning Programs (Oram, 2005), state and private four-year institu-
tions with existing online teaching and learning programs were surveyed. In
order to better manage the study, only those universities and colleges in the
Carnegie basic classification offering undergraduate and graduate degrees
served as the study population (n=374). The Carnegie classification 2005
update is the sixth revision since the first edition in 1970. Carnegie clas-
sifications were obtained from a Web site sponsored by the 2005–2006
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2005). Three basic
classifications of institutions were used in this study: (a) Classification I:
Research Universities; (b) Classification II: Master’s Colleges and Universi-
ties; and (c) Classification III: Baccalaureate Colleges. Within three basic
Carnegie classifications, 374 institutions were identified. The final usable
sample obtained was N= 127 with an overall response rate of 34 percent.
Not all respondents reported their occupations.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 59
Table 2 Hierarchy of Educator Occupations, Their Frequencies, Percentages, and Overall
Percentages
Educator Occupation (n=48) Frequency Percent Overall
Dean 7 14.58 5.74
Associate Dean 3 6.25 2.46
Assistant Dean 3 6.25 2.46
Chair 3 6.25 2.46
Professor 15 31.25 12.30
Associate Professor 8 16.67 6.56
Assistant Professor 3 6.25 2.46
Adjunct Professor 1 2.08 0.82
Adjunct Faculty 1 2.08 0.82
Communications Specialist 1 2.08 0.82
Instructional Technologist 3 6.25 2.46
Total 48 100 39.34
Findings
Occupations were separated into two categories: Administrator Occupation
and Educator Occupation (n = 122). Presented in Table 1 are the most fre-
quently listed administrator occupations (n= 74), percentages, and overall
percentages. The most frequent occupation from the list of titles was iden-
tified as ‘Director’ (n=44) following or preceding various descriptive labels.
This finding was not a surprise as educational programs are largely run by
directors.
Table 2 presents the most frequently listed educator occupations (n =
48), percentages, and overall percentages. The most frequent educator oc-
cupation was ‘Professor’ (n=15). One title was considered miscellaneous:
Esq.
Table 3 presents nine occupational descriptive terms preceding or fol-
lowing and/or associated with occupations listed in Tables 1 and 2. The
occupation descriptive terms when ranked evolved as representing possible
themes, premises or principles in online teaching and learning. The term of
‘learning’ appeared most often (n = 27, 21%), and the term of ‘distance’
appeared next most often (n = 25, 20%).
Results and Discussion
A major theme of today’s online teaching and learning is the social presence
theory and a focus on students that we have never seen before. Kember
(2009) describes a university-wide endeavor to promote student-centered
learning in which he warns that programs that rely on ‘didactic forms of
teaching run the danger of reinforcing the preference for passive forms
of learning’ (p. 12). The descriptive term ‘learning’ appeared most often
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
60 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Table 3 Ranked occupational descriptive terms, frequencies, and percentages
Term Frequency Percent
Learning 27 25.71
Distance 25 23.81
Online 16 15.24
Technology 12 11.43
Instructional 10 9.52
Services 5 4.76
Design 4 3.81
Continuing 4 3.81
Teaching 2 1.90
Total 105 100
(n = 27) in the list of titles, while the term ‘teaching’ occurred only twice.
Based on these occurrences, research literature and online teaching ex-
perience, the major premise that emerged was a theme that encompasses
the student-centered approach to learning. Assessment is learner-centered,
thus evaluation of student learning is promising and achievable through on-
line education.
The term ‘learning,’ deemed as knowledge creation, comprises an as-
sertion that involves the philosophy of constructivism. Duffy and Jonassen
(1992) touted that constructivism is the new theory that is being used
for representing the knowledge construction process in online education.
Constructivism offers a promising new approach to teaching which offers
students the opportunity to build knowledge on what they already know.
