Teaching and learning innovations for distance learning in the digital era: a literature review

This paper presents a review study on teaching and learning innovations (TLIs) for distance learning in higher education, which involves substantial use of technology in its practice. The study covers 247 publications that were published from 2017 to 2022 and collected from Scopus to analyze the patterns and trends of TLIs for distance learning in higher education. The results show four main types of TLIs: educational technologies, teaching and learning approaches and activities, teaching and learning programs, and assessment approaches and activities. They also reveal seven major pedagogical patterns in the TLIs, covering the learning of science through online laboratories, virtual and augmented reality, multimedia, gaming, collaboration, tasks/projects, and blended/hybrid/flipped learning. These findings suggest implications for distance learning, covering the use of online laboratories in science courses, promotion of virtual and augmented-based distance learning, encouragement of development, implementation, and the study of pedagogical approaches to distance learning, as well as the increase in interactivity in multimedia-based distance learning.

Introduction

Technological advances have promoted innovations in educational delivery. Distance learning, as one of the major education modes, has involved the substantial use of technology in its practice. The importance of technology has been reflected in its contemporary conceptualization. For example, Sangra et al. (2012) define distance learning as “an approach to teaching and learning… that is based on the use of electronic media and devices as tools for improving access to training, communication, and interaction” (p. 152). Pecori (2018) refers to it as “a scenario where instructors and students do not interact directly and often neither synchronously, and a virtualized learning process (e-learning) where students interact with various virtual learning environments (e.g., Moodle) that host all kinds of learning objects via their electronic communication devices” (p. 50). Nikolaevna et al. (2021) similarly describe it as “a teaching method based on the use of multimedia and Internet technologies to increase the availability and quality of education” (p. 5).

One of the technological contributions to the distance education community is the emergence of a wide range of teaching and learning innovations (TLIs). ‘Innovation’ has been extensively explained as “the introduction of a new idea, method, or devices” (Vasylyshyn and Vasylyshyn, 2017, p. 3) and “a novel, inventive, and usable solution… an end product, process, or method related to people’s practical needs and purposes” (Lindfors and Hilmola, 2016, p. 373). In the context of education, TLI thus refers to a new principle, belief, plan, practice, method, and tool that is developed and used to help educators solve pedagogical problems and enhance and improve their students’ learning and outcomes. Examples include educational apps designed specifically for students with autism (Somerton, 2022), augmented reality in chromatography learning (Merino et al., 2022), and online digital storytelling to develop argumentative writing skills (Salem, 2022), to name but a few. Muda and Yusof (2015) describe their significance as being able to help teachers in terms of new approaches in the teaching process and increase creativity in their teaching, thereby making the learning process easier for learners.

Recent years have witnessed a wide range of TLIs in distance learning (e.g., Eren and Oztug, 2020; Pulukuri and Abrams, 2020; Shakirova et al., 2020; Dickson-Karn and Orosz, 2021; Larriba et al., 2021; Pakinee and Puritat, 2021; Raharjo et al., 2021; Cheung et al., 2023). There is a need to systematically identify and classify these TLIs and analyze their pedagogical patterns. However, the existing literature has centered primarily on the effectiveness of distance learning, its pedagogical benefits, and its impacts on student learning outcomes and experiences (Berndt et al., 2017; Bashir and Warraich, 2020; Tibingana-Ahimbisibwe et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Ødegaard et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2022). As such, this paper presents a systematic review study of TLIs in distance learning for higher education in recent years. In particular, the study focuses on the following research questions.

