Editor’s Note: This study examines Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education when applied to online courses. It is important to validate that these findings developed originally for face-to-face instruction apply also to online learning.

Online Courses Demonstrate Use of Seven Principles

David Batts, Susan M. Colaric, Cheryl McFadden

USA

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of students and instructors in selected online courses relative to the use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The principles were originally developed for face-to-face instruction, but may be applicable in a variety of instructional delivery methods (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Results show that in online undergraduate education courses, the Seven Principles were perceived as evident by both students and instructors.

Introduction

In 1987, Chickering and Gamson led a task force composed of university instructors, administrators, researchers, and students to examine the issue of quality undergraduate education. The goal was to utilize published research and personal knowledge to outline key components and instructional strategies that would lead to quality undergraduate education. Seven principles were derived to represent a simple and limited number of evaluation criteria and to provide a framework for practical application in the university classroom with the goal of improving undergraduate teaching (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). Since that time, the Seven Principles have set standards for undergraduate education and have been used by instructors in face-to-face classrooms to enhance the quality of instruction (The Ohio Learning Network Taskforce, 2002). Cross (1999) stated that “the best known, certainly the most widely distributed list, is the ‘Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’” (p.256). These principles have also been the basis of a large number of research studies (Braxton, Olsen, and & Simmons, 1998; Buckley, 2003; Graham, Cagiltay, Craner & Lim, 2000; Taylor, 2002). 

Seven Principles

The Seven Principles assert that good practice in undergraduate education (a) encourages student-faculty contact, (b) encourages cooperation among students, (c) encourages active learning, (d) gives prompt feedback, (e) emphasizes time on task, (f) communicates high expectations, and (g) respects diverse talents and ways of learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Each principle is reviewed below.

The first of the seven principles states that good practice encourages student-faculty contact. Chickering and Gamson (1991) stressed that faculty who encourage contact with the student in and out of the classroom enhance the motivation of the student, the student’s intellectual commitment, and the students’ personal development.

The second principle emphasizes that good practice encourages cooperation among students and is linked to the third principle that good practice encourages active learning. Working with others increases involvement in learning, and research demonstrates it can also increase productivity and enhance self-esteem (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1990). Active learning can be done individually, but can also be used in a cooperative setting and increases individuals’ involvement in the learning process. Research supports the growing use of both active and cooperative learning in higher education (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).

The next principle stresses that good practice includes prompt feedback. Prompt feedback refers to instructors’ efficiently providing feedback on assignments, quizzes, tests, and questions. Chickering and Gamson (1991) reported “it is clear that the use of prompt feedback in college courses shows a clear and positive relation to student achievement and satisfaction” (p. 18). Feedback must be more than just the notification that the instructor received the assignment, but rather be corrective and supportive for it to be central to student learning.

The fifth practice emphasizes time on task. Most of the prior research on this principle was related to elementary and high school levels (Cross, 1987). Chickering and Gamson (1991) noted that, “there is some evidence that effective use of time in the college classroom means effective teaching for faculty and effective learning for students” (p. 20). There has been a large scale study conducted by Franklin (1991) that found a significant correlation between the effective use of class time and both amount learned and rankings of course and instructor.

The next principle states that good practice encourages high expectations. Chickering and Gamson (1991) reported that high expectations are crucial for all types of students. The principle maintains that instructors must develop high goals for the students, but these goals must be attainable. Chickering and Gamson highlighted research (Cashin, 1988; Cashin & Slawson, 1977; Marsh, 1984) that demonstrated students gave higher ratings to difficult courses in which they had to work hard. 

The final principle states that good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Chickering and Gamson (1991) noted that “Faculty who show regard for their students’ unique interests and talents are likely to facilitate student growth and development in every sphere--academic, social, personal, and vocational” (p. 21). Students have different ways in which they learn and the instructor who can adjust his/her style of teaching has a better chance of reaching and developing these students (Chickering & Gamson, 1991).

These principles were developed by experts in higher education and from 50 years of research on good practices in undergraduate education. These principles have set standards for undergraduate instruction and have been used to enhance the quality of instruction in traditional face-to-face classrooms (The Ohio Learning Network Task Force, 2002); however, there has been an increase in the offerings of online education (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).