The research indicates using constructivist methods, in online teaching and
learning, furnishes a more experimental learning environment in which the
student can develop critical-thinking skills and improve the transfer and re-
tention of knowledge (Ward, 2001). Interactive constructivism provides a
basis that ‘our views regarding learners and learning communities are al-
ways ambiguous and ambivalent constructions that need to be kept open
for further deconstructions and reconstructions’ (Neubert, 2010, p. 502).
Kang and Gyorke (2008) compared Moore’s transactional distance learn-
ing theory with cultural-historical learning theory to posit that transactional
distance learning ‘isolates learners from their multi-society contexts’ (p.
212). Meeting students on their own terms, and scaffolding what students
already know with what the instructor can build upon combined with quality
interactivity provides what students need. Moller, Foshay and Huett (2008)
stated that ‘our educational system is producing learners who prefer to
interact with the content and the instructor, but not each other’ (p. 72).
Students with the proclivity to become online learners want to be the will-
ing receptacles of information but long for personal interactions, thus the
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 61
emergence of the social presence theory. They want relevant learning that
is applicable in the workplace, and facilitation and support of their own
discoveries to then remix and share (Berry, 2010).
A trifecta theme that emerged from the occupations was the terms ‘dis-
tance’ (20%), ‘online’ (13%), and ‘technology’ (9%), with a total of 53 oc-
currences (42%). The iconic beginning event of technology changed the way
in which online teaching and learning administrators envisioned education
from a distance using the Web, the Internet and Course Management Sys-
tems (CMS). Online education has introduced many students to technology
in such a way that they might not have had the opportunity to experience be-
fore. For example, MS Word’s Track Changes feature provides opportunities
for students to collaborate and instructors to grade papers. Fragmented re-
search began to appear in abundance in the area of online teaching and
learning and the practices surrounding the impact that technology has had
on education. Researchers passed harsh judgment on the literature in on-
line education because of the weakness in research rigor (Gunawardena
& McIsaac 2004). In 2003, distance learning educators were negligent in
providing sufficient attentiveness as to how research methodology and the
research paradigm should be used in online teaching and learning according
to Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2006).
Just one year prior, Kelly (2002) observed that rules were changing in
higher education regarding online teaching and learning, corporate degrees
and dot.coms in education and training. In a Delphi study of 103 online
teaching and learning experts, roles and competencies of online education
professionals within the United States and Canada were identified: (1) Inter-
personal Communication, (2) Planning Skills, (3) Collaboration/Teamwork
Skills, (4) English Proficiency, (5) Writing Skills, (6) Organizational Skills, (7)
Feedback Skills, (8) Knowledge of the Online Teaching and Learning Field,
(9) Basic Technology Knowledge, and (10) Technology Access Knowledge
(Thach & Murphy, 1995). Kelly’s (2002) first role and competency, Interper-
sonal Communication, suggests a significant connection to the theme of
social presence theory, which is so important to online teaching and learn-
ing today. Online education administrators must consider adding to pro-
fessional development programs techniques of how to better interact with
online students to incorporate that important teacher/student connection.
Hall (2010) adds inter-subjectivity to the interactive theory as the next tier in
increasing the quality of course-based, online learning. Hall defines the idea
of interaction as a process and a key point in distinguishing interaction from
inter-subjectivity. Inter-subjectivity is the product of knowledge construction
resulting from the coordination of multiple perspectives among learners.
Inter-subjectivity can occur when students are engaged in quality-designed
discussion boards, wikis, blogs, clickers, journals, Twitter and Facebook ac-
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
62 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
tivities or live lectures using Skype, uStream, DimDim or Adobe Connect
Pro, for example.
The less frequent listed descriptive terms were ‘services’ (n=5), ‘contin-
uing’ (n=4), and ‘teaching’ (n=2). Peripheral services for online education
can include library or bookstore services, and non-degree coursing through
continuing education. Twenty-first century teaching is undoubtedly moving
away from the teaching-centered education approach. This study found the
term ‘teaching’ appearing the least number of times.
