International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design

Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

Effective eLearning and Transformative

ABSTRACT

This research exposed gaps in the current literature for online learning and transformative pedagogical
strategies in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programs. These voids were
explored, and new blended strategies were provided to encourage online educators to develop effective
pedagogical designs in STEM programs. Online education is no longer thought of as a passing trend,
but as a viable alternative to traditional educational teaching methods. STEM educators need to
develop online learning platforms that are flexible and effective, that enrich the student’s experience
while not diminishing the intellectual growth of the learner. This will help build learner cohesion
and a more stable and effective learning environment, one that has the opportunity to develop into a
community of learning. Research indicates that the STEM areas of study require a different pedagogical
design than those in other curricula such as liberal arts and social science programs, specifically in
the area of developing Higher Order Cognitive Skills (HOCS) in learners. This paper focuses on
the pedagogical designs that will enable universities to successfully establish STEM online learning
programs at their institutions.

Keywords
eLearning, Online Learning, Online Pedagogy, Pedagogical Strategies, Self-directed Autonomous Learners,
STEM Online Pedagogy

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing need for universities to develop effective online STEM programs within their
institutions. This need is being driven by the evolution of higher education and a paradigm shift of
educational methods. Palvia et al. (2018) noted that as college enrollments in the United States are
declining, online enrollments have been increasing. In fact, online enrollment has steadily increased
over the past 14 consecutive years. Palvia further stated that in 2016, 19 million students were enrolled
in the United States with greater than 6 million enrolled in online learning courses. This proportional
increase of online learning students now represents more than 30% of all university students. This
is a significant increase from a 2004 estimate of 2 million higher education students who attended
online learning courses (Kentnor, 2015). The statistics demonstrate that the traditional face-to face
educational teaching methods is dramatically shifting to an online learning/teaching approach and is
why academic leaders view this type of platform as critical to their institution’s long-term interests.
STEM education has been identified as a critical component in the U.S. educational system. The
country’s need for growth and expansion in technological innovation is ever growing. Montgomery

DOI: 10.4018/IJOPCD.2020040105

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


61
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

and Fernández-Cárdenas (2018) stated, “If STEM is going to make a societal change, it is necessary
to increase the scale of the educational impact, growing from a selection of interesting cases and
associations towards a wider ranging systemic effect” (p. 7). Montgomery and Fernández-Cárdenas
also noted people educated in STEM gravitate to careers in industry vs education. The most proficient
in the STEM field tend to choose the higher salaries offered in industry than those provided in the
educational field. Having these highly proficient and capable STEM graduates will fuel the expansion
and growth of technological innovation in U.S. industry. Consequently, the need has never been
greater for an effective pedagogical design for STEM online learning due to the dramatic rise of
online learners in higher education.
Though the need is great the transformation will not be easy. Researchers have identified
challenges and limitations within most current online learning environments. Baran, et. al (2011)
suggested, “This growing interest in online education challenges higher education institutions as well
to rethink their cultural, academic, organizational, and pedagogical structures in adapting to a new
culture of teaching and learning” (p. 421). Baran’s research findings exposed some transformational
gaps that existed in the evolution of online learning.

TRANSFORMATION

A transformation is occurring but the shift from traditional to online learning methods has not
gone smoothly. Aspects of transformative educational methods need to be incorporated in this
pedagogical shift. Transformative education is one that considers four key components: personal,
relational, institutional, and community (Markos & McWhinney, 2003). First regarding the personal
component, the student needs to gain academic understanding, feel a sense of belonging, and to be
free to seek out knowledge. The relational component involves the use of dialogue and encouraging
deep engagement. STEM online educators should help build a sense of connectivity between the
class, the instructor, the university, and academia. Next regarding the institutional component, the
university must provide the environment, the processes, and the tools for transformation. The final
component is community, that is to encourage students to engage in social action and realize the need
for social responsibility to gain a sense of holism (Markos & McWhinney, 2003). The transformative
educational methods noted above need to be incorporated in today’s pedagogical design to build an
effective learning experience for students.
Gazan et.al (2018) suggested some critical factors to developing an effective pedagogy for
STEM online education. Gavan stated, “Participative resources and practices have been associated
with the success, retention, and persistence of postsecondary students in STEM education, including
cocurricular activities, peer support, and mentoring through learning communities (p. 5). Gavan’s
research findings clearly align with the successful pedagogical factors noted by Markos and
McWhinney (2003) and this research study.
Researchers have identified that the lack of an effective pedagogical design as a primary reason
for the ineffective roll out of online learning environments. In addition to the lack of an effective and
transformative online learning pedagogy, Kentnor (2015) noted that institutional support for online
learning by some educational leaders also contributed to the failures of this new online method
during its initial introduction to universities around the country. These educational leaders lacked an
understanding of the differences between online learning and traditional methods, which extended
to a lack of consideration aimed at the need for distinctly different pedagogies for online education.
In addition to the educational leaders, university faculty members also resisted and challenged the
introduction of online educational platforms as an effective or legitimate method of education and
initially withheld their support for this type of platform. As such, many did not take care in addressing
the unique complexities of online education when developing online learning pedagogies.

