Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013

Document generated on 10/28/2020 10:04 a.m.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of

Journals 2009-2013
Aras Bozkurt, Ela Akgun-Ozbek, Sibel Yilmazel, Erdem Erdogdu, Hasan Ucar,
Emel Guler, Sezan Sezgin, Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Nazife Sen-Ersoy, Nil
Goksel-Canbek, Gokhan Deniz Dincer, Suleyman Ari and Cengiz Hakan Aydin
Volume 16, Number 1, February 2015 Article abstract

This study intends to explore the current trends in the field of distance
URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1065940ar education research during the period of 2009-2013. The trends were identified
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953 by an extensive review of seven peer reviewed scholarly journals: The
American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE), Distance Education (DE), The
See table of contents European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (EURODL), The Journal of
Distance Education (JDE), The Journal of Online Learning and Technology
(JOLT), Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL) and
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Publisher(s)
(IRRODL). A total of 861 research articles was reviewed. Mainly content
Athabasca University Press (AU Press) analysis was employed to be able to analyze the current research. Also, a social
network analysis (SNA) was used to interpret the interrelationship between
keywords indicated in these articles. Themes were developed and the content
of the articles in the selected journals were coded according to categories
Explore this journal derived from earlier studies. The results were interpreted using descriptive
analysis (frequencies) and social network analysis. The reporting of the results
were organized into the following categories: research areas, theoretical and
Cite this article conceptual frameworks, variables, methods, models, strategies, data collection
and analysis methods, and the participants. The study also identified the most
Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., commonly used keywords, and the most frequently cited authors and studies
Sezgin, S., Karadeniz, A., Sen-Ersoy, N., Goksel-Canbek, N., Dincer, G., Ari, S. & in distance education. The findings obtained in this study may be useful in the
Aydin, C. (2015). Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of exploration of potential research areas and identification of neglected areas in
Journals 2009-2013. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed the field of distance education.
Learning, 16 (1), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953
Copyright (c), 2015 Aras Bozkurt, Ela Akgun-Ozbek, Sibel Yilmazel, Erdem Erdogdu, Hasan Ucar, This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit
Emel Guler, Sezan Sezgin, Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Nazife Sen-Ersoy, Nil Goksel-Canbek, Gokhan
(including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be
Deniz Dincer, Suleyman Ari, Cengiz Hakan Aydin
viewed online.
https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/
This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.

Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal,
Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to
promote and disseminate research.
https://www.erudit.org/en/
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Volume 16, Number 1
February – 2015
Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content

Analysis of Journals 2009-2013
Aras Bozkurt, Ela Akgun-Ozbek, Sibel Yilmazel, Erdem Erdogdu, Hasan Ucar, Emel Guler, Sezan Sezgin,
Abdulkadir Karadeniz, Nazife Sen-Ersoy, Nil Goksel-Canbek, Gokhan Deniz Dincer, Suleyman Ari, and Cengiz
Hakan Aydin
Anadolu University, Turkey
Abstract
This study intends to explore the current trends in the field of distance education research
during the period of 2009-2013. The trends were identified by an extensive review of seven peer
reviewed scholarly journals: The American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE), Distance
Education (DE), The European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (EURODL), The
Journal of Distance Education (JDE), The Journal of Online Learning and Technology (JOLT),
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL) and The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). A total of 861 research
330
Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013
Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin
articles was reviewed. Mainly content analysis was employed to be able to analyze the current
research. Also, a social network analysis (SNA) was used to interpret the interrelationship
between keywords indicated in these articles. Themes were developed and the content of the
articles in the selected journals were coded according to categories derived from earlier studies.
The results were interpreted using descriptive analysis (frequencies) and social network
analysis. The reporting of the results were organized into the following categories: research
areas, theoretical and conceptual frameworks, variables, methods, models, strategies, data
collection and analysis methods, and the participants. The study also identified the most
commonly used keywords, and the most frequently cited authors and studies in distance
education. The findings obtained in this study may be useful in the exploration of potential
research areas and identification of neglected areas in the field of distance education.
Keywords: Distance education trends; distance education issues; research evaluation; content
analysis
Introduction
There has been a profound change globally, particularly in terms of scientific developments and
social changes. One aspect of this is the way in which technology has become an essential part of
our lives. The impact that this has had on society in general is becoming more and more visible,
with the result that technology is now very much expected to be used in the proliferation of
information. As a direct consequence of these expectations, there has been a parallel paradigm
shift in education.
According to Harasim (2000), the invention of the Web technologies made online education
increasingly accessible, open, flexible; allowed new pedagogical models to emerge and reasoned
the revolution in digital knowledge age that enabled greater and faster human communication
and collaboration and led to fundamentally new forms of economic activity that produced the
knowledge economy and required basic changes in education. Educators embraced the
revolution, and the increased educational opportunities and especially the new learning models
that have emerged are now influencing education and society as a whole. The 21st century thus
begins with a paradigm shift in attitudes towards online education. Online learning is no longer
peripheral or supplementary, yet an integral part of mainstream society. Our new understanding
of the very nature of learning has affected the definition, design, and delivery of education.
Paradigm shift in education has resulted in: new modes of educational delivery, new learning
domains, new principles of learning, new learning processes and outcomes and new educational
roles and entities.
Distance education (DE) as a multidisciplinary field has reacted to these changes; it has and is
still evolving and orienting itself to fulfill this demand. Thus, as the demands of educators and
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
331
learners evolve, it is crucial to understand and get a deeper insight of trends and issues in DE so
as to keep abreast of these constant changes. This study was conducted in direct response to this
demand and aims to help educators and researchers spot recent DE trends by studying written
scholarly documents, that is to say to provide a comprehensive list of “mute evidence” (Hodder,
1994) in the field.
Literature Review
In recent years, research has been conducted to investigate DE research trends. One of the first
studies to investigate trends in DE was carried out by Berge and Mrozowski (2001), who
examined research literature in DE over a ten-year period from 1990 to 1999. Categorization of
the articles (N=890) was based on Sherry’s (1996) ten research issues, namely redefining the
roles of key participants, technology selection and adoption, design issues, strategies to increase
interactivity and active learning, learner characteristics, learner support, operational issues,
policy and management issues, equity and accessibility, and cost/benefit trade-offs. According to
the results obtained, it was seen that pedagogical themes such as design issues, learner
characteristics, and strategies for active learning were the most frequent topics used in the field.
Also, the most prevalent research methodology was descriptive methodology.
Lee, Driscoll and Nelson (2004) also examined research topics, methods and citation trends in
four journals: The American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE), the Journal of Distance
Education (JDE), Distance Education (DE) and Open Learning : The Journal of Open, Distance
and e-Learning (OL). Three hundred and eighty-three articles e-published between 1997 and
2002 were selected from these journals and they classified the articles into six themes: design-
related, development-related, management-related, evaluation-related, institutional and
operational-related, and theory and research-related. The thematic analysis method was used to
explore core meanings. The results of this research yielded six topics: general research topics,
research specific topics, the research method, the statistical method used in experimental studies,
a citation of the authors, and the cited books and articles/chapters.
A series of studies were conducted by Zawacki-Richter to explore the DE research domain. The
first study (Zawacki-Richter, 2009) used a Delphi technique to develop a classification of research
areas. The second study (Zawacki-Richter, Bäcker and Vogt, 2009) identified gaps and priority
areas and analyzed 695 articles published in five prominent DE journals between 2000 and 2008.
The third study (Zawacki‐Richter and von Prümmer, 2010) carried out an analysis of the impact
of gender and collaboration patterns among researchers in research methods, research topics and
research productivity.
In his study, Zawacki-Richter (2009) developed a categorization of research areas in DE and