Instructional Design
While the term ‘instructional’ appears ten times in the list of occupations,
the title ‘instructional design(er)’ appears only four times. Issues about
how to design distance learning systems remain open (Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 2001). Concerns in online teaching and learning lie in whether
foundational online instructional design theory is being piloted and ap-
plied appropriately to course material before it is utilized (Cook-Wallace,
2007). Some argue that instructional design and the technology of online
courses are not as important to study as online pedagogy. However, to
evade the foundation of instructional design with respect to online teach-
ing and learning would be tantamount to abolishing online education re-
search rigor. Moller et al, (2008) indicate that most online training pro-
grams lack effectiveness because of the lack of basic principles of instruc-
tional design. The likely reason is that the administrators of e-learning,
‘have never encountered a product built according to sound instructional
design principles’ (p. 71). Gayton (2009) reported that all administrators
(n = 16) in his study of eight randomly selected institutions had never de-
livered an online teaching and learning course. Regardless of the container
of online education such as Blackboard (most popular), Moodle, Joomla,
and eCollege among other CMS’s, instructional design helps deliver online
teaching and learning programs when instructional designers are major con-
tributors.
Role of Online Education Administrator
Online education administrators frequently come from diverse faculty ranks
with no more than a scant amount of technology skills, yet they are respon-
sible for the delivery of online teaching and learning using the latest tech-
nology. Online teaching and learning imparts new roles for administrators,
professors, and staff to assume. Traditional faculty members who choose
online teaching will require a shift in their role from teaching (Appana, 2008)
to mentor, instructional designer, manager, and technologist. How they use
course materials, whether royalties can be kept and by whom, and the po-
tential of intellectual property and patenting of research, are only a few of
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 63
the additional challenges. Rekkedal (1994) recommends that profession-
als and managers in online education generally should have ‘some training
in research methods, statistics and basic problems concerned with gener-
alizations, validity and reliability of results from empirical research’ (para.
64). Therefore, a framework for online teaching and learning involving plan-
ning, designing, delivering and assessing can be established, whereas such
frameworks are currently lacking in online teaching and learning according
to Gaytan’s (2009) study.
Training
One of the many challenges for online education administrators is the al-
location of time necessary for faculty to prepare to teach online. It is es-
timated that approximately one year of preparation is necessary for those
faculty staff who have not yet taught online. Seasoned educators may tend
to avoid transitioning a course to online because of the trepidation of utiliz-
ing technology, and the pedagogical challenge of repurposing a face-to-face,
well-worn course to an online format. Faculty resistance to teaching online
is not new (Morgan, 2003). A recent report indicated that over 70 percent
of respondents in a survey study agreed that faculty resistance to teach-
ing online is the major factor ‘that impedes institutional efforts to expand
online education programs’ (Green and Wagner, 2011, para. 9).
Few universities ‘offer training on how to actually teach an online or
hybrid course with strong pedagogy’ (Cole & Kritzer, 2009, p. 36). Online
teaching and learning administrators must assist faculty staff in regaining
pedagogical skills for online teaching and learning. It is unchartered terri-
tory for many administrators and educators who find themselves assigned
to positions that involve online pedagogy. However, those skills are similar
to traditional pedagogical skills. Findings from experienced, award-winning
South Dakota e-learning instructors provide effective pedagogical practices
that include fostering relationships, engagement, timeliness, communica-
tion, organization, technology, flexibility and high expectations (Bailey &
Card, 2009).
An important event in online education today is the transition from small
scale experimental courses to large scale operations (Paulsen, 2003). The
very foundation of higher education may soon be placed upon online learn-
ing pedagogy. The preparation activities should require that faculty take
an online course geared toward social presence theory. Gaytan (2009) re-
ported that most faculty training involved learning how to use the tech-
nology. Online faculty staff need help to envision, design, and facilitate
online courses. Furthermore, faculty development will need fine tuning of
pedagogy while the migration from the teacher-centered approach to the
student-centered approach continues to emerge.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
64 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Trends
Hannum (2009) suggests the phrase ‘distance education’ has morphed
into distributed education or distributed learning. Allen and Seaman (2010)
report that 66 percent of all reporting institutions state that ‘online learning
was a critical part of their institution’s long term strategy’ (p. 2). Yet, there
has not been as much attention to identifying what constitutes structural ar-
rangements to support online programs and online teaching and learning at
higher institutions. Marek (2009) suggests a model of institutional support
that includes faculty course release, program level training and support,
and structured mentoring.