62
 International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

LEARNER ENGAGEMENT

Online learning offers students the option of taking a course and engaging with instructors without
having to travel to a physical location. Online learning creates ways for students to achieve their higher
education goals while balancing work and family obligations. The flexibility of learning from one’s
own home comes with its own set of challenges that certain learners may not be capable of overcoming
(Keebler, 2009). Consequently, STEM online educators who engage transformational strategies with
appropriate accompanying support systems, will develop the necessary tools and skillset to engage and
guide students through the hidden challenges of online learning within a well-developed pedagogy
that effectively engages students. According to Lim (2004), online educators noted three predictors
that lead to the success of the online learner; the learner has the necessary strategies to work through
the content and the technology, they have the necessary knowledge to learn from the content, and
they have the appropriate attitude to work independently.
STEM online educators should seek to use a pedagogical design that is developed for online
learners who have essentially no knowledge or understanding of the course content, nor navigating
through the learning management systems (LMS). STEM online educators must clearly understand
the importance of covering introductory or ‘learning how to learn’ type activities guiding the students
through how to navigate the technology, where to find resources, response strategies, and appropriate
use of online learning tools during the initial week of the course (Northedge, 2002). It is important
to develop a course that uses a structure that is both informative and guiding; one method is through
the use of framing strategies as a way to put the weekly objectives into context for the student.
Northedge (2002) suggested, “Framing is a vital opening maneuver. This does not mean talking in
grand abstractions. It means starting where the student is and using strong examples to establish the
issues the course is setting out to address” (p. 263). Framing is a vital component that needs to be
integrated in a STEM online learning pedagogy.
Other strategies to consider include scaffolding and discussions. Lim (2004) suggested that
scaffolding, and regular discussions are two ways instructors can address lack of prior knowledge.
Scaffolding has been noted by researchers as a positive and effective transformational educational
bridging method that should be used when considering an online pedagogy design. Salyers et al.
(2014) stated, “Scaffolding is a framework that enables the learner to pace his or her learning and
experience it as manageable chunks” (p. 3). Scaffolding can be implemented via today’s LMS’ using
readily available adaptive learning software.
Student readiness is a concern of STEM online educators, not from a knowledge of course
content or LMS perspective but from an autonomous learner perspective. Some online learners
enter courses lacking the prerequisite autonomous learning attributes to be successful. Williams van
Rooij and Zirkle (2016) noted, “faculty teaching online line began to raise doubts among both faculty
and administration about the readiness of students…issues related to time management, focus and
initiative seemed to be the greatest online student challenges” (p. 3). Simply put, the self-directed
or autonomous learners must have the capability and desire to learn, one in which the learner has a
goal to reach that has a meaningful outcome.
STEM educators need to consider a student’s cognitive load as a limiting factor when designing
an effective online pedagogy. Therefore, it is extremely important for educators to remember students
are constrained to a set number of hours each week to devote to studying, consequently instructors
must be cognizant of workload they give their students. Instructors often fail to effectively blend
all the components of the course; homework, reading, assessment, and studying for each week’s
objectives (Northedge, 2002).
Ineffective STEM online learning pedagogies rarely take into account the student’s cognitive load.
This inattention or more specifically stated, poor pedagogical design, may create an unreasonable
workload that students would have trouble navigating. A more effective method would be to
strategically design a course that helps a student develop a routine in order to have students establish

63
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

a weekly rhythm. According to Northedge (2002), once the structure and workload are properly
addressed the instructor needs to ‘hook’ the students in the weekly framing to engage them in the
content and developing an attitude of persistence.