1. What types of TLIs have been implemented for distance learning in higher education in recent years?

2. What are the major pedagogical patterns among the most frequently implemented TLIs?

3. What are the implications for distance learning based on these pedagogical patterns in TLIs?

Related work

With technology becoming integral to distance learning, a wide range of research has been conducted in relevant areas. This body of work can be grouped into various strands. One concerns examining the quality of distance learning (Oduaran, 2017; Ramdass and Nemavhola, 2018; Kanwar et al., 2019; Sugilar, 2020; Toprak and Sakar, 2021). Another strand focuses on investigating specific teaching and learning issues, such as self-efficacy (Tladi, 2017), learner retention (Pinchbeck and Heaney, 2017), learner persistence (Au et al., 2018; Volk, 2020), learner motivation (Mahande and Akram, 2021; Capone and Lepore, 2022), learner satisfaction (Harsasi and Sutawijaya, 2018; Jarab et al., 2022), learner support and wellness (Wong and Li, 2020), and teaching and learning approaches (Hills et al., 2018; Bayyat, 2020). There have been analyzes of issues with respect to distance learning platforms, tools, and resources, such as design, implementation, and evaluation of materials (Sterling et al., 2017; England, 2018), as well as teacher and student perceptions and experiences of using them (Altunoglu, 2017; Padmo et al., 2019). There have also been studies of issues surrounding the nature, development, and management of distance education (De Langen, 2018; Cervantes-Perez et al., 2019; Kulikowski, 2021; Lischer et al., 2021; Kruse et al., 2022).

Various literature reviews on distance learning have been done in recent years. For example, Berndt et al. (2017) examined past literature regarding the range of distance learning strategies for providing continuing professional development to rural allied health practitioners. They identified a change in focus from reporting on technology use to reporting on user satisfaction, suggesting that future studies could be conducted to include more detailed information in order to “enable replications and further exploration of the complex relationships between instructional design, time use, and location” (p.12). Another study by Tibingana-Ahimbisibwe et al. (2020) analyzed past literature on the potential benefits of formalized peer-assisted learning for students enrolled in a fully online, distance learning program. Their findings show that online peer-assisted learning is useful in providing meaningful learning support because of the presence of online interactions between mentors and mentees.

In their study, Bashir and Warraich (2020) explored the scenario of distance learning using Semantic Web technology. The author identified eight major research themes such as e-learning system requirements/implementation, differences between training and learning, semantic web architecture, e-learning standards, ontology, framework of semantic web and e-learning, integration and interoperability, and future trends. Technological and socio-cultural challenges were also found to cause the hurdle for the implementation of e-learning via semantic web.

Similarly, He et al. (2020) studied publications on synchronous distance education in order to understand whether it is more effective than traditional classroom-based education for health science students. Their study found that synchronous distance education is not significantly different from traditional classroom-based education in learning outcomes, but has a higher overall satisfaction rating among the students. It was also found that there are significant differences in knowledge acquisition and knowledge gains between both the synchronous distance education and traditional classroom-based education groups with low and moderate heterogeneity, respectively.

Ødegaard et al. (2021) explored scholarship on digital learning designs in physiotherapy education. The authors observed the use of blended learning and distance learning designs in physiotherapy education with both modes of learning being more effective than traditional classroom teaching in terms of knowledge and skills acquisition and positive effects on student learning supported by the use of a flipped learning approach, interactive websites/apps, and self-made videos.

The study by Martin et al. (2022) investigated publications on distance and online learning to determine the extent to which its instructional setting moderated the influences on students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. The results of their study revealed a significant positive effect of distance learning on overall learning outcomes. It was also found that distance learning seems to have a greater impact on cognitive outcomes than on affective and behavioral ones. These findings suggest the importance of enhancing students’ cognitive skills in distance education.

As can be seen, despite the many systematic reviews on distance learning, they have not paid particular attention to studying the types of TLI that have been developed and implemented and their pedagogical patterns. As such, this paper reports a systematic review study of research in relation to TLIs in distance learning. The results will advance our understanding of the pedagogical patterns that prevail in distance learning and provide implications for the field.

Methodology

Data collection

For this review study, relevant literature was collected through Scopus. This publication database was chosen because of its wide application in prior systematic reviews (Charef et al., 2019; Sweileh, 2019; Derah et al., 2022; Karasneh et al., 2022). An initial search of literature from the database was done using the keyword ‘distance learning’, which returned more than 76,000 results. To narrow down the focus on TLIs in recent years, the literature search was further restricted to research articles published between 2017 and 2022 in the discipline of education. This restriction yielded a total of 2,170 potential articles.

This article collection was further screened based on the following selection criteria. Each of the articles must report an empirical study focusing on the development, implementation, and evaluation of TLIs (such as learning apps, course programs, and pedagogical approaches) for distance learning in higher education. TLI was identified as a method, plan, practice, or tool presented in an article to solve pedagogical problems and enhance student learning. Moreover, the article must be written in English language and be available in full text. Those articles which failed to meet any of these criteria were excluded from the present study. A total of 247 articles were eventually selected for review and analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the procedures for searching and selecting the articles.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Procedures for search and selection of articles.