identified the most important and the most neglected research areas in DE. Having conducted an
332
extensive literature review and a Delphi study with expert responses from editorial board
members from the major DE journals from September-December 2008, Zawacki-Richter
identified 15 research areas which were organized into 3 broad categories. The participants of the
study were 19 voluntary experts with an average of 27 years of professional experience in DE who
had made significant contributions to DE literature. Based on the experts’ responses, Zawacki-
Richter grouped the 15 research areas into three categories. In the second round of the Delphi
study, presented in Table 1, each category was prioritized by the experts.
After comparing the results of the study with a previous study by Jegede (1994) in Australia,
Zawacki-Richter concluded that the priority of DE research areas have not changed drastically,
yet it was noted that innovations in online learning led to a shift from technology centered
research to a research of management and change in DE institutions. It was noted that the
emergence of online distance learning highlights a pressing need for educational institutions to
embrace innovation and change. Delphi experts agreed that the areas of innovation and change
and quality assurance should be prioritized as research areas while faculty support and
professional development along with “Web 2.0 applications, mobile devices, and synchronous
tools afford for teaching, learning, and assessment” also deserved further attention.
333
Table 1
Classification of Research Areas in Distance Education (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009)
Macro level: Distance education systems and theories.

1. Access, equity, and ethics: The democratization of access to distance education afforded by new media and by
finding ways to deliver high-quality education to those who have limited resources and poor infrastructure; issues that
refer to the (sustainable) provision of distance education in developing areas. What is the impact of distance education
(e.g., via mobile learning) on narrowing the digital divide and what is the role of ICT (information and communication
technologies) and/or OER (open educational resources) in terms of access to education?
2. Globalization of education and cross-cultural aspects: Aspects that refer to the global external environment and
drivers, the development of the global distance education market, teaching and learning in mediated global
environments, and the implications for professional development.
3. Distance teaching systems and institutions: Distance education delivery systems, the role of institutional
partnerships in developing transnational programmes, and the impact of ICT on the convergence of conventional
education and distance education institutions (hybrid or mixed mode).
4. Theories and models: Theoretical frameworks for and foundations of distance education, e.g., the theoretical basis of
instructional models, knowledge construction, interaction between learners, or the impact of social constructivism
learning theories on distance education practice.
5. Research methods in distance education and knowledge transfer: Methodological considerations, the impact of
distance education research and writing on practice, and the role of professional associations in improving practice.
Literature reviews and works on the history of distance education are also subsumed within this area.
Meso level: Management, organization, and technology.
6. Management and organization: Strategies, administration, and organizational infrastructures and frameworks for
the development, implementation, and sustainable delivery of distance education programmes. What is required for
successful leadership in distance education? Distance education and policies relating to continuing education, lifelong
learning, and the impact of online learning on institutional policies, as well as legal issues (copyright and intellectual
property).
7. Costs and benefits: Aspects that refer to financial management, costing, pricing, and business models in distance
education. Efficiency: What is the return on investment or impact of distance education programmes? What is the
impact of ICT on the costing models and the scalability of distance education delivery? How can cost effective but
meaningful learner support be provided?
8. Educational technology: New trends in educational technology for distance education (e.g., Web 2.0 applications or
mobile learning) and the benefits and challenges of using OERs, media selection (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous
media), technical infrastructure and equipment for online learning environments, and their opportunities for teaching
and learning.
9. Innovation and change: Issues that refer to educational innovation with new media and measures to support and
facilitate change in institutions (e.g., incentive systems for faculty, aspects referring to staff workloads, promotion, and
tenure).
10. Professional development and faculty support: Professional development and faculty support services as a
prerequisite for innovation and change. What are the competencies of online teachers and how can they be developed?
11. Learner support services: The infrastructure for and organization of learner support systems (from information and
counselling for prospective students about library services and technical support to career services and alumni
networks).
12. Quality assurance: Issues that refer to accreditation and quality standards in distance education. The impact of
quality assurance and high quality learner support on enrolments and dropout/ retention, as well as reputation and
acceptance of distance education as a valid form of educational provision.
Micro level: Teaching and learning in distance education.
13. Instructional design: Issues that refer to the stages of the instructional design process for curriculum and course
development. Special emphasis is placed on pedagogical approaches for tutoring online (scaffolding), the design of
(culturally appropriate) study material, opportunities provided by new developments in educational technology for
teaching and learning (e.g. Web 2.0 applications and mobile devices), as well as assessment practices in distance
education.
14. Interaction and communication in learning communities: Closely related to instructional design considerations is
course design that fosters (online) articulation, interaction, reflection, and collaboration throughout the learning and
teaching process. Special areas include the development of online communities, gender differences, and cross-cultural
aspects in online communication.
15. Learner characteristics: The aims and goals of adult learners, the socioeconomic Background of distance
education students, their different learning styles, critical thinking dispositions, and special needs. How do students learn
online (learner behavior patterns, learning styles) and what competencies are needed for distance learning (e.g., digital
literacy)?
Zawacki-Richter’s study is limited to English speaking experts, but it is significant to note that the
participants reflect the ideas of DE professionals across different countries and continents
334
(Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Fiji, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, UK, and
USA). Therefore, although the results may not be valid for some non-English speaking settings,
the fact that the participants come from different schools of thought makes the study rigorous in
reflecting the major research areas of study in DE.
In their follow up study, Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) used their typology of issues to categorize
695 articles, published between 2000 and 2008 in The American Journal of Distance Education
(AJDE), Distance Education (DE), The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning (IRRODL), The Journal of Distance Education (JDE) and Open Learning:
The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL). The articles were drawn from a wide variety
of topics within the scope of DE research. They concluded that issues about instructional design,
interaction and communication patterns in computer-mediated communication, learner
characteristics, and educational technology dominated DE research.
One of the major findings of this research was their attempt to tabulate the diversity of research
methods employed in DE. Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) found that qualitative research methods
were more widely used than other methods. Another significant trend is collaboration among
researchers. The researchers concluded that the proportion of single-authors was 44.2% in the
period between 2000 and 2008. Another research by Mishra (1997) concerning the collaboration
of authors concluded that 61.5% of articles were published by a single author between 1991 and
1996.
Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014) went one step further and provided a comprehensive
survey on the state of online distance education as an independent field of inquiry, while also
offering a clear orientation for future research. In their book Online Distance Education:
Towards a Research Agenda these research areas were discussed by leading DE researchers to
draw on their expert knowledge and professional experience to give an overview of the state of the
art in each research area and derive research needs based on that. Zawacki-Richter and Anderson
(2011), additionally, conducted a study to analyze the relationships and influences of 12 DE
journals using bibliographic description and social network analysis to investigate the structure
and patterns of information exchange within the field of DE research.
Purpose and Research Questions
DE is prone to continuous change in line with developments in technology and learning sciences,
a situation that opens the field up to new research areas in very short time spans. Moreover,
recent developments in open educational resources and massive open online courses (MOOCs)
have given the field a new dimension which has brought its own dynamics with it. Therefore,
there is a need to mirror the DE field to be able to understand and interpret the new dynamics,
namely DE trends. Berge and Mrozowski (2001) between 1990-1999 and Zawacki-Richter et al.
335
(2009) between 2000-2008 presented research trends in DE. Therefore, the year 2008 was
chosen as cutoff date for this study and authors examined the articles published between 2009-
2013 as a follow up research. The main goal of this study was to analyze the research articles
published in seven widely accepted journals in the field to be able to explore the current trends in
the field of DE research during the period 2009-2013. For this purpose the following research
questions were considered:
What are the most frequent/ly
1. indicated keywords,
2. chosen research areas,
3. emphasized theoretical/conceptual backgrounds,
4. employed research designs,
5. used data collection instruments and data analysis techniques,
6. focused variables,
7. targeted population and/or participant groups,
8. cited references,
9. cited authors
in DE research articles between 2009 and 2013?
Methodology
Research Design
For the purposes of the study, the authors chose to use content analysis to study empirical
documentation. Content analysis has been defined as a systematic, replicable technique for
compressing many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding
(Berelson, 1952). Since content analysis is a method of analyzing written, verbal or visual
communication messages which includes both qualitative and quantative approaches (Elo &
Kyngäs, 2008), it was deemed to be the most appropriate for the intent of this study. The authors
developed and set the criteria for the themes to be studied and the content of articles in the
selected journals was then coded according to these pre-set categories. Following the content
analysis, the findings were reported using descriptive analysis. Later, a social network analysis
336
was employed to analyze keywords in the selected articles to achieve a deeper comprehension
and distinguish the links between them.
Sample
Seven journals were reviewed for this study: The American Journal of Distance Education
(AJDE), Distance Education (DE), European Journal of Open Distance and e- Learning
(EURODL), Journal of Distance Education (JDE), Journal of Online Learning and Technology
(JOLT), Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (OL), The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL). The selection of the journals
was based on a preliminary review of journals in DE and educational technology. In the first
round, 82 journals were identified. The journals to be reviewed were filtered using the following
criteria:
• a specific focus on DE and open and distance learning context,