Paolucci and Gambescia (2007) analyzed 239 universities in which at
least one graduate degree was fully online. They identified the range of gen-
eral administrative structures used by universities in which online degree
programs are offered. The researchers then categorized the range of op-
tions used for the general administration of online education programs as
either internal or external. Six structures were identified, three as internal:
Academic Department, Continuing Education/Professional Studies and On-
line Teaching and Learning Unit. Three external structures were identified:
Alliance, Outsource, and Consortium. Consortiums can pool academic re-
sources such as libraries, laboratories, and research funding. The University
of Louisiana Lafayette (n. d.) features a website with statements regarding
institutional context and commitment to distance learning with a univer-
sity vision statement, and a commitment to academic quality and rigor in
electronic environments. Their Office of Distance Learning website also fea-
tures a Sloan Consortium community member logo. Finally, Paolucci and
Gambescia’s (2007) study revealed that 62 percent of institutions use aca-
demic departments to deliver online teaching and learning and 90 percent
to deliver their graduate online programs. A more recent trend is the use of
online education divisions as the preferred internal administrative units.
The US Department of Labor (O*NET, 2010) lists Distance Learning Co-
ordinator as one of the Bright Outlook occupations under the category of
‘rapid growth, new and emerging.’ The occupation of Online Distance Coor-
dinator is projected to grow 20 percent or more over the period of 2008–
2018. O*NET describes Distance Learning Coordinator job tasks of day-to-
day operator of distance learning and scheduler of courses. The title rep-
resents an occupation for which data collection is currently underway, an
indication of the vagueness of this newly developing occupation.
Recommendations
The most effective way to improve the quality of learning, according to Al-
Fadhli (2009), is through distance education. Quality of online education
and appropriate research of online education is a principal concern. Han-
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 65
nafin, Hannafin and Gabbitas (2009) encourage online teaching and learn-
ing administrators to research and focus on ‘design and performance ques-
tions using methods that extend and refine research, theory, and practice’
(p. 781). For example, the impact on student retention of course material
is not fully understood (Lei & Gupta, 2010). Organizational structures for
online teaching and learning do not necessarily support student learning
outcomes (Gaytan, 2009). Gaytan also reported that because of the lack of
interactivity in online education, the quality of education was not as high as
in traditional education. Donavant (2009) warns administrators and trainers
to avoid placing courses online just because of rising cost or other impedi-
ments. Professional development education must be multifaceted to benefit
the needs of online instructors.
Researcher’s Online Teaching Experience
‘The job of a teacher is to be faithful to authentic student learning’ (Alber,
2011). This statement embodies my 12 years of online teaching experience
in higher education. The online students each chose their fate of my online
business communication course, unaware of the rigor involved, but it is rigor
that is so important for a prestigious institution of higher learning. Over my
years of teaching online, I learned that each student’s needs became many
student needs. From either frustration or procrastination on their part, or
precision writing requirements on my part, I learned the differences of online
versus face-to-face student needs. Online students want lots of flexibility,
they rarely read their textbooks, and they mostly access the assignments
and exams without much, if any, preparation. Whether they experience tech-
nology problems from a video business presentation assignment or from
writing from their own statistical findings, authentic student learning medi-
ates from timely and gently written emails, announcements and assignment
feedback with an upbeat tone. They need multiple opportunities to revise,
rewrite and re-evaluate their work, for this is where the authentic student
learning occurs.