Data analysis

A content analysis approach was adopted to analyze the selected articles. Each article was checked to identify three categories of information for analysis, including the contexts on countries/regions, educational levels, and subject disciplines where the TLI was implemented; the type of TLI implemented by examining their nature (covering teaching and learning approaches and activities, teaching and learning programs/courses/projects, educational technologies, and assessment approaches/ activities); and the pedagogical patterns in distance learning by studying the ways in which the TLI was used. To analyze the trends of TLIs, the articles were divided into two groups for comparison according to their publication year, i.e., 2017–2019 and 2020–2022.

The article selection process, as well as information identification and categorization, involved two researchers. One of them focused on article screening and information coding from the selected articles according to the procedures illustrated above, and another one on checking. Discordant cases were discussed until a consensus was reached.

Results

Overview of publications

Publication year

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the TLI-related publications in the periods of 2017–2019 and 2020–2022. These two time spans were chosen to analyze the changes in TLI applications as reported in the publications. There is a marked difference in the total number of publications between the two periods, with only 56 articles identified in the former period and 191 ones in the latter. This result is due to the outbreak of COVID-19, where a significant amount of attention was placed on the development and implementation of TLIs to lessen the impact of the pandemic for teaching and learning.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The distribution of TLI-related publications in the two periods.

Country/region of TLI

Figure 3 presents the distribution of the countries/regions of the TLIs from the two periods. The TLIs cover a total of 53 countries/regions. For both periods, the United States had the largest proportion of TLIs, followed by the United Kingdom. Many more countries/regions were covered in the second period (a total of 47) than those in the first period (a total of 23). These results suggest that TLIs in distance learning have received attention in a broader range of countries/regions.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. The distribution of the countries/regions of the publications across the two periods.

Education level

Figure 4 shows the distribution of education levels involved in the TLIs. Most TLIs belong to the undergraduate level in both periods. There is a greater difference in the proportion of TLIs between the undergraduate and postgraduate levels for the second period when compared with the first one–above 80% of the TLIs for the second period belong to the undergraduate level.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. The education-level distribution of the TLIs across the two periods.

Subject discipline

A total of 30 subject disciplines were found in the TLI-related publications, as listed in Table 1. This result reveals that the development and implementation of TLIs have been widely emphasized in distance education across various subject disciplines. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of the top five most frequently addressed subject disciplines. Medicine and nursing is the most frequently addressed subject discipline in the first period, but its proportion dropped significantly in the second period. A majority of TLIs in the second period focused on chemistry, suggesting that this subject discipline has attracted particular attention to innovate its teaching and learning practices.

TABLE 1

Table 1. The subject disciplines of TLIs in the publications.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. The distribution of the top five frequently covered subject disciplines in the TLI-related publications across the two periods.

Types of TLIs

After examining the publications collected for the current study, four main types of TLIs were identified: (1) teaching and learning approaches and activities, (2) teaching and learning programs, (3) educational technologies, and (4) assessment approaches and activities.

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the four types of TLIs that were identified in the publications. The overall patterns are similar in both periods, with TLIs in educational technologies being the most frequent ones followed by teaching and learning approaches and activities. The proportion of these two types of TLIs even increased in the second period. These results suggest the growing importance of technology for innovating distance learning practice.

FIGURE 6

Figure 6. The distribution of the types of TLIs across the two periods.

Types of educational technologies

Educational technologies are the most common types of TLIs identified from the publications. Table 2 shows the types of educational technologies involved in the relevant TLIs.

TABLE 2

Table 2. The types of educational technologies involved in TLIs.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of the top five types of most commonly used educational technologies in TLIs across the two periods. For the first period, video and audio materials, virtual and augmented reality, and learning management systems were used relevantly more frequently. For the second period, laboratory-based software and hardware became the largest proportion, and video-conferencing tools were also used relatively more frequently. These results indicate a pedagogical change in the use of educational technologies between the two periods, which would be driven by the influences of the pandemic on the mode of lesson delivery and interaction that conventional types of laboratory-based activities which are conducted physically in laboratories needed to be changed.

FIGURE 7

Figure 7. Distribution of the top five most frequently used educational technologies across the two periods.