• refereed journals that are indexed by prominent databases,
• a publication history of 10 years or more,
• publication of articles in English (with the exception of Journal of DE which also
publishes a very limited number of articles in French).
Following the selection of the journals, a thorough review was made of all articles published
between 2009-2013 (N = 1,225). Of these, 861 were identified as research articles and the others,
that is to say 364, were identified as other (editorials, book reviews, interviews, concept papers,
position papers, reflection papers, field notes, technical notes, etc.). For this study, only the
research articles were used.
The research area classification schema that is used in this study is based on Zawacki-Richter’s
(2009) study, explained in the introduction and shown in Table 1. This research category and area
schema was adopted since it is rigorous due to its being based upon the views of experts in the
field of DE.
Categories related to methodology for coding largely follow those identified in Creswell (2012).
When a study did not fit into the categories identified by Creswell, the name of the method that
the writer of the article used was added into an existing category based on similarity of method
with others in that category.
Reliability
To increase reliability, thirteen researchers who have the same background in the Distance
Education Department at Anadolu University participated in this study. The researchers were
trained before conducting the study and the pre-set categories were defined before the review
process. Review of the articles took place in two rounds. Articles published annually were
reviewed by two researchers in the first round and a different set of two researchers cross-checked
and reviewed the selected articles again in the second round. Disagreed issues were discussed
337
within the group and coded only after the researchers who had reviewed those articles reached a
concensus.
The research question regarding research areas (Table 1) in DE was coded in the first round with
10 raters (2009: A-B; 2010: C-D; 2011: E-F; 2012: H-I; 2013: J-K). In the second round, the same
raters (2009: L-M; 2010: O-P; 2011: Q-R; 2012: S-T; 2013: V-W) were assigned as pairs for
different years. Inter-rater reliability for 2009, between rater A and L, was κ = .740; between B
and M, it was κ = .714. For 2010, between rater C and O, it was κ = .744; between D and P, it was κ
= .760. For 2011, between rater E and Q, it was κ = .813; between F and R, it was κ = .783. For
2012, between rater H and S, it was κ = .728; between I and T, it was κ = .837. For 2013, between
rater J and V, it was κ = .842; between K and W, it was κ = .826.
Table 2
Cohen's Kappa Values for Inter-Coder Reliability
Rounds Years
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1st A and L, C and O, E and Q, H and S, J and V,
round κ = .740 κ = .744 κ = .813 κ = .728 κ = .842
2nd B and M, D and P, F and R, I and T, K and W,

round κ = .714 κ = .760 κ = .783 κ = .837 κ = .826
Altman (1991) proposed that the extent of agreement can be qualified as poor (< 0.20), fair (0.21
to 0.40), moderate (0.41 to 0.60), good (0.61 to 0.80) and very good (0.81 to 1.00). Thus, the
reliability of raters A-L, B-M, C-O, D-P, F-R and H-S can be considered as acceptable. Besides, the
reliability of raters E-Q, I-T, J-V and K-W can be considered as quite acceptable.
Findings and Discussion
For this study, 1,225 articles were examined (Table 3). A total of 364 articles were excluded and
861 articles were included to content analysis and examined through the criteria determined.
338
Table 3
Journals and Number of Articles
JOURNALS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL (N)

American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE) 29 25 24 25 31 134
Distance Education (DE) 32 25 33 31 28 149
European Journal of Open, Distance and E- 16 12 12 30 23 93
Learning (EURODL)
Journal of Distance Education (JDE) 29 31 23 13 10 106
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) 59 76 54 29 45 263
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance 26 27 27 17 25 122