Distance Education

While the principles were intended for face-to-face instruction, they were designed to be accessible, understandable, practical and widely applicable. Those design characteristics makes it plausible to apply these principles to forms of delivery other than face-to-face (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). There has been a recent increase in online instruction in higher education and there have been reports of how to implement the seven principles in online instruction (Chickering & Ehrmann; Graham, et al., 2001).

While undergraduate education has traditionally occurred with faculty and students situated in the same physical location, distance education has been growing over the last decade. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), for the 2000-2001 academic year there were 2,876,000 students enrolled in distance education college level courses. Eighty-two percent were undergraduate level courses. This represents a 111% growth in total student enrollment from the 1997-1998 academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999).  With the increase in distance education courses, there is a need to ensure that distance instruction represents the same level of quality as traditional face-to-face instruction (Distance Learning, 2001).

Research on the Seven Principles

With the increase in distance education, there has been an increase in studies that examined the Seven Principles in online instruction. Research has been conducted specifically using the seven principles in both undergraduate and graduate courses (Braxton et al., 1998; Graham, et al., 2000; Taylor, 2002). These research studies investigated different components of education; yet, all of the studies had the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education as an indicator of quality instruction. These studies have been conducted with traditional face-to-face, Internet-enhanced, and online undergraduate and graduate courses.

In a 1998 study, Braxton et al. examined the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in relation to academic disciplines. The researchers hypothesized that disciplines with high paradigmatic development (the extent to which members of the discipline agree about theory, methods, techniques, and the importance of problems for the discipline to pursue) would be less likely to follow guidelines of the Seven Principles because there is a greater agreement on course content and degree requirements. Disciplines included in the high paradigmatic development area are biology, chemistry, and physics. Disciplines labeled as low paradigmatic are history, psychology, and sociology.

Participants included 167 instructors from a Research I University who had taught at least one undergraduate course within the last two years. Semi-structured interviews and a survey were used for data collection. The results showed that “high expectations” (3.97 on a 5-point scale), “time on task” (3.63), and “respect for diverse learning expectations” (3.2) ranked the highest for all disciplines. Ranking lowest was “student feedback” with a 2.76.

Next, a report completed by the Ohio Learning Network Task Force studied the quality of distance learning in Ohio (The Ohio Learning Network Task Force, 2002). The report stated that higher education has continually tried to improve itself and the push for quality is evident in today’s world. The report acknowledged the impact of online education and efforts made to ensure quality. “In 1999, the Ohio Learning Network (OLN) drew on Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) work and other carefully selected sources to draft their initial version of the OLN Principles of Good Practice for member institutions” (The Ohio Learning Network Task Force, p. 2). They continued to note that Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles of good practice for undergraduate education remains valid for online education.

The OLN report was an assessment of online education and recommendations for higher education institution for quality instruction (The Ohio Learning Network Task Force, 2002). The report stated that the recommendations of the OLN principles that were derived from Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles were to be used for the design, approval, assessment and revision of all courses (face-to-face, online, or blend of both).  This report was of importance because it supported Chickering and Gamson’s principles as guidelines for delivering quality online education.

Another study examined four online graduate courses to provide feedback on strengths and weaknesses (Graham et al., 2000). The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) were used as the primary criteria for the evaluation. The researchers assumed the role of the student perspective when analyzing the course. The researchers accessed the courses’ websites to read all course material as well as communication threads in discussion board chats. The researchers did not have access to email correspondence between instructors and students. Additionally, three of the four instructors were interviewed; however, no students were contacted.

In the four online courses evaluated, three of the Seven Principles were considered strong. These principles were (a) encouraging active learning, (b) encouraging student-faculty contact, and (c) respecting diverse talents and ways of learning. Yet, it was also reported that two areas needed improvement and these were encouraging cooperation among students and giving prompt feedback.

