___

• Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: a meta- analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97
• Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education:
• The impact of design in audio teleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 27–45. Andria Y., & Chari N. (2006). “Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective”. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107–115
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000a). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
• Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banerjee, M., & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (2002). Assessing Student Performance in Distance
• Education Courses: Implications for Testing Accommodations for Students with Learning Disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(3), 25-35
• Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (4), 167-175.
• Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 26–34.
• Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Publishing Group.
• Collis, B. (1995), Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: lessons from the literature, Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2(2), 136-49.
• Conrad, D. (2006). E-Learning and Social Change: An Apparent Contradiction. InM.
• Beaudoin (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education in the digital age, New York: Nova Science Publishers. 21-33
• DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 131-137
• Du, J., Havard, B., & Li, H. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42(3), 207-218.
• Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996). CAI with style. Paper presented at the th Annual Design Conference-Computer-aided Design Education (University of Bristol, England, June 26-27, 1997).
• Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netw orks, 4(2), –41.
• Fresen, J. (2007). A Taxonomy of factors to promote quality web-supported learning.
• International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 351-362. Ho, C., Leong, P., & Saromines-Ganne, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of student satisfaction with Web-based courses. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of
• World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 1792-1795
• Hong, K.S., Lai, K.W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students' satisfaction and perceived learning with a Web based course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 6(1).
• Inman, E., Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(6), 581
• Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine, 2(1)
• Jensen, R. E. (1993). The technology of the future is already here. Academe, 79, 8–13.
• Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
• Jones, A.J. (2003). ICT and Future Teachers: Are we preparing for e-Learning? Paper presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Conference: ICT and the Teacher of the Future, January 27-31, 2003, Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Distance Education, , 21–29.
• Kershaw, A. (1996). People, planning, and process: The acceptance of technological innovation in post-secondary organizations. Educational Technology, 44-48.
• King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, (39), 283-297.
• Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 133, 459–474.
• Levin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks', in On-line Education: Perspectives on a New
• Environment, ed. L. Harasim, Praeger, New York, 16-38. Levy, Y. (2003). A study of learners perceived value and satisfaction for implied effectiveness of online learning systems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03), A.
• Louden, W. (2000). Standards for standards: the development of Australian professional standards for teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 118-34
• Michailidou, A., & Economides, A. (2003). Elearn: Towards a collaborative educational virtual environment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 131-152.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction, The American Journal of
• Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. Hohn, & D. Keegan
• (Ed.), Distance education: New perspectives, 12-24). London: Routledge. Morgan Brian, (2000). Is distance learning worth it? Helping to determine the cost of online courses.
• Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into Web-based
• Instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2), 31-39. Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 32, 219–226.
• Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netw orks, 6 (1), 21-40
• Poon, W. C., Low, L. T., & Yong, G. F. (2004). A study of Web-based learning (WBL) environment in Malaysia. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(6), 374
• Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality
• Assurance in Education, 10(1), 40-50
• Romiszowski, A. (2004). How’s the E-learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation. Educational Technology, 44 (1), 5–
• Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1302–6488
• Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 128-136.
• Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers and Education. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from http://mail. phy.bg.ac.yu/~marijam/milos/science7.pdf
• Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netw orks, (2), 61–80.
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306
• Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz,W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 234, 359–383.
• Tallent-RunnelsT, M. K., Lan, W. Y., Fryer, W., Thomas, J. A., Cooper, T. S. & Wang, K., (2005). The relationship between problems with technology and graduate students’ evaluations of online teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 167–174
• Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223
• Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.
• Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2004). Distance education at degree granting postsecondary institutions: 200-2001. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_3/4_4.asp
• Retrieved November 19, 2010
• Walker, K. B., & Hackman, M. Z. (1991). Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course.
• ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 344 266. Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information and Management, 41(1), 75-86.
• Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998). Monitoring the on-line behavior of distance learning students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 91–99.
• Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students' perceptions towards the quality of online education: A qualitative approach. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 27, 861–877.
• Zeng, W. Y., & Perris, K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: A collaborative effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learning, 193, –264.