Types of teaching and learning approaches and activities

There are 10 types of teaching and learning approaches and six types of teaching and learning activities identified from the TLIs, as shown in Table 3. Blended, hybrid, and flipped learning approaches were categorized into the same type based on the classification of Tonbuloğlu and Tonbuloğlu (2023). Figure 8 reports the distribution of the teaching and learning approaches across the two periods. Overall, the top three are the blended/hybrid/flipped learning approach, gamification approach, and collaborative learning approach. Comparing the two periods, there have been new approaches which existed in the second period, including the task/project-based approach, visual approach, e-service learning approach, questioning technique, and group formative technique. Furthermore, the accelerated learning approach, which contributed 10% of TLIs in the first period, did not exist in the second period.

TABLE 3

Table 3. The types of teaching and learning approaches and activities for the TLIs.

FIGURE 8

Figure 8. The distribution of the teaching and learning approaches across the two periods.

Figure 9 shows the distribution of the teaching and learning activities in the TLIs across the two periods. For the second period, laboratory-based activities contributed a majority of TLIs (67%), followed by discussion-based (15%), and writing-based ones (7%). This result suggests a marked instructional change in the use of laboratory-based activities, and aligns with the relatively large proportion of TLIs involving the use of laboratory-based software and hardware in the field of natural sciences (e.g., chemistry) as illustrated above where experiments are common.

FIGURE 9

Figure 9. The distribution of teaching and learning activities across the two periods.

Types of teaching and learning programs

There are six types of teaching and learning programs identified in the TLIs (Table 4). Figure 10 shows the distribution of them across the two periods. On-the-job related programs and academic support-related programs were the most frequent overall. For the second period, there was a greater proportion of language-related programs and new types of programs related to specifically laboratory work and medical and healthcare training in a distance learning mode. Also, cross-institution-related programs contributed 30% of TLIs in the first period, but 0% in the second period.

TABLE 4

Table 4. Types of teaching and learning programs identified in the TLIs.

FIGURE 10

Figure 10. Distribution of teaching and learning programs in the TLIs across the two periods.

Assessment approaches and activities

A total of 11 assessment approaches and activities were identified in the TLIs, as shown in Table 5. Their frequency is relatively small, i.e., covering only a total of 14 TLIs. They could be categorized into the summative and formative types in general. E-portfolio, quiz, and writing assignment were found in both periods (N = 1 for each period), and the others occurred once only in the first or second period. Technologies were involved in the assessment activities, such as the use of 3D virtual technology for a tooth identification test, and personalized screencasts for a writing assignment.

TABLE 5

Table 5. The assessment approaches and activities identified in the TLIs.

Pedagogical patterns among the most frequently implemented TLIs

The major pedagogical patterns were identified from the most frequently implemented TLIs. Table 6 shows the seven pedagogical patterns corresponding to the nine TLIs most frequently implemented.

TABLE 6

Table 6. The pedagogical patterns corresponding to the most frequently implemented TLIs.

Figure 11 presents the distribution of the pedagogical patterns which are sorted in a descending order according to the frequency counts of the relevant TLIs. For the first period, the most frequent pedagogical pattern was learning through multimedia followed by learning through virtual/augmented reality, learning through collaboration, blended/hybrid/flipped learning, learning through gaming, and learning of science through online laboratories. This is in sharp contrast to the second period where the most frequent pattern was learning of science through online laboratories followed by learning through gaming, blended/hybrid/flipped learning, learning through collaboration, learning through virtual/augmented reality, and learning through multimedia. These results suggest differences in pedagogical focus between the two periods. In particular, the greater pedagogical focus on learning of science through online laboratories in the second period may be accounted for the impact of the pandemic on science learning that restricted teachers’ and students’ access to physical laboratories.

FIGURE 11

Figure 11. Distribution of the pedagogical patterns among the TLIs in the two periods.

Learning of science through online laboratories

Online laboratory-based innovations such as software and hardware, activities, and programs were found to be most common in the TLIs. This also reveals the prominent pedagogical pattern in distance learning of science through online laboratories. Conducting experiments in laboratories is an essential part of the learning experience in science disciplines such as chemistry, engineering, and physics (Sharpe and Abrahams, 2019). They allow students to apply the knowledge they have learnt to develop important experimental skills. However, there are circumstances in which doing experiments in a physical laboratory is not possible or feasible, such as when students are unable to access a laboratory or when they need to perform high-risk experiments that may endanger their lives (Weicht et al., 2012). In these cases, using an online laboratory is a viable alternative.