GROWTH, INNOVATION AND COMMUNITY

STEM has gained international attention over the past two decades. The benefits of STEM education
were initially driven by the economic and skill development benefits they provide to a nation that
advances in these areas. Montgomery and Fernandez-Cardenas (2018) argued,
There is an assumed, generic link between STEM and the fostering of productivity, technological
innovation and the growth of national economies and their GDP. STEM education is thus becoming
an increasingly significant focus for governments and for educational policy worldwide, with a high
proportion of educational research and practice funding being earmarked to develop STEM (p. 2).
This assumption has led to countries investing in the real-world progress through the advancement
of STEM programs whose long-term economic benefits cannot be understated. As such, STEM
educators need to develop online learning platforms that are flexible and effective, that enrich the
student’s experience while not diminishing the intellectual growth of the learner.
STEM teaching in an online learning environment requires significant investment and resolve
by the university as well as the educator. From the educator’s perspective, they need to invest
time and energy in the development and ultimate deployment of the online learning course. The
pedagogical design must be well developed and easy to navigate. The design cannot not just be
that of a slightly modified traditional methods design, it must be transformative. Conceicao (2007)
shared this understanding by stating, “An online course is not simply a traditional course translated
into a Web language. The instructor needs to rethink the learner role, the teacher role, and the design
of instruction in this new environment” (p. 5). This new environment extends past the traditional
teacher/student dyadic relationship, to a much broader dialogism. That is a dialogism that includes:
educators, students, community actors within the university and society as a whole (Montgomery &
Fernandez-Cardenas, 2018). This dialogic strategy is aligned with, and is part of, the transformative
strategies and STEM online pedagogy designs required to effectively manage an online learning
environment. Montgomery and Fernandez-Cardenas (2018) suggested,
These dialogic transformative partnerships aim to move away from the conception of STEM
as content towards the relocation of STEM in local settings. A crucial element of this is enabling
teachers and teacher educators to understand their own role and the role of their own knowledge in
STEM education, not as conveyors of knowledge but as dialogic partners in co-construction in the
local community (p. 8).
Montgomery and Fernandez-Cardenas made a powerful statement that identifies the dialogic
partnership and co-construction of a knowledge-based community as an integral part in the develop
of effective STEM online learning pedagogy. Implementation of these strategies will help further the
evolution of higher education with STEM programs, by effectively addressing the paradigm shift in
educational methods and integrating transformative online learning pedagogical designs.
Designing a STEM online pedagogy that employs the use of dialogue and simulations can help
learners engage the material in a constructive way, allowing them to develop a positive attitude toward
learning. These methods can help build students skills and prepare them for problems solving in their
STEM related courses. Lim (2004) argued, “In the online learning environment, simulations-based
objects using applets provide opportunities for learners to explore abstract concepts and relationships
anywhere, and anytime, at their own pace” (p. 21). The use of these types of simulations meet three
pedagogy needs: learners have direct access to how the objective behaves, it gives the learners integral
feedback on their interaction, and provides real-world application with the content.

