Ways to enhance the effectiveness of online education



The article is an analytical review of current recommendations provided in foreign scientific literature for secondary and higher education in terms of online learning enhancement through transformations in course content, platforms, assessments, and ways of teacher-students interaction. Recent recommendations in this regard are described from the position of methodology (educational procedures), psychology (motivation, information perception and processing, and communication), and technical solutions (platforms and interfaces).

General Information

Keywords: e-learning, digital education, distant learning, online learning, E-courses, online courses

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology

Article type: review article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2020090302

For citation: Leybina A.V., Shukuryan G.A. Ways to enhance the effectiveness of online education [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaia zarubezhnaia psikhologiia = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 21–33. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2020090302. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Grechushkina N.V. Onlain-kurs: opredelenieiklassifikatsiya [Online course: definition and classification] [Elektronnyiresurs]. Vyssheeobrazovanie v Rossii = Higher education in Russia, 2018. Vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 125–134. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/onlayn-kurs-opredelenie-i-klassifikatsiya/viewer (Accessed 10.09.2020). (In Russ.).
  2. Sorokova M.G. Elektronnyi kurs kak tsifrovoi obrazovatel'nyi resurs smeshannogo obucheniya v usloviyakh vysshego obrazovaniya [Electronic course as a digital educational resource for blended learning in higher education]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education], 2020. Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 36–50. DOI:10.17759/pse.2020250104 (In Russ.).
  3. McNeal K.S. et al. A multi-institutional study of inquiry-based lab activities using the Augmented Reality Sandbox: impacts on undergraduate student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 2020. Vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 85–107. DOI:10.1080/03098265.2019.1694875
  4. Adams R.V., Blair E. Impact of time management behaviors on undergraduate engineering students’ performance. SAGE Open, 2019. Vol. 1, no. 11. DOI:10.1177/2158244018824506
  5. Alqurashi E. Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments.Distance Education, 2019. Vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 133–148. DOI:10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
  6. Anderson T. The theory and practice of online learning. 2nd Edition. Edmonton, AB: AU Press, 2011. 472 p.
  7. Arbaugh J.B. One Bridge, (at Least) Two Paths: Reflections on «Virtual Classroom Characteristics and Student Satisfaction in Internet-Based MBA Courses». .Journal of Management Education, 2018.Vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 524–532. DOI:10.1177/1052562918770214
  8. Baldwin S., Ching Y. Interactive storytelling: Opportunities for online course design. TechTrends, 2017. Vol. 61, pp. 179–186. DOI:10.1007/s11528-016-0136-2
  9. Baldwin S.J., Ching Y. Guidelines for designing online courses for mobile devices. TechTrends, 2020. Vol. 64, pp. 413–422. DOI:10.1007/s11528-019-00463-6
  10. Baldwin S.J., Trespalacios J. Evaluation instruments and good practices in online education.Online Learning, 2017. Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 104–121. DOI:10.24059/olj.v21i2.913
  11. Balentyne P., Varga M.A. Attitudes and Achievement in a Self-Paced Blended Mathematics Course [Elektronnyiresurs]. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2017. Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 55–72. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173313/ (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  12. Bangert A.W. The development and validation of the Student Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness. Computers in the Schools, 2008. Vol. 25, no. 1–2, pp. 25–47. DOI:10.1080/07380560802157717
  13. Bates A.W. Teaching in a Digital Age. 2nd Edition. Vancouver, B.C.: Tony Bates Associates Ltd, 2019. 180 p.
  14. Berman J.L.C. Teacher Preparation in a Virtual K-12 Context: The Perceptions of School Leaders Concerning Teacher Professional Development: Doctoral Dissertation. Philadelphia: Temple University, 2020. 197 p.
  15. Berry S. Teaching to Connect: Community-Building Strategies for the Virtual Classroom.Online Learning, 2019. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 164–183. DOI:10.24059/olj.v23i1.1425
  16. Blaine A.M. Interaction and presence in the virtual classroom: An analysis of the perceptions of students and teachers in online and blended Advanced Placement courses.Computers & Education, 2019. Vol. 132, pp. 31–43. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.004
  17. Bozkurt A., Sharma R.C. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic.Asian Journal of Distance Education, 2020. Vol. 15, no. 1. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3778083
  18. Castro M.D.B., Tumibay G.M. A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 2019. Vol. 24, pp. 1–19. DOI:10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z
  19. Chan S.-Y., Lam Y.K., Ng T.F. Student’s perception on initial experience of flipped classroom in pharmacy education: Are we ready? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2020. Vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 62–73. DOI:10.1080/14703297.2018.1541189
  20. Son J.Y. et al. Comparing Physical, Virtual, and Hybrid Flipped Labs for General Education Biology. Online Learning, 2016. Vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 228–243. DOI:10.24059/olj.v20i3.687
