#1
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 71–88.
Summary:
This study explores the relationship between students’ perceived social presence, perceived learning, and satisfaction within online learning environments. Using survey data from multiple online courses, Richardson and Swan (2003) found that students who perceived higher levels of social presence also reported greater satisfaction and perceived learning. The research identifies social presence as a key factor in effective online instruction and provides empirical support for integrating strategies that foster interpersonal interaction and community among online learners.
Evaluation:
Richardson and Swan’s work is foundational within online learning literature, offering one of the earliest quantitative validations of the Community of Inquiry framework’s social presence construct. The study’s strength lies in its clear methodology and use of correlational analysis to connect affective and cognitive dimensions of learning. However, the research was conducted in the early 2000s, when online learning platforms lacked the advanced interactivity available today, which limits direct applicability to current technologies.
Reflection:
This article reinforces the importance of creating connection and presence in digital classrooms. It supports my interest in leveraging platforms such as Engageli to enhance learner interaction and engagement. The findings underscore that even the most content-rich online courses can fall short without a sense of community, validating my teaching approach at DeVry University that emphasizes visibility, responsiveness, and active collaboration during live sessions.
#2
Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306.
Summary:
Singh and Thurman (2019) conducted a systematic review of 46 definitions of online learning published between 1988 and 2018 to assess how conceptualizations of the term have evolved. They found considerable variability in how “online learning” is defined, reflecting changes in technology, pedagogy, and context. The authors proposed a synthesized definition emphasizing technology-mediated instruction that enables interaction between learners, content, and instructors across time and distance.
Evaluation:
This article provides valuable historical and conceptual context for anyone examining online education as a research field. Its strength lies in its comprehensive scope and attention to definitional nuances. However, while it captures definitional diversity, it offers limited practical application for instructional design or policy decisions. Nonetheless, its systematic approach offers clarity for researchers seeking a consistent conceptual framework.
Reflection:
For my doctoral work and teaching practice, this article highlights the fluidity of what constitutes “online learning.” It encourages me to be intentional in articulating course design principles and engagement expectations to students, particularly when blending synchronous and asynchronous components. It also provides a valuable foundation for future research on defining and assessing “effective” online instruction.
#3
Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. D. C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in educational research about e-learning: A systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability, 12(12), 5153.
Summary:
This systematic literature review analyzes 1,289 peer-reviewed articles on e-learning published between 2009 and 2018. The authors identified three major research trends: pedagogical innovation, technological integration, and learner engagement. They emphasize that e-learning scholarship is moving beyond technology implementation toward understanding learner experience and sustainable digital education practices.
Evaluation:
Valverde-Berrocoso et al. (2020) provide a comprehensive macro-level perspective on e-learning research trends. The study’s methodological rigor and breadth make it a valuable reference for mapping current research directions. However, as with many large-scale reviews, the analysis focuses more on classification and frequency than on theoretical depth.
Reflection:
This article is relevant to my doctoral focus on motivation and engagement in blended learning environments. It confirms that global educational research increasingly prioritizes the human experience within digital learning ecosystems. The emphasis on sustainable and learner-centered practices aligns with my efforts to design courses that balance technological innovation with accessibility and meaningful engagement.
#4
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 82–103.
Summary:
Abrami et al. (2011) synthesize empirical findings and theoretical frameworks to examine how different forms of interaction—learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content—impact achievement and satisfaction in distance education. Their meta-analysis reveals that increased interaction correlates with improved learning outcomes, though the type and quality of interaction are key moderating variables.
Evaluation:
This article’s strength is its integration of theoretical and evidence-based perspectives to inform instructional design. The authors effectively bridge research and practice, presenting actionable insights for educators. A limitation is that while it identifies the importance of interaction, it provides fewer concrete strategies for implementing these principles in diverse online settings.
Reflection:
This resource directly informs my teaching strategy and doctoral research interests. It validates the importance of designing for interaction rather than simply adding technological features. The findings parallel my experience at DeVry University, where structured group activities and responsive feedback loops consistently lead to higher student engagement and success.
#5
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82.*
Summary:
Hrastinski (2009) argues that online learning should be conceptualized as online participation rather than as the mere transmission of content. The paper presents a theoretical model emphasizing the social and communicative aspects of online education, where learning occurs through interaction, dialogue, and collaboration. This perspective shifts the focus from content delivery to learner engagement and community-building.
Evaluation:
Hrastinski’s theoretical contribution is both concise and influential, providing a conceptual foundation that integrates social constructivism with digital pedagogy. While the paper is theoretical rather than empirical, its ideas have shaped contemporary discussions about online engagement and participation-based learning models.
Reflection:
This article strongly aligns with my philosophy that active participation is essential for meaningful learning. It reinforces the design and facilitation techniques I use in synchronous platforms like Engageli, where students are encouraged to communicate, collaborate, and contribute to shared knowledge-building. The concept of “learning as participation” perfectly encapsulates the pedagogical shift I strive to implement in my courses and research.
Tony Kaczoroski 
Leave a comment