and e-Learning (OL)
The International Review of Research in Open 85 39 79 75 80 358
and Distance Learning (IRRODL)
ALL ARTICLES 276 235 252 220 242 1225
EXCLUDED* 110 66 89 41 58 364
INCLUDED 166 169 163 179 184 861
*Editorials, book reviews, interviews, concept papers, position papers, reflection papers, field notes, technical notes, FYIs,
CIDER notes
Keywords Indicated
The first finding of the research is based on a descriptive keyword analysis with an assumption
that keywords indicated in the articles provide a holistic reflection of the research paper topics. In
this study a total of 4,088 keywords (633 field specific and 3,455 research related) were included
in the study and ranked according to their frequency. Later, the field and the research specific
keywords were also analyzed separately.
Figure 1 shows the field specific keywords. As can be observed in Figure 1, the term “distance
education” is a generic term used to define this field. Another interesting finding concerns the
word “online” which is used as a descriptive term. It may be concluded that DE is getting more
dependent on the online technologies and there is a shift from traditional learning environments
or media to online learning environments or media. As a final remark, the term open and distance
learning (ODL) has appeared in increasing frequency especially in the last two years in
congruence with a decrease in the use of the term DE in the same time span. This change from DE
to ODL as a generic term might be a consequence of the openness movement in general and the
use of OER, MOOCs, Web 2.0 and open spirit on networked Web environments in particular.
339
Figure 1. Field specific keywords (N=633).
The second finding is about the use of research specific keywords (Figure 2). For this analysis, all
keywords were collected from papers and ranked according to their frequency of appearance in
the articles in general. As The Journal of Distance Education doesn’t provide keywords for the
articles, researchers defined keywords for the articles in this journal. For this analysis, all the
keywords were ranked and the top 40 keywords were included in this research. Keywords that
shared the same rank were ordered alphabetically.
This descriptive keyword analysis demonstrates a five-year trend from many points of view, such
as “OERs” as a movement, “mobile learning” as a technology based approach and “collaborative
learning” as a pedagogy which are all noteworthy. Links implied between keywords is a further
area deserving attention, for instance, the terms OERs, MOOCs and Web 2.0; interaction and
social presence; CoI (community of inquiry) and social networks may be related to one another
and could be evaluated as a group of keywords rather than terms having solo meanings.
340
Figure 2. Top 40 keywords indicated more often than others (N=3455).
The frequency count presents a descriptive analysis of the top 40 keywords. On the other hand, to
understand and quantify the influence and importance of the relationship among these keywords,
social network analysis (SNA) was conducted for the top 40 keywords and a complete network
model was visualized based on their relations using centrality distribution.
SNA is the mapping and measuring of relationships and flows between people, groups,
organizations, computers, or other information and knowledge processing entities (Krebs, 2002,
para. 1). The main goal of SNA is detecting and interpreting patterns of social ties among actors
(De Nooy, Mrvar and Batagelj, 2011, p. 5). These networks usually visualized in a social network
diagram, where nodes are represented as points and ties are represented as lines to conceptualize
and to analyze them.
For this analysis, the relationships of top 40 keywords (nodes) were identified on a 40x40 matrix
and then these nodes were tied to each other manually by using SNA software. Following that, the
raw data was visualized applying centrality measure analysis. As a result of this analysis, 40 nodes
and 914 ties (edges) were observed. In terms of node betweenness centrality, used to measure the
load and importance of a node, the keywords “learning” and “education” appeared as important
nodes (Figure 3). This finding also confirms Zawacki-Richter and Anderson’s (2014, p. 9)
341
conclusion that the majority of published research deals with topics and issues with regard to
“teaching” and “learning” processes in online distance education.
Figure 3. A circular node betweenness centrality diagram.
Research Areas
As has been mentioned, in this study, the classification developed by Zawacki-Richter (2009) is
used to define the research areas in DE. Upon analysis of the count numbers highlighted per year
in the meta-levels of DE research classification, it can be seen that there is a strong imbalance
between research areas and high over-representation of the micro level perspective. This finding
also demonstrates similarities to previous research findings (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009) and
confirms the results of their content analysis. It is also interesting to note that interaction and
communication in learning communities (13%), learner characteristics (12%), and instructional
design (11%) from micro levels and educational technology (15%) from meso level constitute 51%
342
of all research areas (Figure 4). The meso level finding for “Educational technology” also confirms
that DE is strongly related to technological developments. In addition to this peak in meso level,
the peaks in micro level reflect the very nature of DE research. For instance, the result for
“interaction and communication in learning communities” is based on web-based learning
environments and social network sites; “learner characteristic” is a consequence of individual
and learner centered approaches; and “instructional design” is a result of the emerging digital
learning environments.
Figure 4. Classification of research areas.
Theoretical/Conceptual Backgrounds
Since every research study should have adequate theoretical or conceptual backgrounds,
investigating the theoretical/conceptual backgrounds indicated in the research articles can
provide an insight about the current trends on what kinds of topics the researches are focusing on
in any field. Therefore, in this study the theories and/or concepts stated in the articles were
gathered and the top ten theories/concepts were ranked according to their frequency.
Theories/concepts that share the same rank are ordered alphabetically.
Those findings dealing with the theoretical/conceptual background of the articles indicate the
nature of the new learning paradigm of 21st century that focuses more on the learner rather than
instructor or administrator. CoI as a theory of knowledge formation and the process of scientific
343
inquiry rank as the most frequently used theoretical perspectives. Collaborative learning
emphasizing active interaction between learners follows theoretical perspectives in the rankings.
Constructivism, which argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from interactions
between their experiences and their ideas, is in third place. Connectivism as a learning theory for
the digital age, though it has a very recent history, is also in third place and this may be a result of
the growing impact of technology and networks on learning.
It is clear that theories that explain how learning occurs on networks (connectivism, social
networking) through collaboration in a community (community of inquiry, collaborative
learning, social learning theory, activity theory) by interaction, based on immersion (critical
thinking) and experience (constructivism, problem based learning, social constructivism theory)
are favored by DE researchers. In addition to this, researchers focused on delivery methods
(blended learning, mobile learning) that use multimedia elements (cognitive load theory) in
which psychological distance (transactional distance theory) and presence (social presence
theory) are important as well as learner dedication (self-regulated learning, self-directed
learning, motivation theory). From this perspective, design (instructional design theories) for
effective and efficient learning gained importance. After all, it wouldn’t be correct to attribute one
single dominant theory that reflects theoretical trend in DE, but it would be a better approach to
evaluate them as a whole since each theory intersects or overlaps at some points.
On the other hand, Table 4 also shows that DE research is still, naturally, based on the concepts
and the theories derived from the field of education. However, DE practice uses concepts,
principles, models and theories of many other fields, such as engineering, communication,
management, sociology and psychology. Therefore, it, most probably, would not be wrong to say
that as DE researchers we must widen our search for theoretical/conceptual base to other fields
than education and bring their concepts and theories into our field. That might help us develop
the maturity of DE as a scientific field of study.
Table 4
Theoretical/Conceptual Background
R* F** THEORY R* F** THEORY

1 22 Community of Inquiry 8 7 Cognitive Load Theory
2 16 Collaborative Learning 8 7 Motivation Theory
3 15 Constructivism 8 7 Problem Based Learning
3 15 Connectivism 8 7 Self-directed Learning
4 14 Blended Learning 8 7 Social Constructivism Theory
4 14 Transactional Distance Theory 8 7 Social Learning Theory
5 11 Mobile Learning 9 6 Social Networking
6 10 Activity Theory 10 5 Critical Thinking
6 10 Social Presence Theory 10 5 Instructional Design Theories
7 8 Self-regulated Learning
R*: Rank, F**:Frequency
344
Research Designs Employed