64
 International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Learning Managements Systems are the primary tool used to deliver online learning to millions of
higher education students, as such LMS’ are a powerful online educational tool. Feldstein (2018)
noted the top U.S. LMS’ in use in colleges and universities throughout the country, broken-out by
market share. These industry leading LMS’ included: Canvas (~28%), BlackBoard (~28%), Moodle
(~23%), Brightspace (~12%), Others (~6%), Sakai (~3%), and Schoology (~1%). The advancement
in LMS technologies has created more flexibility and powerful platforms for institutions to deploy.
The design and management of the LMS tool is critical to the enrichment and success of the
STEM online learner and to further the development of Higher Order Cognitive Skills (HOCS).
Mbarika et al. (2010) noted the challenges of developing a pedagogy for teaching technical concepts
in educational environments, especially in the area of HOCS. Mbarika et al. stated, “The need to
create active customized learning environments to capture and hold student motivation and continuous
learning desire, for different IT tools, is acknowledged.” (p. 24). The LMS must be designed using an
effective STEM online learning pedagogy in order to provide the learner with the essential tools to be
successful. In these terms, essential does not mean minimum or limited, rather all the tools needed
for learner to grow and develop within an online learning environment. An effective LMS needs to
include the elements of transformative education which includes a personal component, a relational
component, an institutional component, and a community component. That is, a system that offers
for the learner, a sense of belonging, encourages deep engagement, includes the tools and processes
needed to be successful and encourages social action.
Claar et al. (2014) provided a detailed study on LMS’ and noted some of the key aspects that set
one LMS above another from the view of the institution, educator, and student. The study measured
several technology acceptance factors such as: Perceived Ease of Use (PE), Perceived Usefulness
(PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PE), and Behavioral Intentions to use (BI). These factors impact the
successful selection and implementation of an LMS.
Levin and Hansen (2008) performed a study to investigate the role that technology plays in
learning. The study specifically tried to answer the question whether the form of technology used
affects its relationship with the measured learning outcome. The study had seven hypotheses that
took into account three main areas of focus: perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use; attitude;
and behavioral intention. Levin and Hansen suggested that instructors need to consider the form of
technology when designing a course. They also stated, “Because ease of use only exists through
perceived usefulness, instructors should spend more time focusing on how the technology is relevant
to the students rather than on how easy the technology is to use” (p. 672). Levin and Hansen’s study
provides a clear understanding as to why significant research has been conducted on the factors that
impact the selection of an LMS.
STEM online LMS’ need to incorporate a variety of pedagogical factors. The strategy and design
within this LMS need to include collaboration and interactivity with the educator and their peers.
Further, it needs to be learner-centered, feedback-oriented, problem-based, process-oriented, and
flexible (Keebler, 2009). Part of a STEM online educators training must include methods that lead
to the mastery in the use of ICT (Montgomery and Fernández-Cárdenas, 2018).

TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGICAL ONLINE LEARNING

STEM online programs are considered Math or Fact-Based (MFB) courses. These objective-based
courses differ quite significantly from those known as Writing-Based (WB) courses which are more
subjective in nature. Jaggars’ (2014) study suggested that students consider the level of difficultly of the
course when determining whether to take a course in an online environment. Jaggars further noted that
STEM online learners felt the communication barrier was the most significant issue they encountered.

65
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

This barrier was not limited to learner/educator but also included learner/learner communication.
To address this issue, effective transformational STEM online educators need to build a community
of learners. A STEM online learning pedagogical design should be transformative, one that seeks
to reduce the power differential between the educator and the learner. Meyers (2008) suggested,
“Supporters of transformative pedagogy avoid teaching styles that increase the power differential
between themselves and their students” (p. 220). Meyers further suggested that the educator act as a
facilitator, that is, someone who encourages students’ inquiries and discoveries rather than one who
holds authoritative positions. This learning strategy is known better as inquiry-based learning, and
one that online educators need to employ to facilitate a community of learners.
Mezirow (2003) suggested, “Transformative learning addresses…direct intervention by the
educator to foster the development of the skills, insights, and especially dispositions essential for
critical reflection-and self-reflection-on assumptions and effective participation in critical-dialectical
discourse (reflective judgment)” (p. 62). As such, it should be a goal of the online educator to develop
an inclusive and welcoming environment to all their learners.
As part of establishing a communicative learning environment and effective dialogue/discussion
framework needs to be developed. Lim (2004), explained the importance of dialogue within a learning
environment. Dialogue should be exploratory and reflective. From a general sense, communicative
learning was defined by Mezirow (2003) as, “Communicative learning refers to understanding
what someone means when they communicate with you. This understanding includes becoming
aware of the assumptions, intentions and qualifications of the person communicating” (p. 59). The
dyadic relationship between educator and learner, or learner to learner, should provoke thought and
generate feedback. Lim cautions that dialogue should be specific and meaningful to avoid turning
into a monologue by the educator.
Social presence in the online learning environment is an important area that online educators
need to monitor and control. Providing a transformative pedagogy that incorporates the need for social
presence is the next logical progression in sustaining an effective STEM online learning education
program. Stern (2015) argued,

Several studies reinforce the notion that supporting social presence, facilitating online interaction, and
developing community are keys to the success of an online course. This is because today’s students
increasingly rely on social networking technologies to stay socially connected, and translating that
connection into an online course will make students less isolated and thus more likely to connect
academically both with their peers and their instructor (p. 484).