An online laboratory may exist in the form of a totally online environment in which students create and conduct virtual experiments over the Internet via a computer program in either the classroom or at home (Hlescu et al., 2020), or a remote environment where students conduct real experiments in a physical laboratory by remote access over the Internet (Orduña et al., 2018). Both forms aim to help students experience the process of carrying out experiments and obtaining experimental results. Examples of relevant TLIs include a virtual sampling activity to help chemistry students understand the concept of sampling through a guided learning exercise on the effects of sample size and the number of replicate samples on sampling errors (Dickson-Karn and Orosz, 2021), and an instructional tool called ROXI (Research Opportunity through eXperimental Instruction) to assist chemistry students to run experimental analysis using low-cost data through electronic sensors and command and control software (Larriba et al., 2021).

Learning through virtual and augmented reality

Another pedagogical pattern pertains to learning through advanced digital technologies, as shown in the findings about the common use of virtual and augmented reality. Virtual reality refers to “a computer-generated 3-D experience in which a user can navigate around, interact with, and be immersed in another world in real time, or at the speed of life” (Briggs, 2002, p.35), whereas augmented reality “combines two dimensional or three-dimensional virtual objects into the real-world environment in real time” (Bhatti et al., 2020, p.3).

As pointed out by Kukulska-Hulme et al. (2021), virtual and augmented reality technologies allow teachers to provide students with exciting learning experiences that include: remote participation (e.g., for field trips to places which would be difficult, dangerous, or impossible to visit for students such as the inside of a volcano), remote presence (e.g., people who cannot be in the physical world are able to interact and work together in a virtual reality environment, manipulating virtual objects and moving around the setting together), simultaneous engagement with the physical world (e.g., learners are able to interact with both the real world and augmented reality elements simultaneously), and a time machine (e.g., students can go on trips through time and engage with historic events or watch landscapes change over the centuries).

Examples of relevant TLIs include the use of virtual reality to assist geo-education students in studying the geography of tourist destinations (Shakirova et al., 2020), and augmented reality to train students in using instructional software authoring tools (Eldokhny and Drwish, 2021).

Blended/hybrid/flipped learning

The pedagogical pattern on blended/hybrid/flipped learning is shown in the findings about the high occurrence of the blended/hybrid/flipped learning approach used in relevant studies in recent years to solve pedagogical problems and enhance student learning. Tonbuloğlu and Tonbuloğlu (2023) classifies blended, hybrid, and flipped learning into the same category with a common feature to combine the presentation environments and teaching methods in various modes. This approach is common in distance education, which emphasizes expanding and maximizing student learning outside the classroom by making best use of the benefits of online and face-to-face teaching (Heinerichs et al., 2016).

This pedagogical pattern features both online instruction and face-to-face instruction. The former is conducted on an online platform where only online materials such as videos, textbooks, and software are made available to students, and the latter takes place in a physical classroom where the teacher is present to guide students and provide them with immediate feedback (Nugroho and Wahyono, 2019). Blended/hybrid/flipped learning provides teachers with opportunities to create a flexible environment where the physical space can be used to enable group work. Teachers and students can make best use of their own devices to enhance their teaching and learning.

Examples of relevant TLIs include the use of a flipped learning approach to increase teacher–student interactions in a general chemistry course (Christiansen et al., 2017) and the use of a scaffolded inverse blended learning approach to help students engage with learning activities at higher cognitive levels (Ang, 2020).

Learning through multimedia

Technological advances have facilitated the development of computer-based multimedia materials such as videos and recordings. This not only creates a multimedia-rich environment in which students are able to interact with different audio–visual resources, but also provides students with an active learning experience that has an impact on their engagement (Tugetkin and Dursun, 2022). Computer-based multimedia materials can be either animated or interactive in nature (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2020; Tugetkin and Dursun, 2022).

Animated multimedia such as animated videos is used to reveal processes that are too fast for learners to follow or too small to see. It also shows the ways in which difficult problems are tackled by an expert, and explain abstract issues in the real world such as an animated weather map showing changes in air pressure. Interactive multimedia such as interactive videos or audio is used to increase students’ motivation and make their learning process more enjoyable.