The researchers noted that “our research was limited in scope and was more qualitative than quantitative; the evaluation should not be considered a rigorous research project” (Graham et al., 2000, p. 2). Although the research had limitations, it did provide useful information on the use of the Seven Principles in online courses, as well as including the student view as a research perspective.

A research study completed during the spring of 2003 investigated student perception and its correlation with the Seven Principles in graduate education (Buckley, 2003). In this study, relationships between instruction, instructional design, student interaction, and student learning experience were reviewed. In essence, instructors who utilized the Seven Principles in graduate education were perceived as experienced and cared about their instruction to the students. Buckley stated that “The implication of this finding was that it is not only important to create an interactive environment for learning, but it is also important to design discussion activities that can trigger rich and meaningful online discussion” (p. 11). The Seven Principles, if used in online education, will have a positive outcome in the learning experience of the student (Buckley). This study researched graduate education in regards to the principles that were initially developed for undergraduate education. The study demonstrated that the principles were not only applicable to graduate education, but to online education as well, as the students expressed positive learning experiences.

Finally, Taylor (2002) utilized the Seven Principles to evaluate the quality of teaching in fully online undergraduate courses across multiple disciplines. The population that was surveyed consisted of 500 instructors across the nation that taught an undergraduate course fully online with no delineation in reference to disciplines. Taylor developed an instrument that allowed the instructor to critique his or her own course. The survey instrument contained eight categories, one for each of the seven principles, and one for general information. Taylor’s scale for the first seven categories ranged from rating of 1–Does not describe my class at all, to 5–Describes my class very well.

Taylor (2002) concluded that instructors are using the principles in their online courses although not all of the seven were fully used. Six of the seven principles ranged from 3.10 to 3.78, with 3.0 - 5.0 considered high. The six principles with the highest rating were: (a) contact between faculty and student, (b) feedback, (c) ways of learning, (d) expectations, (e) learning techniques, and (f) relations among students. Time on task was the only principle that was rated in the lower scores with a score of 2.94. There was no discussion of how the high versus low rankings were determined and as noted by the scores, they were all relatively around the 3.0 mid mark. Taylor reported that 71% of the respondents had been teaching for eight years or more and this may be a reason why certain principles are more extensively used than others. Taylor suggested future studies should be conducted. This study was the first of its kind using the Seven Principles and applying them to online instruction in a quantitative format. The study however, lent itself to biases since the survey was completed by the instructor and his/her opinion as to what he/she did or did not do in the course. 

Many research studies have examined various attributes of the Seven Principles. Taylor (2002) was the first to do a comprehensive quantitative study to discover the relevance of the Seven Principles in online undergraduate courses. Taylor’s research was subjective because of the self-assessment by the instructor. There is a need for a study that examines whether instructors are using the Seven Principles by comparing the instructors’ responses with the responses of their students.

Research Methodology

This study examined instructor and student perception of the use of proven principles for face-to-face instruction in online courses. The participants in this study were instructors and students in selected online undergraduate education courses at two southeastern universities. A survey instrument was used to collect data and address the following research questions:

1.    Do students and instructors perceive the use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in select online undergraduate education courses?

2.   Do students and instructors agree upon the perception of use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in select online undergraduate education courses?

Participants

There were two groups of participants in this study. The first group included university instructors teaching online undergraduate education courses. The second group included undergraduate students enrolled in those selected online education courses that correspond with the first group of participants. Two universities were selected for inclusion; both were small, public universities granting baccalaureate and master’s degrees with schools of education that were accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teaching Education (NCATE). The total possible population for the study was 548 students and 31 instructors.

Instrumentation

The Online Teaching Practices (OTP) survey was developed by Taylor (2002) to identify the extent in which instructors incorporated the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education into their online courses. Taylor used Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles as a guideline when developing the OTP. The OTP was comprised of 49 items, and they were grouped into eight sections. The first seven sections corresponded to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, and the eighth and final section was designed to collect selected demographic information from participants.

The first section of OTP included survey items that correspond to Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) first principle for good practice in undergraduate education, encourages student-faculty contact, which included the processes used by instructors to communicate with their students. Therefore, items in section one of the revised survey addressed how students are encouraged to contact the instructor.