  21. Cook K. C., Grant-Davis K. Online education: Global questions, local answers. New York: Routledge, 2020. 264 p. DOI:10.4324/9781315223971
  22. Danver S.L. The SAGE encyclopedia of online education. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc, 2016. 408 p.
  23. Desai, N., Stefanek, G. A. Technique for continuous evaluation of student performance in two different domains: structural engineering and computer information technology. American Journal of Engineering Education, 2017. Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 83–110. DOI:10.19030/ajee.v8i2.10066
  24. Funes M., Mackness J. When inclusion excludes: a counter narrative of open online education. Learning, Media and Technology, 2018. Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 119–138. DOI:10.1080/17439884.2018.1444638
  25. Gamo J. Assessing a Virtual Laboratory in Optics as a Complement to On-Site Teaching. IEEE Transactions on Education, 2019. Vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 119–126. DOI:10.1109/TE.2018.2871617
  26. González-González C.S., Infante-Moro A., Infante-Moro J.C. Implementation of E-Proctoring in Online Teaching: A Study about Motivational Factors. Sustainability, 2020. Vol. 12, no. 8. DOI:10.3390/su12083488
  27. Hartnett M. Motivation in online education [Elektronnyi resurs]. Singapore: Springer, 2016. 149 p. URL: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-981-10-0700-2 (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  28. He J., Huang X. Using Student-Created Videos as An Assessment Strategy in Online Team Environments: A Case Study [Elektronnyi resurs]. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2020. Vol. 29, no.1, pp. 35–53. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/208362/ (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  29. Horn M. B., Staker H. Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San-Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2014. 336 p.
  30. Hsu H.K., Wang C.V., Levesque-Bristol C. Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment.Education and Information Technologies, 2019. Vol. 24, pp. 2159–2174. DOI:10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w
  31. Introduction to Psychology [Elektronnyi resurs].Lumen learning. URL: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/(Accessed 10.09.2020).
  32. Kalogeras S. The Practice of Transmedia Storytelling Edutainment in Media-Rich Learning Environments. In Makewa L.N., Ngussa B.M., Kuboja J. M. (eds.),Technology-Supported Teaching and Research Methods for Educators. IGI Global, 2019, pp. 149–164. DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225-5915-3.ch008
  33. Khiat H. Using automated time management enablers to improve self-regulated learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2019. Vol. 21, no. 1, 13 p. DOI:10.1177/1469787419866304
  34. Kim H.J., Jang H.Y. Sustainable Technology Integration in Underserved Area Schools: The Impact of Perceived Student Change on Teacher Continuance Intention. Sustainability, 2020. Vol. 12, no. 12, 13 p. DOI:10.3390/su12124802
  35. Kolekar S.V., Pai R.M., Pai M.M.M. Rule based adaptive user interface for adaptive E-learning system. Education and Information Technologies, 2019. Vol. 24, pp. 613–641. DOI:10.1007/s10639-018-9788-1
  36. Krutka D.G., Damico N. Should We Ask Students to Tweet? Perceptions, Patterns, and Problems of Assigned Social Media Participation [Elektronnyi resurs]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,2020. Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 142–175. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/210431/(Accessed 10.09.2020).
  37. Kyei-Blankson L., Ntuli E., Donnelly H. Establishing the Importance of Interaction and Presence to Student Learning in Online Environments [Elektronnyi resurs]. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2019. Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 539–560. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/161956/(Accessed 10.09.2020).
  38. Mu S. et al.Learners’ attention preferences of information in online learning: An empirical study based on eye-tracking". Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 2019. Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 186–203. DOI:10.1108/ITSE-10-2018-0090
  39. Lieser P., Taff S.D., Murphy-Hagan A. The Webinar Integration Tool: A Framework for Promoting Active Learning in Blended Environments. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018. Vol. 1, pp. 1–8. DOI:http://doi.org/10.5334/jime.453
  40. Lin Y.-T., Chen C.-M.Improving effectiveness of learners’ review of video lectures by using an attention-based video lecture review mechanism based on brainwave signals. Interactive Learning Environments, 2019. Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 86–102. DOI:10.1080/10494820.2018.1451899
  41. Ruthotto I. et al. Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education, 2020. Vol. 151. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103854
  42. Ma H.Y., Yao J., Liu L.W. Research on the Correlation between Learning Effectiveness and Online Learning Behavior Based on Online Education Scene. Creative Education, 2017. Vol. 8, no. 13, pp. 2187–2198. DOI:10.4236/ce.2017.813149
  43. Markova T., Glazkova I., Zaborova E. Quality issues of online distance learning.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2017. Vol. 237, pp. 685–691. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.043
  44. Means B., Bakia M., Murphy R. Learning Online: What Research Tells Us About Whether, When and How. New York: Routledge, 2014. 220 p.
  45. Meri Yilan S., Koruyan K. ICT-Based Assessment, Methods, and Programs in Tertiary Education. Hershey, PAI: GI Global, 2020. 444 p.
  46. Zhang J.et al. Modeling collective attention in online and flexible learning environments.Distance Education, 2019. Vol.40, no. 2, pp. 278–301. DOI:10.1080/01587919.2019.1600368