Examples of relevant TLIs include the use of interactive online videos to promote active learning and help students remain on-task and accountable for their work (Pulukuri and Abrams, 2020), and the application of virtual choir recordings to help students practice duets (e.g., soprano-alto and tenor-bass; Eren and Oztug, 2020).

Learning through gaming

This pedagogical pattern involves the application of a game and its design elements in a non-gaming context (Khaleel et al., 2015). A game refers to “a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable” (Juul, 2003, p.53).

A gamification approach to teaching and learning can take various forms (Sharples et al., 2013). In its simplest form, teachers may use games that cover ordinary educational tasks and give rewards to students who successfully complete them. Another way is to make use of the trappings of games, such as badges, scores, and timed challenges, to make drill-and-practice work more appealing. A more sophisticated way is to situate learning within a game environment or virtual world.

Instances of relevant TLIs can be seen in the studies of Barbieri et al. (2021), Pakinee and Puritat (2021) and Raharjo et al. (2021), in which the use of a gamification approach was adopted to improve engagement with students and promote active learning and increase student engagement in the class, respectively.

Learning through tasks/projects

Learning through tasks/projects involves a group of students completing a task or project, thereby achieving a deeper understanding and obtaining different learning outcomes. For it to be effective, the approach must be (1) problem-based, meaning that the project/task should involve a question or problem that drives students to encounter or struggle with the central concepts and principles of a discipline; (2) realistic, meaning that the project/task should involve a question or problem that is relevant and meaningful to students’ own interests and daily lives; (3) student-driven, meaning that the project/task should be student-led, involving more student autonomy, choice, unsupervised work time, and responsibility; and (4) focused on knowledge transformation and construction, meaning that the project/task should involve learning processes which involve inquiry, knowledge building, and resolution such as decision-making, problem-finding, problem-solving, or model-building (Thomas, 2000).

Examples of relevant TLIs can be seen in the research studies of Kato et al. (2020) and Panova et al. (2021), in which a project-based learning approach was implemented to increase student motivation and willingness to communication and to stimulate the development of various types of thinking among students, respectively.

Learning through collaboration

The use of a collaborative learning approach was found to occur commonly in the TLIs. Collaborative learning involves “any of the variety of strategies employed by an instructor to promote students working together to advance their understanding of a subject matter” and these strategies are capable of “prompting students to interact with one another, encouraging them to articulate their perspectives and to resolve differences in understanding” (Osman et al., 2011, p. 547). Collaborative learning also helps to develop a social support system for learners, increase students’ self-esteem, reduce students’ anxiety, promote critical thinking skills, personalize large lectures, and promote active learning (Laal and Ghodsi, 2012).

Instances of relevant TLIs include the research by Raymond et al. (2016) in which a collaborative peer learning approach was implemented in a medical course offered for nursing students in order to foster collaboration among them and prepare them for their future careers, and that of Wenzel (2020) in which a collaborative group learning approach was implemented in analytical chemistry to facilitate the teaching of a large online class.

Implications of the pedagogical patterns in TLIs for distance learning

The pedagogical patterns identified from the TLIs provide important implications for distance learning, as discussed below.

Use of online laboratories in distance learning science courses

A wide variety of TLIs that facilitate students to conduct laboratory experiments outside the classroom (e.g., online laboratory programs, activities, software, and hardware) have been implemented in distance learning courses in science subjects such as chemistry and biology. This finding has an implication regarding the use of online laboratories as a substitute for physical ones in distance learning science courses. Conducting laboratory experiments is an integral part of the learning experience in various science disciplines. However, there are circumstances where students are unable to attend physical laboratories; for instance, because of full-time work commitments or experiments being too dangerous. This makes online laboratories a possible and feasible option. Prior studies have consistently revealed the benefits of online laboratories on students’ learning, ranging from enhancing their soft skills (e.g., creativity, problem-solving skills, and critical thinking skills) to their hard skills (e.g., experimental skills and knowledge of science subjects; Destino and Cunningham, 2020; Seaton et al., 2021; Vargas-Oviedo et al., 2021). Management of distance learning institutions should consider the use of online laboratories as an alternative to physical ones, particularly in the post-COVID-19 period, and, if so, the extent to which they could be integrated into laboratory-based distance learning courses.