Similar to many other fields, in a DE research study we might employ a quantitative, qualitative,
or mixed research design. Table 5A presents what kinds of research design categories researchers
in the field of DE preferred over the last five years. Table 5B and 5C provide the preferences on
yearly bases. As shown in these tables the researchers in DE mostly conducted qualitative (47%)
and quantitative (37%) studies, and just a few employed mixed (16%) designs.
Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) reported rates of 29.1% quantitative, 19.9% qualitative, 12.9%
mixed and 38.1% other researches for 2000-2008 research trends (N=695). When comparing the
results of 2000-2008 with 2009-2013, it may be seen that there has been a shift in the preference
to qualitative and quantitative research design while mixed research design remains the same.
Table 5A
Percentage Of Research Methods Between 2009-2013
345
Table 5B
Bar Chart Of Research Methods (Percentage Was Calculated Separately For Each Year)
Table 5C
Line Chart Of Research Methods (Percentage Was Calculated Separately For Each Year)
As an extension of the previous findings, this section of the content analysis presents the DE
trends regarding research methodology (designs). Of all qualitative research designs, case studies
(66%) that focus on a descriptive, exploratory or explanatory analysis of a person, group or event
stand out. Design-based research (9%), phenomenology (7%), action research (5%), grounded
theory (4%), ethnography (3%), content analysis (2%), meta synthesis (1%), narrative (1%),
346
historical (1%) and heuristic (1%) research models constitute 44% of the research models while
case studies constitute 66% of all qualitative research design (Table 6). Berge and Mrozowski
(2001) also reported that case study is the most preferred qualitative research design model
(12.58%) between 1990 and 1999.
Of all quantitative research design models, a great majority of studies preferred survey (58%) as a
basic descriptive research model. The use of a correlational (29%) model that demonstrates the
relationship between variables and the experimental (11%) model used to test cause-and-effect
relationships between variables hold the next ranking positions. Finally, meta-analysis (2%) is
seen to constitute a minor part of quantitative research design (Table 6). This data reveals that
there is a need to conduct more quantitative correlational and experimental researches to
understand and dig deeper into DE.
These findings exhibit similarities with Berge and Mrozowski’s (2001) study for the research
trends of 1990-1999. They reported a percentage of 74.83% descriptive, 6.63% correlational,
5.96% experimental researches, all of which were quantitative research design models, and
12.58% case study, a qualitative research design model (N=890).
Based on these data, it can be assumed that most of the quantitative DE researches are descriptive
statistics which show or summarize sample data rather than inferential statistics which are used
to test hypotheses and make estimations using sample data. This finding also supports and
demonstrates a similarity to Panda’s (1992) conclusion for Indian distance education literature.
He reported that most studies were descriptive surveys or experimental studies with poor
methodological footing.
Of all the mixed research design models, the exploratory (55%) model, in which researchers
interpret how quantitative results build on initial qualitative results, and the explanatory (31%)
model, in which researchers interpret how qualitative results help to explain initial quantitative
results, constitute the majority of preferred research models. Convergent parallel (8%), embedded
(4%) and multiphase (2%) follow as the other mixed research models that are preferred by the
researchers (Table 6).
Saba (2000) reported that, in contrast to pure experimental researches, DE goes beyond the
narrow confines of experimentation and as a consequence began to use new methods in both
qualitative and quantitative forms. These findings confirm Saba and also demonstrate a radical
decrease in experimental research when compared to research conducted after the 50s.
It is also interesting that in qualitative (case studies), quantitative (survey) and mixed studies
(exploratory), one dominant research model has been used. However, assuming that DE is an
interdisciplinary field, a wide spectrum of research models may be used.
All in all, the findings obtained in this research reveal some interesting facts. In contrast to the
modern paradigm, the world in which we live is not bipolar, but the research nature of DE
347
basically evolves around qualitative and quantitative research designs. On the other hand, within
a post-modern perspective, more mixed research designs in which qualitative and quantitative
data collection methods are used may be employed.
Table 6
Research Designs and Models
Qualitative
%47 (N=349)
Content Analysis
Phenomenology
Action research
Meta-Synthesis
Design-based
Ethnography
Case Study
Grounded
Historical
Narrative
Heuristic
research
theory
%66 %9 %7 %5 %4 %3 %2 %1 %1 %1 %1
Quantitative
%37 (N=278)
Meta-analysis
Experimental
Correlational
comparative
Survey
Causal
%58 %29 %11 %2 %0
Longitudinal Cross-sectional Prediction Comparative Relatio Experime Quasi-
nship ntal experiment
al
Attitudes and
Comparison
Community
assessment
Evaluation
practices
National
Program
Cohort
Group
Trend
needs
Panel
Mixed
%16 (N=122)
Exploratory Explanatory Convergent Embedded Multiphase Transformative
sequential sequential parallel
%55 %31 %8 %4 %2 %0
Data Collection Tools and Strategies Used

The data collection instruments were also investigated in this study. As one can easily interpret by
looking at Figure 5, the surveys, interviews and document analyses are the most preferred tools in
the DE studies. A further analysis has shown that in the quantitative studies, the researchers most
frequently used questionnaires and in the qualitative studies they preferred document analyses
and interviews.
348
Figure 5. Data collection (instruments).
Davies, Howell and Petrie (2010) presented trends in research and scholarship between 1998 and
2007. They reported that the most frequently used data collection tools were survey (qualitative
and quantitative) (N=194), interviews (N=128), existing artifacts (document analysis) (N=59),
observations (N=17), researcher created assessments (N=16), existing test scores (N=16) and
standardized assessments (N=15). When compared, it is clear that there is a strong similarity with
current findings.
However, it was interesting to note that log statistics were not used as much as they should have
been since one of the latest and hottest topics discussed in the field is the learner analytics and
use of available data to be able to get an insight about learner behaviors in online learning
environments and to help them offer better, more customized learning opportunities.
Data Analysis Techniques Employed in the Studies

Table 7 presents the number of the data analysis techniques that were explicitly reported in the
investigated articles. This was one of the most difficult analysis due to the fact that there were
quite a number of articles that did not clearly inform about the data analysis technique(s) used,
and also some, including those mixed method studies, comprised a variety of techniques. Despite
these difficulties, the analysis has shown interesting findings.
As can be observed in Table 7, one half of the quantitative studies included descriptive statistics
(51%) and mainly used variability, central tendency and relative standing tests. Nonetheless, a
majority of the researchers (N=72) reported that they used descriptive statistics but didn’t report
which one of them was employed. In terms of inferential statistics (49%) parametric tests such as
variance analysis, t-test, correlation, factor analysis, regression analysis, reliability analysis and
structural equation modeling were extremely (85%) preferred while only in a few (15%) of the
349
articles that included quantitative studies, non-parametric tests such as Wilcoxon test, Mann
Whitney-U, Kruskal Wallis test, chi-square and Friedman’s two way analysis were employed.
Qualitative interpretive analysis generally uses content, thematic and discourse analysis in which
raw qualitative data is transcripted, coded, categorized and interpreted. These findings
demonstrate a similar trend in terms of quantitative statistical tests when compared to Davies,
Howell and Petrie’s (2010) research regarding trends in distance education scholarship at
research universities in North America between 1998 and 2007. They reported that most of the
studies in their sample used descriptive data analysis predominantly.
Table 7
Tests and Analyses
QUANTITATIVE
Statistical tests
Inferential (49%)
Descriptive (51%)
Parametric (85%) Non-parametric (15%)
Variability Variance analysis
163 71 Wilcoxon Test 16
(Variance-Standard Deviation- Range) (ANOVA/MANOVA/MANCOVA)
Central Tendency (mean-median-mode) 108 t-test 52 Mann Whitney U 15
Descriptive statistics (not specified) 72 Correlation (Pearson) 49 Kruskal Wallis Ttest 12
Factor Analysis
Relative Standing (percentage/ z-score) 11 48 Chi-square 6
(Confirmatory/Exploratory)
Friedman's two way
Regression analysis 41 2
analysis
Reliability analysis (Cronbach's Alpha) 24
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 3
QUALITATIVE
Interpretive Analysis (N=155)
Content analysis 76
Thematic analysis 74
Discourse analysis 5
Variables Focused in the Studies

Variables reported in the research studies examined were coded into main categories and ranked
by frequency of appearance.
350
Table 8
Variables Focused Most Often in the Articles Examined
R* F** VARIABLES R* F** VARIABLES

1 53 Perception 9 14 Effectiveness
2 43 Satisfaction 9 14 Self-efficacy
3 39 Gender 10 13 Collaboration
4 30 Interaction 11 12 Communication
5 25 Motivation 12 11 Delivery
6 21 Age 13 10 Academic-performance
6 21 Participation 13 10 Impact
7 18 Attitude 13 10 Social-presence
8 16 Experience
As can be seen in Table 8, variables usually focus on the feelings, emotions and behaviour of the
learners. ‘Satisfaction’ and ‘learner perception’ are the most often focused variables about
learners’ emotions and feelings while ‘gender’ and ‘age’ are demographic non-parametric
variables that have been examined more than other demographics in the investigated studies.
These results can easily be linked to increasing attention to learners, their individual differences
and the learner-centered approaches.
Population and/or Participant Groups