STEM online educators need to enhance student growth by encouraging the learners to evolve
into a knowledge-based community. In essence, successful online educators should promote student
engagement in a Content-Level Community (CLC), developing knowledge-based societies within
the given course subject matter. Lurking provides some level of interaction and inquiry learning but
the direct outcomes have yet to be quantified to any measurable standard. Danaher, Danaher, and
Moriarty (2007) suggested, “Undoubtedly some students are lurkers, never sending messages but
hopefully reading those sent by others” (p. 10). Therefore, lurking students need to be encouraged to
engage in the community and delve deeply into the content material to provide insightful exchanges
with the group. Engagement does not have to be through direct participation in a discussion forum,
but may take other forms such as interaction within a cybercafé, subdivided class assignment, etc.
Retnowati, Ayres, and Sweller (2017) stated, “Considerable evidence suggests that collaborative
learning has significant academic, social, and psychological benefits…which emphasize that learning
should be facilitated through social and collaborative activities where students construct knowledge
by interactions with others and through collective goals” (p. 667). From a university perspective,
social learning can play a significant role in educational effectiveness. STEM online educators must
be active in providing an environment that promotes the culture it desires, one of a community of

66
 International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

learning. Discussing transformational change regarding STEM online learner assumptions, effective
discussion must allow the free exchange of ideas. The goal would be to provide an environment that
allows individuals to feel comfortable enough to engage one another and express their ideas and
viewpoints freely. The exchange of ideas through discussion and debate promotes a higher level of
learning that should not be bridled unless unacceptable boundaries have been broken. Some such
boundaries may include things as disrespectful or hurtful language.
Another area that STEM online educators need to address is self-efficacy. Yada and Savolainen
(2017) stated, “He (Bandura) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief that s/he can produce
desired effects in a specific situation and the belief influences her/his cognitive, motivational, affective,
and decisional processes” (p. 224). STEM online educators have a significant opportunity to impact
their student’s efficacy. Online educators who seek learner cohesion create a more stable learning
environment, one that has the opportunity to develop into a community of learners. In this type of
environment, the learners may feel a sense of comfort and freely discuss coursework and contribute to
the community. These types of strategies were researched by Danaher, Danaher, and Moriarty (2007)
who stated, “Learner-centred approaches to increasing initial teacher education students’ levels of
self-efficacy and competence in mathematical problem-solving might emphasise students’ areas of
strength and provide interventions or circumstances and choices that facilitate improvements on an
individual rather than a comparative basis” (p. 6). The researchers further noted that learners who
have high levels of self-efficacy, are more inclined to believe they are able to complete required tasks.
It is clear that the implementation of this strategy will positively impact a STEM student’s efficacy.
Pedagogical online learning strategies for STEM programs have a different set of challenges
than other online learning courses. The pedagogy required to teach technical concepts and methods
remains a challenge in educational environments, specifically in the area of developing Higher Order
Cognitive Skills (HOCS) in learners. Mbarika et al. (2010) suggested, “HOCS are skills that go
beyond basic comprehension of a problem or concept. They consist of skills such as identification of
problems, analysis of issues, figuring out alternatives, evaluating alternatives, and making choices”
(p. 24). STEM online educators need to be aware of these HOCS and ensure that they are part of
the pedagogy. Typically, technical concepts are more difficult to communicate and convey to online
learners, this provides a challenge for STEM online educators. If the pedagogy is not effective,
educators will find a lack of interest on the part of the online learner which will negatively impact
the retention of the material of the STEM online learners.
Ineffective pedagogical online learning designs were noted as the primary reason for the ineffective
roll out of online learning platforms. To address this challenge, more effective methods need to be
incorporated into the pedagogical design. Keebler (2009) suggested, “An online teaching strategy
needs to take into account a variety of pedagogical factors. That strategy should include collaboration
and interactivity. It should be learner-centered, feedback-oriented, problem-based, process-oriented,
and flexible” (p. 546). The effectiveness of the design is, in part, based upon the success of the
STEM online learner; whether the learner was able to actively participate within the environment,
from a social and academic perspective. Did the learner achieve their highest potential, based upon
the expectations? Did the learner feel part of a knowledge-based community? Did they engage with
others in the community? Did the learner raise any concerns to the educator or in student forum?
These are some of the measures that need to be reviewed when evaluating the effectiveness of the
STEM online pedagogical design. End of semester student surveys provide good insight into some of
these areas; however, STEM educators should be constantly assessing learners and their development
throughout the semester. This engagement by the educator will allow them to retool or modify certain
aspects of the course and produce a more effective environment for student to flourish.