  47. Moore K.A., Pearson B.J. Soft skills in an online class. Horttechnology, 2017. Vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 583–585. DOI:10.21273/HORTTECH03672-17
  48. Negash S., Wilcox M.V. E-Learning Classifications: Differences and Similarities. In Negash S. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Distance Learning for Real-Time and Asynchronous Information Technology Education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, 2008, pp. 1–23. DOI:10.4018/978-1-59904-964-9.ch001
  49. Ayob N.F.S. et al. Overview of blended learning: The effect of station rotation model on students’ achievement. Journal of Critical Reviews, 2020. Vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 320–326. DOI:10.31838/jcr.07.06.56
  50. Picciano A.G. Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model.Online Learning, 2017. Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 166–190. DOI:10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225
  51. Purcell J.W., Scott H.I., Mixson-Brookshire D. Continuous Improvement in Online Education: Documenting Teaching Effectiveness in the Online Environment through Observations [Elektronnyi resurs]. Online Journal of Distance Learn Administration, 2017. Vol. 20, no. 4. URL: https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter204/purcell_scott_brookshire204.html (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  52. Reisenwitz T.H. Examining the Necessity of Proctoring Online Exams. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 2020. Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 118–124. DOI:10.33423/jhetp.v20i1.2782
  53. Riad M., Hossain A. Pedagogical issues in online language classroom: a case study on 10-minute school: Doctoral dissertation. Bangladesh, Dhaka: Brac University, 2019. 189 p.
  54. Rice M.F., Deschaine M.E.Orienting Toward Teacher Education for Online Environments for All Students. The Educational Forum, 2020. Vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 114–125. DOI:10.1080/00131725.2020.1702747
  55. Simonson M., Zvacek S.M., Smaldino S. Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. 7th Edition. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2019. 374 p.
  56. Singh R., Hurley D. The effectiveness of teaching and learning process in online education as perceived by university faculty and instructional technology professionals. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2017. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 65–75. DOI:10.14434/jotlt.v6.n1.19528
  57. Smith T.W. Making the Most of Online Discussion: A Retrospective Analysis [Elektronnyi resurs]. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2019. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 21–31. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1206981.pdf (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  58. Song H., Kim J., Park N. I Know My Professor: Teacher Self-Disclosure in Online Education and a Mediating Role of Social Presence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2019. Vol. 35, no. 6, pp.448–455. DOI:10.1080/10447318.2018.1455126
  59. Sun A., Chen X. Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2016. Vol. 15, pp. 157–190. DOI:10.28945/3502
  60. Terry R., Taylor J., Davies M. Successful teaching in virtual classrooms. In Daniels K. et al. (eds.), Learning and teaching in higher education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019, pp. 211–221. DOI:10.4337/9781788975087.00035
  61. Thai N.T.T., De Wever B., Valcke M. The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback.Computers & Education, 2017. Vol. 107, pp. 113–126. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003
  62. Tong Y., Kinshuk, Wei X. Teaching Design and Practice of a Project-Based Blended Learning Model. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2020. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 33–50. DOI:10.4018/IJMBL.2020010103
  63. Ventista O.M. Self-assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2018. Vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 165–175. DOI:10.1177/2042753018784950
  64. Wang J., Tigelaar D.E.H., Admiraal W. Connecting rural schools to quality education: Rural teachers’ use of digital educational resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019. Vol. 101, pp. 68–76. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.009
  65. Woldeab D., Brothen T. 21st Century assessment: Online proctoring, test anxiety, and student performance [Elektronnyi resurs]. International Journal of e-Learning and Distance Education, 2019. Vol. 34, no. 1. URL: http://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1106/1729 (Accessed 10.09.2020).
  66. Xiong Y., Suen H.K. Assessment approach in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges and future directions. International Review of Education, 2018. Vol. 64, pp. 241–263. DOI:10.1007/s11159-018-9710-5
  67. Yaylaci F.G., Yaylaci A.F. Understandings and Tendencies of Edutainment in Turkey: An Evaluation Based on Neil Postman's Criticism on Education, Entertainment and Technology [Elektronnyi resurs]. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2016. Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 241–263. URL: https://www.cedtech.net/download/understandings-and-tendencies-of-edutainment-in-turkey-an-evaluation-based-on-neil-postmans-6175.pdf (Accessed 10.09.2020).

Information About the Authors

Anna V. Leybina, PhD in Psychology, Senior Scientific Officer, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0967-3837, e-mail: leybina@yandex.ru

Goar A. Shukuryan, Specialist in Psychology, Education and Methodology Specialist, Deputy Head, Psychology of Language and Foreign Language Studies Department, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1674-6133, e-mail: goar09@gmail.com



Total: 1469
Previous month: 16
Current month: 17


Total: 1501
Previous month: 9
Current month: 6