Effective online communication in higher education requires several different interaction treatments: teacher-student, student-student, student-content, and student-learning management system. This literature review focuses on how to build effective online communication for college courses. Findings indicate that effective online communication is associated with educators who build the aforementioned interaction treatments into their course design, follow established principles of good education previously identified for face-to-face instruction, provide instructor presence, and integrate a variety of interactive tools to accommodate learner preferences and learner necessities.

1. EFFECTIVE ONLINE
COMMUNICATION FOR
HIGHER EDUCATION
Sandra Rogers, University of South Alabama

2. Which online communication
formats, tools & strategies
are most effective for higher
education?

3. Elements of Effective Online Communication
Outline:
 Build 4 Interaction Treatments
 Provide Teacher Presence with Immediacy
Behaviors
 Accommodate Learner Preferences &
Disabilities
 Borrow Principles of Good F2F Education

4. Build 4 Interaction Treatments (ITs)
Student satisfaction correlates to the
strength of ITs (Bernard et al., 2009).
 Teacher-student
 Student-student
 Student-content
 Student-learning management system
(Davidson-Shivers, 2009)

5. The Importance of T-S Interactions
Moore & Kearsley (1996) theorized that the
geographical distance matters less than the course
structure.
Moore likens distance education to a transaction
that could create a psychological space for
potential misunderstandings.
Arbaugh (2001) found that instructor verbal
immediacy behaviors are strongly correlated with
online graduate student learning & course
satisfaction.


6. What does teacher presence look like
online?
Add image to profile & syllabus.
 Feedback should vary to enhance the lack of
richness in text-based media (Arbaugh &
Hornik, 2006) .
 Podcasts improve test performance (Beylefeld,
Hugo, & Geyer, 2008)
 Host synchronous sessions (Baker, 2010)


7. The Importance of S-S Interactions



Student dissatisfaction in online learning was
based on a failure to provide multiple forms of
communication with & between students (Granitz
& Greene, 2003).
Student moderation generated more frequent and
in-depth discussion for learners (Thormann, Gable,
Fidalgo, & Blakeslee, 2013).
Arbaugh & Hornik found that student interaction
behavior is a necessary component of the
communication loop (2006).

8. The Importance of S-LMS Interactions
Online courses that provide e-tools for
communication close the distance & provide
psychological closeness between the teacher &
the class similar to closeness created in
traditional courses (Lemak, Shin, Reed, &
Montgomery, 2007).

9. S-LMS Accommodations
4 main media specifications to meet federal
requirements for instructional technology:
Caption all media
 Use Sans-Serif fonts for online text
 Provide accessible PDFs that can be read
by adaptive technologies
 Provide alternative text for all images


10. Borrow Principles of Good Education
3 of the 7 Principles of Good Practice in
Education (Chickering & Gamson,1987)
Encourage Contact between Students &
Faculty
 Give Prompt Feedback
 Respect Diverse Talents & Ways of
Learning


11. Why are some instructors MIA?


What does it say about an online instructor who doesn’t
provide a discussion format? Do they think they’re
following Keller’s Plan (1968) of personalized system
instruction? If so, they’re incorrect because they lack one
key element---use of proctors as tutors (moderators).
Online classes designed as independent study are
unsuccessful (U.S. Department of Education Office of
Planning, Evaluation & Policy Development, 2009).

12. References
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student
satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication
Quarterly, 30, 42-54.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Hornik, S. (2006). Do Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles also
apply to online MBAs? The Journal of Educators Online, 3(2), 1-18.
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student
affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online,
7(1), 1-30.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments
in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243-1288.

13. References cont.
Beylefeld, A. A., Hugo, A. P., & Geyer, H. J. (2008). More learning and less
teaching? Students’ perceptions of a histology podcast. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 22(5), 948-956.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice
in undergraduate education. Wingspread Journal, 9(2), 75-81.
Davidson-Shivers, G. (2009). Frequency and types of instructor-interactions in
online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Volume 8(1),
23-40.
Granitz, N. & Greene, C. S. (2003). Applying E-marketing strategies to online
distance learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 16-30.
Lemak, D., Shin, S., Reed, R., & Montgomery, J. (2005). Technology, transactional
distance, and instructor effectiveness: An empirical investigation. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 150-158.

14. References cont.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of
evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online
learning studies. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking,
and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. The International Review Of
Research In Open And Distance Learning, 14(3), 294-318. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1306/2537

15. SANDRA ROGERS
TWITTER @TEACHERROGERS
sandrarogers@southalabama.edu