Promotion of virtual and augmented-based distance learning

Virtual and augmented reality, among the technology-based TLIs identified, was found to be the second most frequently used in distance learning. Virtual and augmented reality technologies have been applied in distance learning in various subject disciplines, such as chemistry (Levonis et al., 2021), English language (Urueta and Ogi, 2021), architecture (Kowalski et al., 2020), and geology (Jeffery et al., 2021). Studies focusing on their applications in distance learning have found positive outcomes on teaching and learning, such as promoting active learning (Broyer et al., 2021), improving acquisition of subject knowledge (Kowalski et al., 2020), and enhancing digital literacy (Eldokhny and Drwish, 2021). However, a major drawback of virtual and augmented reality has been its cost and complexity. As such, not all distance learning institutions are able to afford relevant equipment, and not all distance learning teachers are familiar with this type of technology. Thus, management should consider not only allocating funding for the purchase of technologies to promote virtual and augmented reality-based distance learning, but also providing distance learning teachers with professional training on ways to apply virtual and augmented reality to their teaching disciplines.

Encouragement of development, implementation, and study of pedagogical approaches to distance learning

Pedagogy-based TLIs such as the gamification approach, task/project-based learning approach, and collaborative learning approach have been implemented in distance learning courses in subject disciplines such as nursing (Raymond et al., 2016), Japanese language (Kato et al., 2020), and media communication (Pakinee and Puritat, 2021). This finding offers an implication in relation to pedagogical approaches to distance learning. Distance learning teachers may have a tendency to focus on using pedagogical approaches with which they are familiar, thereby constraining themselves from diversifying their pedagogies. In this regard, management should consider providing incentives such as teaching development grants to encourage teachers to design, implement, and examine pedagogical approaches to distance learning specific to their own disciplines. Doing so would help in not only transforming pedagogy-based innovations into research studies, but also enhancing the quality of teaching for students.

Increase in interactivity in multimedia-based distance learning

Multimedia is one of the most frequent types of TLIs in distance learning. Distance education has been evolving from relying on hard-copy printed learning materials to audio–visual learning and technology-based learning (Yan and Batako, 2020). This evolution has allowed distance learning teachers to experiment with various educational technologies that best suit their own teaching practices. It has also enriched distance learning students’ learning experiences by providing a wide range of multimedia resources that best facilitate their learning outcomes. The extent to which multimedia resources can be effectively exploited depends largely on the interactivity of the multimedia teaching and learning materials used; that is, the inclusion of different multimedia elements in the teaching and learning materials (Prasetya et al., 2018). In order to optimize multimedia-based distance learning, distance learning teachers must augment interactivity by supplementing their lessons with smart classroom technologies such as interactive whiteboards, interactive mobile devices (e.g., tablets and smartphones), and interactive learning platforms (e.g., learning apps), while at the same time incorporating into the design of instructional materials both interactive elements (e.g., quizzes, multiple choice questions, discussions, and hotspots) and multimodal elements (e.g., images, sounds, videos, and animations). This would not only help the creation of an interactive and fun learning environment, but also to engagement of students’ attention and interest in the lessons (Kusuma et al., 2021).

Conclusion

The findings of this study contribute to highlighting the patterns and trends of TLIs in distance learning in recent years. Concerning the types of TLIs implemented, the results reveal four main types of TLIs, namely educational technologies, teaching and learning approaches and activities, teaching and learning programs, and assessment approaches and activities. Pertaining to the major pedagogical patterns in the most frequently implemented TLIs, the results found a total of seven pedagogical patterns, covering the learning of science through online laboratories, learning through virtual and augmented reality, blended/hybrid/flipped learning, learning through multimedia, learning through gaming, learning through collaboration, and learning through tasks/projects. Regarding the implications for distance learning based on the major pedagogical patterns, the results provided four important implications, covering the use of online laboratories in science courses, promotion of virtual and augmented-based distance learning, encouragement of development, implementation, and the study of pedagogical approaches to distance learning, and increase in interactivity in multimedia-based distance learning.