67
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

CONCLUSION

This research focused on online learning and transformative pedagogical strategies as they relate
to STEM programs. The research explored gaps in the current literature in online learning and
transformative pedagogical strategies for STEM programs; and provided new blended strategies to
encourage online educators to develop effective pedagogical designs in STEM programs.
The need for innovation and new strategies is being driven by the evolution of higher education
and a paradigm shift of educational methods. Chief academic leaders viewed online learning as being
critical to their university’s long-term strategy citing significant increases in student enrollment in
online learning courses (Kentnor, 2015). In response to this shifting trend, educational leaders need
to deploy well-developed STEM programs in an online learning platform. Research indicates that
the STEM areas of study require a different pedagogical design than those in other curricula such
as liberal arts and social science programs specifically in the area of developing HOCS in learners.
Online educators need to be aware of these HOCS and ensure that they are part of the STEM pedagogy.
As such, STEM online educators need to incorporate transformative educational methods into their
pedagogical designs, to specifically include personal, relational, institutional, and community factors.
STEM online educators who engage transformational strategies will develop the necessary tools and
skillset to engage and guide students through the hidden challenges of online learning within a well-
developed pedagogy that effectively engages students.
Online educators should seek to establish a dialogic partnership to co-construct a knowledge-
based community in the development of an effective STEM online learning pedagogy. Keebler
(2009) stated, “In essence, the online learning environment must provide the means for students to
collaborate in an open environment to share their ideas, reflect, and explore alternative perspectives”
(p. 548). Implementation of these strategies will help further the evolution of higher education with
STEM online programs, by effectively addressing the paradigm shift in educational methods and
integrating transformative online learning pedagogical designs. As such, part of a STEM online
educators training must include methods that lead to the mastery in the use of ICT (Montgomery &
Fernández-Cárdenas, 2018).
LMS’ are the primary tool used to deliver online learning to millions of higher education students.
The advancement in LMS technologies has created more flexibility and powerful platforms for online
educators to develop effective pedagogies. That is, deploy an LMS that offers for the learner, a sense
of belonging, encourages deep engagement, includes the tools and processes needed to be successful
and encourages social action. Lui, Magjuka, and Lee (2008) stated, “eLearning education suggests a
need to shift from investigating different delivery formats to a more sophisticated understanding of
the relationships between the characteristics of students, the design of the delivery system and the
social context in which students learn” (p. 830). In this type of learning environment, the learners
will feel a sense of comfort and contribute to the community of learners.
Online educators have significant opportunity to impact their student’s learning potential. They
need to embrace the creative tension in a learning environment as a source of energy for greater
educational effectiveness (Keebler, 2015). This form of growth and bonding creates learner cohesion
and a more stable and effective learning environment, one that has the opportunity to develop into a
community of learners and transform the current learning experiences of students. It should be noted
that the online STEM strategies proposed in this paper are generalizable to other online programs,
however non-STEM online pedagogical strategies should not be considered generalizable to STEM
programs.