The research question regarding participants reveals interesting facts. As can be seen in Figure 6,
participants of the studies examined are mostly undergraduate students (31%), post graduate
students (10%) and academicians (10%). The fact that a total of 51% constitutes higher education
also explains why the field specific keyword (higher education) ranks fourth in the list (Figure 1).
This data reveals that DE focuses largely on higher education and there are only a few studies
conducted in K-12 settings. An important portion of the researchers reported that their target
groups were teachers (10%) and students (7%); on the other hand, researchers didn’t specify from
which education level they came. Adult learners (4%), administrators (4%) and K-12 students
(3%) appear in the list, respectively.
351
Figure 6. Target groups and participants.
In connection with these findings, DE education has roots in lifelong learning philosophy and
covers formal, informal and non-formal learning, a finding which reveals that any age or
occupation area can be a target group of these researches. On the other hand, K-12 students
representing the formal education level prior to higher education and adult learners representing
the latter education or learning process following higher education constitutes only 7% of total
target groups. One explanation for the connections may be that it is more convenient to work with
students from higher education since the researchers work in the same institutions. However, K-
12 is another setting in which DE is getting popularity (Lips, 2010; Queen & Lewis, 2011). It was
interesting to find that the research studies have not reached the expected level in K-12 settings,
yet. One easily can predict that there will be more DE research in K-12 settings in near future.
Authors Cited Most Often

In this part of this research, leading contributors in the field were determined in terms of the
number of citations (Table 9). The total number of citations was 53,800. A total of 105 authors
who have been cited at least 30 times are included in the table. Authors that share the same rank
are ordered alphabetically.
It was quite interesting to note that UNESCO is 38th on the list. It may mean that as an
institution, UNESCO has a key role for DE and lifelong learning. A full list of the most cited
authors (N=105) is given in Appendix A. In contrast to some researches (Lee et al., 2004), to
identify their significant impact to the field, not only first authors but also second, third and other
co-authors were counted with an assumption that every author contributes to these works.
Therefore, one should assume that collaborative works are more advantageous than solo works
since the authors who have more collaborative works counted more than once in Table 9.
352
Table 9
List of Most Cited Authors (Top 20)
R* F** Author R* F** Author R* F** Author

1 520 GARRISON, D.R. 8 129 SWAN, K. 15 94 ARBAUGH, J.B.
2 405 ANDERSON, T. 9 109 ROVAI, A.P. 16 90 WENGER, E.
3 208 MOORE, M.G. 10 105 ALLEN, I.E. 17 88 CLEVELAND-INNES, M
4 207 ARCHER, W. 11 103 SIEMENS, G. 18 81 WILEY, D.
5 145 SEAMAN, J. 12 102 DOWNES, S. 19 79 KANUKA, H.
6 135 SHEA, P. 13 101 BONK, C.J. 20 77 SALMON, G.
7 129 ROURKE, L. 14 100 GUNAWARDENA, C.N.
Another result we obtained from these findings is common citation mistakes. It is important to
cite references properly as well as to explain the research process in detail in order to help readers
reading and to show respect to the researchers who contributed to the relevant study and to the
field. It was observed that researchers whose name and surname consist of three parts (e.g. D. R.,
Garrison) or who have names of Far East origin (e.g. Chih-Hsiung Tu) were usually cited
incorrectly. To give an example, in some papers D.R. Garrison is cited as Garrison, D. R.,
Garrison, D., or Garrison, R. and Chih-Hsiung Tu is cited as Tu, C.H., Tu, C-H., or Tu, C. Though
not a research trend in itself, this problem is one of the points that made the analysis of the
citation trends quite difficult.
References Cited Most Often

This part of the content analysis regarding citation trends presents the most cited works (articles,
books, web sites, etc.) within the articles analyzed in the study. We believe that this list presents a
comprehensive citation trend and may help researchers as a reference guide and as a reading list
for those who study in this field (Table 10). This table was created by filtering 28,500 references
that have been cited at least 10 times. Studies sharing the same rank were ordered by the
publication date and if two studies had the same rank and publication date, they were ordered
alphabetically. Older studies were ranked at the end and newer studies are ranked at the
beginning. References were also categorized according to their type (article, book, book chapter,
etc.).
353
Table 10
The Reference List of Most Cited Studies (Top 15)
R* F** T*** References

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferenc
1 62 A
in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2), 87-105.
2 53 B Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press
3 51 B Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A Systems View. Canada: Wadsworth.
4 43 A Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance educatio
5 40 C
(p 22-38) New York: Routledge.
6 35 B Jean. Lave, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
6 35 B Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online
7 34 R
Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Consortium,
7 34 R
Newburyport.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and futur
7 34 A
directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing
7 34 A
context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
7 34 B Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Psychology Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Taylor
8 33 B
Francis.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
9 32 W
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
10 31 B Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium
11 30 R
Newburyport.
Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of
12 28 R
State-Level Policy and Practice, 2009. Evergreen Education Group.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching
12 28 A
courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1), 93-135.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing
12 28 A
distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23.
12 28 B Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not
13 27 A
enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and
14 24 A
Learning Objects, 3, 29-44.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open
15 23 B
educational resources. OECD Publishing.
R*: Rank , F**:Frequency, T***:Type (A: Article, B:Book, BL: Bulletin, C:Chapter, P: Paper, R: Report, W: Web Page)
354
Summary and Future Implications
The results of this study reveal research trends and issues in DE emerging from scholarly
publishing in seven prestigious journals. This study intends to present the current situation and
provides a research direction for future research. The results can be summarized as follows. The
generic term defining the field is “distance education” and another term “open and distance
learning” has been used more and more as a consequence of the paradigm shift in education. The
analysis of research specific keywords clearly indicates that DE demonstrates quick responses to
emerging research topics. A holistic analysis of these keywords through social network analysis
demonstrates that “learning” is the major topic in the field naturally. Open education resources
(OERs) and mobile learning are new topics over the last five years DE researchers also focused on
along with older topics, such as collaborative learning and teacher training.
The analysis of research areas portrays that educational technology from meso level, interaction
and communication in learning communities, learner characteristics, and instructional design
from micro levels are the most studied areas and constitute 51% of all fifteen research areas.
Another result obtained through this study is that DE researchers employ different theoretical
frameworks to explain and explore the DE field which also reflects the interdisciplinary nature of
the field.
In terms of methodology, DE usually preferred qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research