Section two included items associated with the second principle for good practice in undergraduate education described by Chickering and Gamson (1987), cooperation among students, which included the processes used by the instructor to facilitate communication among their students. These items in the revised survey addressed whether students were encouraged to work in groups or teams, if contact information for fellow students was provided, and whether students were required to use chat rooms or discussion boards as a method of communication.

Section three included items that corresponded to the third principle for good practice in undergraduate education by Chickering and Gamson (1987), active learning, which meant engaging the student in the activities of the course. Items in this section of the revised survey addressed specific methods of how course content was delivered which included the use of discussion boards and hypertext links on web pages.

The fourth section of this survey addressed the use of the Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) fourth principle for good practice in undergraduate education, prompt feedback, which included processes in which instructors gave comments back to the student in a timely manner. Items on the revised survey addressed turn-around time on assignments, tests, and quizzes as well as availability of grades online.

Section five items addressed Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) fifth principle for good practice in undergraduate education, time on task, which included managing time to complete learning activities expeditiously. The tracking of frequency of use of chat rooms and discussion boards by students was included in the revised survey.

The sixth section paralleled Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) sixth principle for good practice in undergraduate education, high expectations, which included the processes used by instructors to set challenging learning standards. Specifically, survey items from the revised survey asked about penalties for late assignments, assignments that reflected a stringent work load, and required revisions for unacceptable student work.

Section seven was the last section of the OTP that was related to Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) to the seventh principle, diverse ways of learning, which included processes instructors used to address different learning styles of the student population. Items from the revised survey asked about students’ learning styles and different instructional approaches.

Section eight, the final section of the revised OTP, requested selected demographic information. Data collected in this section were used to associate a particular course instructor with the students enrolled in that course.  

In this study, Taylor’s (2002) instrument was modified with permission.  Taylor’s original instrument directed participants to select either “1” which represented, “Does not describe my class at all” or a “5” which represented “Describes my class very well.”  In this study, participants were directed to select either “No” representing the statement “Does not describe my course” or “Yes” representing the statement “Describes my course”. In other words, the coding was changed as well as the descriptors. In addition, the section headings on Taylor’s original instrument did not mirror the exact wording of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. For this study, the section headings were modified to mirror the exact wording of Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles for undergraduate education. One other modification to Taylor’s original instrument was the elimination of one survey question which addressed students’ experimentation outside of class. More than likely, undergraduate courses in education would not require the completion of experiments outside of class. The last modification to Taylor’s original instrument was substituting “course” for “class” which maintained continuity of word usage throughout the modified OTP.  Permission was granted by Taylor to use and modify the survey instrument for this study.

Validity and Reliability

The survey instrument that was created by Taylor (2002) was reviewed by two experts to validate the instrument at the time that Taylor conducted the original study. The two experts made suggestions and comments regarding the readability of the instrument as well as the relationship between the survey items and the research questions. Taylor then conducted a pilot study where three faculty members who taught online courses were asked to complete the pilot test and provide feedback on the instructions, questions, format, and the response options. Taylor used these responses to further refine the instrument and to establish the face validity of the instrument. To determine reliability, Taylor conducted a correlation test on each of the seven scales of the instrument to measure the internal reliability. The resulting correlation coefficient was not reported in Taylor’s study; however, Taylor stated the instrument was valid and reliable. While modifications were made to the original instrument, these changes should not invalidate Taylor’s certification of validity and reliability.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected in December 2004 and usable responses totaled five instructors and 28 students. The responses were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences) software program. Data analysis compared the means for students and instructors for each principle. Correlated t-tests were used to analyze the data at an a priori alpha level of .05.  

Findings

Descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) and correlated t-tests (t statistic, probability, and degrees of freedom) were used to answer the research questions.

 For each principle, there were a finite number of survey items that were asked of the respondent. The respondent could answer “no” they do not perceive this happening in the course or “yes” they perceive this is taking place in the course. The responses were coded as 0 and 1 representing “No” and “Yes”, respectively.  For each principle, the mean of the survey items was calculated for the students and the instructors. The means ranged from 0 to 1 indicating the overall perceived use of that principle in the course. In addition, the probability of a difference in perception of use by instructor and student was reported at an a priori alpha level of .05. In all instances, the count in each cell was well below the expected count; this indicates that caution should be used in examining the significance levels for the results.