68
 International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

REFERENCES

Mbarika, V., Bagarukayo, E., Shipps, B. P., Hingorani, V., Stokes, S., Kourouma, M., & Sankar, C. S. (2010). A
multi-experimental study on the use of multimedia instructional materials to teach technical subjects. Journal
of STEM Education, 11(2), 24–37.
Baran, E., Correia, A., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the
literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. doi:10.1080
/01587919.2011.610293
Claar, C., Dias, L., & Shields, R. (2014). Student acceptance of learning management systems: A study on
demographics. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1), 409–417.
Conceicao, S. (2007). Understanding the environment for online teaching. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 113(113), 5–11. doi:10.1002/ace.242
Danaher, P., Danaher, G., & Moriarty, B. (2007). Interrogating learner-centredness as a vehicle for meaning
emerging in practice and researching personal pedagogies: Transformative learning, self-efficacy and social
presence at two Australian universities. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3(3), 4–13.
doi:10.5172/ijpl.3.3.4
Feldstein, M. (2018). Canvas surpasses Blackboard Learn in US market share. e-Literate. Retrieved from https://
mfeldstein.com/canvas-surpasses-blackboard-learn-in-us-market-share/
Gazan, R., MacLean, K., & Wahl, N. (2018). Participative resources, practices, and information literacy standards
in online stem education. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education, 2(4), 1–19. doi:10.1615/
IntJInnovOnlineEdu.2019029571
Jaggars, S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices.
American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/08923647.2014.867697
Keebler, D. (2009). Online teaching strategy: A position paper. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 5(3), 546–549.
Keebler, D. (2015). Understanding the constructs of groupthink and learning organizations. International
Leadership Journal, 7(1), 93–97.
Kentnor, H. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum
and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1), 21–34.
Levin, M., & Hansen, J. (2008). Clicking to learn or learning to click: A theoretical and empirical investigation.
College Student Journal, 42(2), 665–674.
Lim, C. P. (2004). Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends, 48(4), 16–23. doi:10.1007/
BF02763440
Lui, X., Magjuka, R., & Lee, S. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on
online learning students’ learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(5), 829–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00775.x
Markos, L., & McWhinney, W. (2003). Editors’ perspectives: Auspice. Journal of Transformative Education,
1(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/1541344603252099
Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4), 219–224.
doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.4.219-224
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63.
doi:10.1177/1541344603252172
Montgomery, C., & Fernández-Cárdenas, J. (2018). Teaching STEM education through dialogue and
transformative learning: Global significance and local interactions in Mexico and the UK. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 44(1), 2–13. doi:10.1080/02607476.2018.1422606

69
International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design
Volume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2020

Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account
of university teaching. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural
perspectives on the future of education (pp. 252–264). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. doi:10.1002/9780470753545.
ch19
Palvia, , Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education:
Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management,
21(4), 233–241. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the effectiveness of worked
examples in learning mathematics? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 666–679. doi:10.1037/
edu0000167
Salyers, V., Carter, L., Cairns, S., & Durrer, L. (2014). The use of scaffolding and interactive learning strategies
in online courses for working nurses: Implications for adult and online education. Canadian Journal of University
Continuing Education, 40(1), 1–19. doi:10.21225/D59S3Z
Stern, A. (2015). Bridge the gap: Replicating the interactivity of the physical classroom in an online environment.
The History Teacher, 48(3), 483–504.
Williams van Rooij, S., & Zirkle, K. (2016). Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: A case
study in collaborative online course development. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2015.08.001
Yada, A., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and self-
efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222–229. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.005

Daniel W. Keebler is an adjunct faculty member at Rutgers University School of Business teaching both
undergraduate and graduate programs. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Ivy Tech College in the Department
of Mathematics. He also has over 35 years of industry experience in management, engineering, finance, and
operations. He holds three advanced degrees: PhD in Business, MS in Mathematics, and MA in Business. His
research interests are in STEM education and learning, mathematics, decision sciences, management, renewable
energy, and operations research. He is also an editorial review board member for the International Journal of
Online Pedagogy and Course Design. He has published papers in the International Journal of Strategic Decision
Sciences, International Leadership Journal, Human Resource Management Review, Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching and the Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership. [email protected], dkeebler@
camden.rutgers.edu

Jessica Huffman is the Chairperson of the Mathematics Programs at Ivy Tech College. Her research interests
include mathematics and STEM education. [email protected]

70