References
Alber, R. (2011, December 6). Three ways student data can inform your teach-
ing [Web blog comment]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/
spiralnotebook/rebecca-alber
Al-Fadhli, S. (2009). Factors influencing the acceptance of distance learning:
A case study of Arab Open University of Kuwait. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/
~distance/ojdla/fall123/alfadhli123.html
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the US,
2010. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/
pdf/class_differences.pdf
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
66 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in
the context of the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty. Interna-
tional Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5–22.
Babbie, E. R. (1998). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online
teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher
Education, 12(3–4). Retrieved from EBSCO, Academic Search Premier.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Online teaching and learning leadership: An essential
role for the new century. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
8(3), 131–144.
Berry, B. (Producer). (2010, January 17). Creating a student-centered profes-
sion [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=J21OxviKaHQ&feature=related
Brooks, L. (2003). How the attitudes of instructors, students, course admin-
istrators, and course designers affects the quality of an online learning
environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4). Re-
trieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/
brooks64.htm
Care, W. D., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001). Planning and managing the develop-
ment of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative study.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/care42.html
Carnegie Foundation Advancement for Teaching Classification of Institu-
tion (2005). 2005 Carnegie Classification Initial Release. Retrieved from
http://www.carnegieclassification-preview.org/index.aspx
Cole, J. E., & Kritzer, J. B. (2009). Strategies for success: Teaching an online
course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(4), 36–40.
Cook-Wallace, M. K. (2007). Perceptions of university level online teaching
and learning agents with respect to commitment, administration and tech-
nology. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale).
Dede, C. (1993). Leadership without followers. Computing Teacher, 20(6), 9–
11.
Ding, X. (2005). The current situation, trends and countermeasures of devel-
opment of online teaching and learning in China: Report from an interna-
tional conference; The 18th Annual Meeting of AAOU (Association of Open
Universities), Shanghai 2005. In X. Y. Li (Ed.), Quality education for all (pp.
182–206). Retrieved from EBSCO.
Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. (2001). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey
methodologists. Retrieved from http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/zuma
_paper_ dillman_bowker.pdf
Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education: Online
instruction in a continuing professional education setting. Adult Education
Quarterly, 59(3), 227–245.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 67
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and instructional
design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gaytan, J. (2009). Analyzing online education through the lens of institutional
theory and practice: The need for research-based and -validated frame-
works for planning, designing, delivering, and assessing online instruc-
tion. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(2), 62–75.
Grandzol, C. J., & Grandzol, J. R. (2010). Interaction in online courses: More
is NOT always better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
13(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/
summer132/Grandzol_Grandzol132.html
Green, K. C. & Wagner, E. (2011). Online education: Where is it going? What
should boards know? Trustee, 1(19). Retrieved from http://agb.org/
trusteeship/2011/1/online-education-where-it-going-what-should
-boards-know
Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. (2004). Online teaching and learning. In
D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communica-
tion and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355–396). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, B. (2010). Interaction is insufficient: Why we need inter-subjectivity in
course room discourse. Journal of eLearning and Online Teaching 1(12)
Retrieved from http://www.theelearninginstitute.org/journal_pdf/JeOT
%20-%20Interaction%20is%20Insufficient%20-%20Why%20We%20Need
%20Intersubjectivity%20in%20Course%20Room%20Discourse.pdf
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition
during student-centered, Web-based learning. Education Tech Research
Dev, 57, 767–785. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9117-x
Hannum, W. (2009). Reflections: Moving online teaching and learning re-
search forward. Online Distance Education, 30(1), 171–173.
Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. S. (2008). Rethinking distance learning activities:
a comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open
Learning, 23(3), 203–214. doi:10.1080/02680510802420050
Kelly, F. M. (2002). The political implications of e-learning. Higher Education
in Europe, 27(3), 211–216.
Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centered forms of learning across an
entire university. Higher Education, 57(1), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10734-
008-9177-6
Lee, J. (2001). Instructional support for online teaching and learning and fac-
ulty motivation, commitment, satisfaction. British Journal of Educational
Technology 32(2), 153–160.