Principle One. Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) first principle refers to student-faculty contact. Scores for student-faculty contact could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .67 to .83 indicating students found student-faculty contact evident in their course. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .71 to .86 indicating instructors also found student-faculty contact evident. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use of this principle by comparing the two groups’ mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .400 to .742, above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the first principle, student-faculty contact, in the course.

Principle Two. The second principle refers to student cooperation. Scores for student cooperation could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .57 to .83 indicating students found student cooperation evident in their course. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .5 to .67 indicating instructors also found student cooperation evident. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .105 to .637, above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the second principle, student cooperation, in the course. 

Principle Three. Active learning is the third principle. Scores for active learning could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .6 to .79 indicating students found active learning evident in their course. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .33 to .83 indicating instructors also found active learning evident in four or the five courses. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .014 to .845, four of the five courses were above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the third principle, active learning, in four of the courses. Course Four had a significant difference in the means which indicates there was a difference between student and instructor perception of this principle, active learning.

Principle Four. The fourth principle refers to prompt feedback. Scores for prompt feedback could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .44 to .86 indicating students found prompt feedback evident in four of the five courses. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .43 to 1 indicating instructors also found prompt feedback evident in four or the five courses.  Course three had a low perception of use by both the student and instructor. A series of correlated t-tests were used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .260 to .986, above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the fourth principle, prompt feedback, in the course.

Principle Five. Time on task is the fifth principle. Scores for time on task could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .42 to .75 indicating students found time on task evident in only three of the five courses. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .17 to .67 indicating instructors only found time on task evident in one or the five courses. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .106 to .638, above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the fifth principle, time on task, in the course.

Principle Six. Sixth principle refers to high expectations. Scores for high expectations could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .53 to .75 indicating students found high expectations evident in their course. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .57 to 1 indicating instructors also found high expectations evident. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .025 to .536, four of the five courses were above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the sixth principle, high expectations, in four of the courses. Course One had a significant difference in the means which indicates there was a difference between student and instructor perception of this principle, high expectations.

Principle Seven. Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seventh principle is diverse talents and ways of learning. Scores for the diverse talents and ways of learning could range from 0 to 1. Scores for student responses ranged from .53 to .82 indicating students found diverse talents and ways of learning evident in their course. Scores for instructor responses ranged from .57 to .86 indicating instructors also found diverse talents and ways of learning evident. A series of correlated t-tests was used to determine if there was a difference in perception of use by comparing the two groups mean values. The resulting p values ranged from .040 to .473, four of the five courses were above the significance level and thus there was not a significant difference in student and instructor perception of the seventh principle, diverse talents and ways of learning, in four of the courses. Course Three had a significant difference in the means which indicates there was a difference between student and instructor perception of this principle, diverse talents and ways of learning.

Discussion of Findings

Two findings emerged as a result of this study. First, students and instructors perceived the use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in select online undergraduate education courses. Second, the students and instructors agreed on the perception of use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles in these select online undergraduate education courses.

1.  Perceived Use of Principles. Students and instructors perceived the use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in select online undergraduate education courses. The mean scores of both the instructor and students were categorized into three levels, low (0-.35), medium (.36-.70), and high (.71-1). In six of the seven principles, the students and instructors means were medium to high. These principles included (a) student-faculty contact, (b) cooperation among students, (c) active learning, (d) prompt feedback, (e) high expectations, and (f) diverse talents and ways of learning. This indicated that the principles are evident in these online courses.

The one principle that had a large proportion of low responses was time on task. The instructors had three low means and two medium means; however, the matching students had four medium means and one high mean. This result mirrored Taylor’s (2002) findings that reported the lowest score of the seven principles was time on task and the only principle to report in the low score category.

