Skip to main content

Instructional Strategies to Help Online Students Learn: Feedback from Online Students


Increased enrollment in online programs and courses has prompted a plethora of research on instructional strategies that impact online students’ learning. Most of these strategies came from instructors, and others were solicited from students. While the literature notes that students who have more university experience tend to provide more substantive responses when solicited, there seems to be limited representation of online master’s students’ preferences on what instructional strategies work for them. There is paucity in the literature on how these preferred instructional strategies inform existing theoretical and practical frameworks that could impact online learning performance. This article discusses the Top Ten Instructional Strategies preferred by master’s students who responded to a dissertation survey question - What specific things would you like your online instructors do to help you learn successfully? - and relates these strategies to the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and the Quality Matters Rubric.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. SLOAN Consortium: A Consortium of Institutions and Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education. Retrieved from

  2. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson survey research group, e-Literate, and WCET. Retrieved from

  3. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States (rep.). Babson survey research group. Retrieved from

  4. Castano Bishop, M., & Yocom, J. (2013). Video projects: Integrating project-based learning, universal design for learning, and bloom’s taxonomy. In Smyth, E. G., & Volker, J. X. (Eds.), Enhancing instruction through visual media: Utilizing video and lecture capture (pp. 204–220). Hershey: Information Science Reference, IGI Global.

  5. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as a lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). The seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. Faculty inventory. Racine: Johnson Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Jossey-Bass: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chyung, S. Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and dissatisfying factors in e-learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clinefelter, D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2016). Online college students 2016: A comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville: The Learning House, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  10. Crews, T. B., Wilkerson, K., & Neill, J. K. (2015). Principles for good practice in undergraduate education: Effective online course design to assist students’ success. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1) Retrieved from

  11. Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4). Retrieved from

  12. Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2014. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from

  13. Danielson, C. (1998). Is satisfying college students the same as decreasing their dissatisfaction? Retrieved from

  14. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13 Retrieved from

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferdinand, D. (2017). Asynchronous debates. In J. A. Bowen and C. E. Watson (authors), Teaching naked techniques: A practical guide for designing better classrooms, (p. 154). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  16. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gautreau, C., Street, C., & Glasser, B. (2008). Best practices in graduate online teaching: Faculty perspectives. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(6) Retrieved from

  18. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jacobi, L. (2016). The trifecta approach and more: Student perspectives on strategies for successful online lectures. In i.e.: inquiry in education. Center for Practitioner Research at the National College of Education, National-Louis University, Chicago. Retrieved from

  20. Johnson, S. (2014). Applying the seven principles of good practice: Technology as a lever - in an online research course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kaid, L. L., & Wadsworth, A. J. (1989). Content analysis. Retrieved from

  22. Katt, J., & Condly, S. (2009). A preliminary study of classroom motivators and de-motivators from a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education, 58(2), 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Knowles, M. (1992). Applying principles of adult learning in conference presentations. Adult Learning, 4(1), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krippendorff, K. (1989). Content analysis. Retrieved from

  25. Online Learning Consortium. (2017). Quality framework. Retrieved from

  26. Quality Matters (2014). Standards from the quality matters higher education rubric, 5th Edition. Retrieved from

  27. Shattuck, K. (2015). Research inputs and outputs of quality matters: Update to 2012 and 2014 versions of what we’re learning from QM-focused research. Quality Matters: Annapolis. Retrieved from're-Learning-2015update.pdf.

  28. Tobin, T. J., Mandernach, B. J., & Taylor, A. (2015). Evaluating online teaching implementing best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  29. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1989). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. Retrieved from

  30. Watson, F. S., & Ferdinand, D. (2015). Debating: A dynamic teaching strategy for motivating students and teachers. In Quick hits session presentation at the 16 th annual Midwest conference on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Indiana: Indiana University South Bend.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice (2nd ed.). ASCD: Alexandria.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Firm Faith Watson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watson, F.F., Castano Bishop, M. & Ferdinand-James, D. Instructional Strategies to Help Online Students Learn: Feedback from Online Students. TechTrends 61, 420–427 (2017).

Download citation


  • Online learning
  • Online students
  • Master’s students
  • Online courses
  • Online instructors
  • Student feedback
  • Instructional strategies
  • Distance education
  • Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education
  • Quality matters rubric