designs, respectively. Most of the qualitative studies used case study, quantitative studies used
survey, and mixed studies used exploratory and explanatory research models. It can be also seen
that qualitative researches preferred interviews (one-to-one and focus group), document analysis
and observation while quantitative researches used questionnaires and scales to collect data. In
the quantitative research studies, descriptive and inferential statistics were used almost equally.
In the qualitative research, content and thematic analysis to interpret the data collected were
generally preferred. Variables focused in the studies are usually concerned with learners’ feelings,
emotions and behaviors. Gender and age seem to be indispensable demographic variables of the
studies. The main participants of these research studies still appeared to be learners in higher
education, but there is a trend of focusing more on participants from the K-12 settings.
In the final part of the study, the most cited authors and references were presented. In addition to
providing leading researchers and important references, descriptive analysis of citation trends
proved once again that DE uses knowledge of the past and present to be able to foresee the future.
Regarding the results of this study, the following implications can be taken into consideration for
future researches:
• There are many terms defining the DE field. Even though they all look similar, they reflect
unique aspects of the field. Thus, researchers need to select appropriate field specific terms
that reflect the core of the study. However, it seems the term ‘open and distance learning’ is a
355
better name for our field of study since it reflects the core assumptions of the field: openness,
accessibility, flexibility, massiveness, and quality learning opportunities to all.
• This study presented the most and the least studied research areas in the field. Considering
that DE is a system, those neglected areas should be studied more in order to contribute to
and improve the field. The authors of the present paper believe further study into why some
research areas appear to be less popular would contribute richly to future research. The
studies should not focus on only general characteristics of the learners, such as gender and
age, but also various individual differences including cognitive processes, learning strategies,
cultural differences. Additionally, we need studies examining the learning processes in
informal, non-formal learning environments as well as OERs and MOOCs to be able to
provide better learning opportunities. Bringing concepts, principles, models and theories
from a variety of fields – especially from those that we use in DE practices often – might be
beneficial for the development of the field. Especially, graduate students must be encouraged
to use theoretical/conceptual backgrounds from different fields. For instance, business
management field is a rich field of study that might help enlighten some of the issues of our
field such as business models for MOOCs, OERs, recognition of prior learning.
• As an interdisciplinary field, we believe that rather than using specific research designs and
models, researchers may use a variety of them to understand and to delve more deeply into
the area. Especially mixed designs might help scientific development of the field. It is seen
that participants and target groups are generally adult learners from higher education.
However, we believe that research that targets K12 students might be conducted more
considering the increasing use of e-learning in K12 settings.
356
References
Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
Berge, Z. L., & Mrozowski, S. (2001). Review of research in distance education, 1990 to 1999.
American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 5-19.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Davies, R., Howell, S., & Petrie, J. (2010). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at
research universities in North America, 1998-2007. The International Review Of
Research In Open And Distance Learning, 11(3), 42-56.
De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek
(Vol. 27). Cambridge University Press.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet
and Higher Education, 3(1), 41-61.
Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. Thousand Oaks etc.:
Sage.
Jegede, O. J. (1994). Distance education research priorities for Australia: A study of the opinions
of distance educators and practitioners. Distance Education, 15(2), 234-253.
Krebs, V. (2000). Social network analysis, a brief introduction. Retrieved from

http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html
Lee, Y., Driscoll, M. P., & Nelson, D. W. (2004). The past, present, and future of research in
distance education: Results of a content analysis. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 18(4), 225-241.
Lips, D. (2010, January 10). How online learning is revolutionizing K–12 education and
benefiting students. Backgrounder, 2356.
Mishra. S. (1997). A critical analysis of periodical literature in distance education. Indian Journal
of Open Learning, 6(1&2), 39-53.
357
Panda, S. (1992). Distance educational research in India: Stock-taking, concerns and prospects.
Distance Education, 13(2), 309–26.
Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary
school students: 2009-10 (NCES 2012-009). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. The International

Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational

Telecommunications, 1(4), 337-65.
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: a Delphi study. International

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2011). The geography of distance education-bibliographic

characteristics of a journal network. Distance Education, 32(3), 441-456.
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2014). Online distance education: Towards a research
agenda. Edmonton, Canada: AU Press.
Zawacki‐Richter, O., & von Prümmer, C. (2010). Gender and collaboration patterns in distance
education research. Open Learning, 25(2), 95-114.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Bäcker, E. M., & Vogt, S. (2009). Review of distance education research
(2000 to 2008): Analysis of research areas, methods, and authorship patterns.
International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 10(6).
358
Appendix A
List of the most cited authors (N=105)
R* F** Author R* F** Author R* F** Author

1 520 GARRISON, D.R. 34 51 JONASSEN, D.H. 50 35 KOP, R.
2 405 ANDERSON, T. 35 49 BOROKHOVSKI, E. 50 35 McISAAC, M.S.
3 208 MOORE, M.G. 36 48 CAVANAUGH, C. 50 35 OLIVER, R.
4 207 ARCHER, W. 36 48 ICE, P. 51 34 CONRAD, D.
5 145 SEAMAN, J. 36 48 HOLMBERG, B. 51 34 HARA, N.
6 135 SHEA, P. 37 47 CASPI, A. 51 34 LAURILLARD, D.
7 129 ROURKE, L. 37 47 CRESWELLJ, W. 51 34 LAVE, J.
8 129 SWAN, K. 38 46 ROBLYER, M.D. 51 34 TINTO, V.
9 109 ROVAI, A.P. 38 46 UNESCO 52 33 LAN, W.Y.
10 105 ALLEN, I.E. 39 45 BROWN, J.S. 52 33 PICKETT, A.M.
11 103 SIEMENS, G. 40 44 RICHARDSON, J.C. 52 33 RICHARDSON, J.T.E.
12 102 DOWNES, S. 41 43 GORSKY, P. 52 33 VELETSIANOS, G.
13 101 BONK, C.J. 41 43 GRAHAM, C.R. 53 32 BATES, A.W.
14 100 GUNAWARDENA, C.N. 41 43 MASON, R. 53 32 HILL, J.R.
15 94 ARBAUGH, J.B. 41 43 MURPHY, E. 53 32 KELLER, J.M.
16 90 WENGER, E. 42 42 MAYER, R.E. 53 32 MISHRA, P.
17 88 CLEVELAND, INNES, M 43 41 BERGE, Z. 53 32 PERRATON, H.
18 81 WILEY, D. 43 41 DEWEY, J. 53 32 PINTRICH, P.R.
19 79 KANUKA, H. 43 41 KIRSCHNER, P.A. 53 32 TAIT, A.
20 77 SALMON, G. 44 41 SABA, F. 53 32 TAYLOR, J.
21 68 CONOLE, G. 45 40 RUMBLE, G. 54 31 COLLIS, B.
21 68 PRATT, K. 45 40 TU, C.H. 54 31 JOHNSON, D.W.
22 66 HILTZ, S.R. 45 40 ZIMMERMAN, B.J. 54 31 OLIVER, M.
23 65 ABRAMI, P.C. 46 39 CLARK, T. 54 31 POTTER, C.S.
24 63 SWELLER, J. 46 39 LINCOLN, Y.S. 55 30 CHICKERING, A.W.
25 62 PALLOFF, R.M. 46 39 MCLOUGHLIN, C. 55 30 DANIEL, J.
26 61 BARBOUR, M.K. 46 39 PICKETT, A. 55 30 FAHY, P.J.
26 61 BERNARD, R.M. 47 38 DAVIS, F.D. 55 30 MEANS, B.
27 58 BERGE, Z.L. 47 38 PICCIANO, A.G. 55 30 NACHMIAS, R.
28 57 KEARSLEY, G. 48 37 SHARPLES, M. 55 30 PAAS, F.
29 56 DRON, J. 49 36 LIU, X. 55 30 PAULSEN, M.F.
30 54 BANDURA, A. 49 36 LOU, Y. 55 30 PETERS, O.
31 54 KEEGAN, D. 49 36 REEVES, T.C. 55 30 PRENSKY, M.
32 52 SIMPSON, O. 49 36 SWAN, K.P. 55 30 TRAXLER, J.
33 51 VYGOTSKY, LS. 50 35 HURD, S. 55 30 VAUGHAN, N.
359
Appendix B
The reference list of most cited works