2.  Agreement on Perception of Use of Principles. Overall, the students and instructors agreed on the perception of use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education in select online undergraduate education courses with no significant difference in perception of use found between the groups of participants. Although there were three different principles in distinct courses that found a significant difference in the perception of use, the remaining 32 principles showed no significant difference.  Therefore, when the responses were viewed as a whole, the research question was answered by the agreement of perceived use of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles by students and instructors in online undergraduate education courses.

Implications

Three implications emerged as a result of this study. These implications are listed below followed by a discussion of each implication.

1.     Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles are evident in online courses. These principles have been accepted by the academic community as quality instructional strategies in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). This study provided further evidence that these principles can be evident in online courses.

2.     Higher education administrators should consider institutionalizing the principles by training, assessment, and course design. If Chickering and Gamson’s principles are viewed as evidence of quality instruction, then the inclusion of the principles in training sessions is warranted. Chickering (1991) and Poulsen (1991) reported that training on how to use the Seven Principles is needed. If the training is offered for faculty to learn about online teaching, instructors who typically would not attend training for face-to-face teaching may be exposed to the principles. Chickering also reported that the principles can be used for formal and informal review and self-assessment and the principles should be used in course design. The result of all of these efforts can lead to the institutionalization of the principles.

3.     Instructors can use this study to consider improvement in the one principle, time on task, which had a low perception of use. Knowing this area of weakness can help instructors improve time on task in their online courses. Instructors can track the frequency of student posts in discussion board threads to help gauge the amount of time a student is spending in their online course. Instructors can also provide guidelines of minimum amount of time expected of students on class preparations and assignments. A need also exists for electronic platform technical advancements to improve the tracking of student activity; this would support the instructor in achieving this principle in their online course.

In summary, an analysis of the data indicated that students and instructors perceive Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles are evident in selected online courses and the students and instructors agree on this perception of use. Higher education administrators should consider providing instructors with training on online instruction that includes these principles. Institutions and instructors must be attentive to the issues related to online course instruction. Additional studies related to online course instruction are warranted and would greatly add to the literature available.

References

Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of the principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 299-318.

Buckley, K. (2003). How principles of effective online instruction correlate with student perceptions of their learning. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida.

Cashin, W. E. (1988) Student rating of teaching: A summary of the research.  IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Kansas State University.

Cashin, W. E., & Slawson, H. M. (1977). Description of data base, 1976-77. IDEA Technical Report No. 2. Manhattan: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Kansas State University.

Chickering, A. W. (1991). Institutionalizing the seven principles and the faculty and institutional inventories. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47, 51-61.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 38(7) 3-7.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. (47th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. (1987) Teaching for Learning. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(8), 3-7.

Cross, P. K. (1999). What do we know about students' learning, and how do we know it? Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 255-270.

Distance Learning. (2001). Issues and controversies. Retrieved March 16, 2001, from http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/36534tempi0600500.asp

Franklin, J. (1991). Technical report no. 2. Boston: Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation, Northeastern University.

Graham, C., Cagiltay K., Craner J., & Lim, B. (2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment. CRLT Technical Report, 13.Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Graham, C., Cagiltay K., Lim B., & Craner, J. (2001). Seven principles for effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. Assessment.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1990). Cooperative learning: An active learning strategy. Focus on Teaching and Learning, 5(2).

Marsh, H. W. (1984) Students’ evaluation of teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76.

Poulsen, S. J. (1991). Making the best use of the seven principles and the faculty and institutional inventories. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 47, 27-35.

Ritter, M., & Lemke, K. (2000). Addressing the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education with internet-enhanced education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(1).

Taylor, J. (2002). The use of principles for good practice in undergraduate distance education. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

The Ohio Learning Network Task Force (2002). Quality learning in Ohio and at a distance, a report of the Ohio Learning Network Task Force on quality in distance learning.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Distance Education at Post Secondary Education Institutions 1997-1998, NCES 2000-13, by Laurie Lewis, Kyle Snow, and Elizabeth F. Westat. Project Officer: Bernie Greene. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001, NCES 2003-017, by Tiffany Waits and Laurie Lewis. Project Officer: Barnard Greene. Washington, DC.