Lei, S. A., & Gupta R. K. (2010). College online teaching and learning courses:
Evaluating benefits and costs from institutional, faculty and students’ per-
spectives. Education, 130(4), 616–631.
Louisiana Lafeyette, University of (n.d.). Office of Distance Learning. Retrieved
from http://distancelearning.louisiana.edu/content/institutional-context-
and-commitment
Marcus, S. (2004). Leadership in online teaching and learning: Is it a unique
type of leadership – A literature review. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012
68 Mary K. Cook-Wallace
Administration, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
ojdla/summer42/care42.html
Marek, K. (2009). Learning to teach online: Creating a culture of support
for faculty. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 50(4),
275–292.
McLendon, E., & Cronk, P. (1999). Rethinking academic management prac-
tices: A case of meeting new challenges in online delivery. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration 2(1). Retrieved from http://www
.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring21/mclendon21.html
Means, B., Yoyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation
of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review
of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/
eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Merisotis, J. P. & Phipps, R. A. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for suc-
cess in internet-based distance education. Retrieved from http://www.ihep
.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/QualityOnTheLine.pdf
Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of online teaching
and learning: Implications for instructional design. TechTrends, 52(3), 66–
70.
Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems (EDUCAUSE
Research Reports 2). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/
ResearchPublications/ResearchReports/1010
Neubert, S. (2010). Democracy and education in the twenty-first century:
Deweyan pragmatism and the question of racism. Educational Theory,
60(4), 487–502. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2010.00372.x
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. NY: McGraw Hill.
O*NET Online (2010). Browse bright outlook occupations. Retrieved from
http://www.onetonline.org/find/bright?b=0&g=Go
Oram, F. A. (Ed.). (2005). Peterson’s guide to distance learning programs.
Lawrenceville, NJ: Thomson/Peterson’s.
Paolucci, R., & Gambescia, S. F. (2007). Current administrative structures
used for online degree program offerings in higher education. Online Jour-
nal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www
.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall103/gambescia103.htm
Paulsen, M. F. (2003). Online Education and Learning Management Systems:
Global E-learning in a Scandinavian Perspective. Bekkestua: NKI Forlaget.
Rekkedal, T. (1994). Research in online teaching and learning: Past, present
and future. Retrieved from http://www.nettskolen.com/forskning/29/
intforsk.htm
Robinson, W. C. (2005). Sampling IS 540: Research Methods [online course].
Retrieved from http://web.utk.edu/~wrobinso/540_lec_sample.html
Salas, E., & J. Cannon-Bowers. (2001). The science of training: A decade of
progress. The Science of Training, 52, 471–499.
Shea, T., Motiwalla, L., & Lewis, D. (2001). Internet-based online teaching
and learning – the administrator’s perspective. Journal of Education for
Business, 77(2), 112–117.
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning
Who Is Running Online Education Programs? 69
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of online teaching and learning (3rd
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for online teaching
and learning professionals. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 43(1), 57–79.
Ward, C. D. (2001). Under construction: On becoming a constructivist in view
of the standards. The Mathematics Teacher, 94(2), 94–96.
Ward Ulmer, L., Watson, L. W., & Derby, D. (2007). Perceptions of higher
education faculty members on the value of online teaching and learning.
The Quarterly Review of Online Distance Education, 8(1), 59–70.
Wiesenmayer, R., Kupczynski, L., & Ice, P. (2008). The role of technical sup-
port and pedagogical guidance provided to faculty in online programs:
Considerations for higher education administrators. Online Journal of Dis-
tance Learning Administration, 11(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga
.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter114/wiesenmayer114.html
Wright, T. & Howell, S. (2004). Ten efficient research strategies for distance
learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(1). Retri-
eved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring71/wright71
.html
Mary K. Cook-Wallace is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at
the University of Tennessee Martin. Research interests are business com-
munication and distance teaching and learning. Background is in workforce
education and development at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. mk-
wallace@utm.edu
This paper is published under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012