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing
1 62 A
in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2), 87-105.
2 53 B Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
3 51 B Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A Systems View. Canada: Wadsworth.
4 43 A Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education.
5 40 C
(p 22-38) New York: Routledge.
6 35 B Jean. Lave, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
6 35 B Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online
7 34 R
Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Consortium,
7 34 R
Newburyport.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future
7 34 A
directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teacher presence in a computer conferencing
7 34 A
context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
7 34 B Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Psychology Press.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Taylor &
8 33 B
Francis.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
9 32 W
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
10 31 B Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium,
11 30 R
Newburyport.
Watson, J., Gemin, B., Ryan, J., & Wicks, M. (2009). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning: An Annual Review of
12 28 R
State-Level Policy and Practice, 2009. Evergreen Education Group.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching
12 28 A
courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1), 93-135.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in
12 28 A
distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7-23.
12 28 B Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not
13 27 A
enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and
14 24 A
Learning Objects, 3, 29-44.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open
15 23 B
educational resources. OECD Publishing.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. Sloan Consortium,
16 22 R
Newburyport.
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher
17 22 A
Education, 46(23), A39-A41.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M. & Huang, B.
18 21 A (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical
literature. Review of educational research, 74(3), 379-439.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online
18 21 A
course. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1), 21-40.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction
18 21 B
Publishers.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. International Review of Research
19 20 A
in Open & Distance Learning, 12(3).
Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of
19 20 A
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136.
Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). An examination of social presence in online learning: Students’ perceived learning
19 20 A
and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
19 20 A Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon,9(5), 1-6.
360
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International
20 19 A
20 19 B Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Psychology Press.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated
20 19 A
conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood
20 19 B
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
21 18 B
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman
Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully
21 18 A
online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
21 18 B Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
21 18 B Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. Sloan Consortium,
22 17 R
Newburyport.
Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement:
22 17 R
Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities (pp. 1-84). Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The
22 17 A
internet and higher education,7(2), 95-105.
22 17 B Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
22 17 B Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and
23 16 A
collaboration. Distance education, 27(2), 139-153.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom.
23 16 B
John Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications,
23 16 B
inc.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
23 16 A
researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
23 16 B Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An
24 15 A
extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
OLCOS. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Austria: OLCOS Project
25 14 R
Consortium.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance
25 14 A
education, 26(1), 29-48.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The Effects of Distance Education on K-12
25 14 A Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
(NCREL).
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement,
25 14 A satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-
162.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning
25 14 B
technologies. Routledge.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American
25 14 A
journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150.
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology
25 14 A
course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115-152.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
25 14 A
quarterly, 319-340.
25 14 B Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, inc.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines.
26 13 B
John Wiley & Sons.
26 13 B Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
Tabs, E. D., Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001.
26 13 R
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
361
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher
26 13 A
Education, 5(3), 197-211.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. John Wiley &
26 13 B
Sons.
Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to
26 13 A
transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
26 13 B Bates, A. T. (1995). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge.
26 13 B Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications, inc.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through
26 13 C
computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki,
26 13 B
Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010. Sloan Consortium,
27 12 R
Newburyport.
Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers &
27 12 A
Education, 52(2), 402-416.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008).
27 12 A Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-
institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133-136.
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal
27 12 A
education. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(1).
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual Schools: Trends and Issues. A Study of Virtual Schools in the United States. San Francisco, CA:
27 12 R
Western Regional Educational Laboratories.
27 12 B Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of
27 12 A
computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 12, 8-22.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of
27 12 B
Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Bullen, M. (1999). What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance
27 12 A
Learning in Higher Education by Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis. The Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 109-112.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE
27 12 BL
bulletin, 3, 7.
Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C.C. Gibson
27 12 C (ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp.97-112). Madison, Wi.:
Atwood.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications,
27 12 B
inc.
McIsaac, M.S. & Gunawardena, C.N. (1996). Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for
27 12 C educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
27 12 B
grounded theory. SAGE Publications, inc.
27 12 B Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1979). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
28 11 A
knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the
28 11 A
effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with
28 11 A
Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 5(2).
28 11 A Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning, 19(1).
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of
28 11 A
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous
28 11 A
online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331.
Ronald, P., & Jamie, M. (2000). Quality on the line-Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. The
28 11 R
Institute for Higher Education Policy.
28 11 B Perraton, H. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. Routledge.
362
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in
28 11 A
computer conferences. International journal of educational telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
28 11 B Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill International.
28 11 B Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
28 11 B Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
28 11 B Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education. Psychology Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of educational
28 11 A
research, 45(1), 89-125.
Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In Networked Learning
29 10 P
Conference (pp. 266-275). University of Lancaster.
29 10 A Bissell, A. N. (2009). Permission granted: open licensing for educational resources. Open Learning, 24(1), 97-106.
Iiyoshi, T., & Kumar, M. V. (Eds.). (2008). Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through
29 10 B
open technology, open content, and open knowledge. MIT Press.
Rice, K. L. (2006). A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K-12 Context. Journal of Research on
29 10 A
Technology in Education, 38(4).
Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. The American Journal of Distance
29 10 A
Education, 20(2), 65-77.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college
29 10 A
courses: The role of teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2004). Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based,
29 10 A
Computer Conferencing. Journal of distance education, 14(2).
29 10 B Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to
29 10 A
traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education,16(2), 83-97.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and
29 10 A
Distance Learning, 3(1).
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning
29 10 A
networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous learning
29 10 A
networks, 5(1), 21-34.
Jonassen, D. (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design
29 10 C theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Russell, T. L. (1999). No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional
29 10 B
Telecommunications, North Carolina University
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an
29 10 A interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of
educational computing research, 17(4), 397-431.
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations from the Field. Educational
29 10 A
Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2),
29 10 A
6-29.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory. Englewood Cliffs, New York:
29 10 B
Pretince Hall.
29 10 B Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Pretince Hall.
R*: Rank , F**:Frequency, T***:Type (A: Article, B:Book, BL: Bulletin, C:Chapter, P: Paper, R: Report, W: Web Page)
© Bozkurt, Akgun-Ozbek, Yilmazel, Erdogdu, Ucar, Guler, Sezgin, Karadeniz, Sen-Ersoy, Goksel-
Canbek, Dincer, Ari, and Aydin
363

Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document generated on 10/28/2020 10:04 a.m.

International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning

Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of

Volume 16, Number 1, February 2015 Article abstract

This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.

Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content

In his study, Zawacki-Richter (2009) developed a categorization of research areas in DE and

Classification of Research Areas in Distance Education (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009)

Macro level: Distance education systems and theories.

Purpose and Research Questions

What are the most frequent/ly

2. chosen research areas,

3. emphasized theoretical/conceptual backgrounds,

4. employed research designs,

5. used data collection instruments and data analysis techniques,

7. targeted population and/or participant groups,

in DE research articles between 2009 and 2013?

• a specific focus on DE and open and distance learning context,

Cohen's Kappa Values for Inter-Coder Reliability

2nd B and M, D and P, F and R, I and T, K and W,

Findings and Discussion

Journals and Number of Articles

JOURNALS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL (N)

Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance 26 27 27 17 25 122

Figure 1. Field specific keywords (N=633).

Figure 2. Top 40 keywords indicated more often than others (N=3455).

Figure 3. A circular node betweenness centrality diagram.

Figure 4. Classification of research areas.

R* F** THEORY R* F** THEORY

Research Designs Employed

Percentage Of Research Methods Between 2009-2013

Research Designs and Models

Data Collection Tools and Strategies Used

Figure 5. Data collection (instruments).

Data Analysis Techniques Employed in the Studies

Tests and Analyses

Variables Focused in the Studies

Variables Focused Most Often in the Articles Examined

R* F** VARIABLES R* F** VARIABLES

Population and/or Participant Groups

Figure 6. Target groups and participants.

Authors Cited Most Often

List of Most Cited Authors (Top 20)

R* F** Author R* F** Author R* F** Author

References Cited Most Often

The Reference List of Most Cited Studies (Top 15)

R* F** T*** References

Summary and Future Implications

In terms of methodology, DE usually preferred qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative

Krebs, V. (2000). Social network analysis, a brief introduction. Retrieved from

Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. The International

Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational

Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: a Delphi study. International

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2011). The geography of distance education-bibliographic

R* F** Author R* F** Author R* F** Author

R* F** T*** References

You might also like

R* F T* References

R* F T* References