Limitations and future work

There are limitations of the present study. One is that the study was limited to the examination of the types of TLIs in distance learning and their major pedagogical patterns. Future studies could investigate other relevant areas such as the perceptions of the TLIs among distance learning teachers and students, their positive and negative impacts on teaching and learning, and the experiences and challenges of distance learning for teachers and students using the TLIs in order to give a clear description of their effectiveness. Another limitation is that the study focused primarily on the TLIs in the context of distance learning. Future studies could also investigate TLIs implemented in conventional face-to-face learning in order to identify their similarities or variations. Finally, the study was restricted to the analysis of TLI-related publications from the past 6 years. Future work could include a larger sample size of publications to identify their features, evolutions, and trends along the years.

Author contributions

KL, BW, and HC contributed to conception and design of the study and analysis of data. HC performed the data collection and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The work described in this paper was partially supported by the grants from Hong Kong Metropolitan University (2021/011 and RIF/2021/04).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Altunoglu, A. (2017). Initial perceptions of open higher education students with learner management systems. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 18, 96–104. doi: 10.17718/tojde.328939

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ang, J. W. J. (2020). Scaffolded inverse blended learning: an approach to teach an online general chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 2839–2844. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00436

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Au, O. T. S., Li, K. C., and Wong, B. T. M. (2018). Student persistence in open and distance learning: success factors and challenges. Asian Assoc. Open Univ. J. 13, 191–202. doi: 10.1108/AAOUJ-12-2018-0030

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barbieri, G. G., Barbieri, R., and Capone, R. (2021). Serious games in high school mathematics lessons: an embedded case study in Europe. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology. Education 17:em1963. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/10857

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bashir, F., and Warraich, N. F. (2020). Systematic literature review of semantic web for distance learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 527–543. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1799023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bayyat, M. (2020). Blended learning: a new approach to teach ballet techniques for undergraduate students. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 21, 69–86. doi: 10.17718/tojde.727979

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berndt, A., Murray, C. M., Kennedy, K., Stanley, M. J., and Gilbert-Hunt, S. (2017). Effectiveness of distance learning strategies for continuing professional development (CPD) for rural allied health practitioners: a systematic review. BMC Med. Educ. 17, 1–117. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0949-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhatti, Z., Bibi, M., and Shabbir, N.. (2020). Augmented reality based multimedia learning for dyslexic children. The 2020 3rd international conference on computing, mathematics and engineering technologies. Idea to Innovation for Building the Knowledge Economy, pp. 1–7.

Google Scholar

Briggs, J. C. (2002). Virtual reality is getting real: prepare to meet your clone. Futurist 36, 34–41.

Google Scholar

Broyer, R. M., Miller, K., Ramachandran, S., Fu, S., Howell, K., and Cutchin, S. (2021). Using virtual reality to demonstrate glove hygiene in introductory chemistry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 224–229. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00137

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Capone, R., and Lepore, M. (2022). From distance learning to integrated digital learning: a fuzzy cognitive analysis focused on engagement, motivation, and participation during COVID-19 pandemic. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 27, 1259–1289. doi: 10.1007/s10758-021-09571-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cervantes-Perez, F., Vadillo, G., Bucio, J., and Herrera, A. (2019). Characterizing UNAM’s open education system using the OOFAT model. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 20, 212–230. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i3.4108

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Charef, R., Emmitt, S., Alaka, H., and Fouchal, F. (2019). Building information modelling adoption in the European Union: an overview. J. Build. Eng. 25:100777. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100777

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, M. R. A., Hwang, G. J., Majumdar, R., Toyokawa, Y., and Ogata, H. (2021). Research trends in the use of E-books in English as a foreign language (EFL) education from 2011 to 2020: a bibliometric and content analysis. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 2411–2427. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1888755

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, S. K. S., Wong, B. T. M., and Li, K. C. (2023). Perceived usefulness of open educational resources: impact of switching to online learning for face-to-face and distance learners. Front. Psychol. 13:1004459. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1004459

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Christiansen, M. A., Nadelson, L., Etchberger, L., Cuch, M., Kingsford, T. A., and Woodward, L. O. (2017). Flipped learning in synchronously-delivered, geographically-dispersed general chemistry classrooms. J. Chem. Educ. 94, 662–667. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00763

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Langen, F. (2018). Sustainability of open education through collaboration. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 19, 95–111. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3548

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Derah, C., Chan, P. C., and Darko, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in green building. Autom. Constr. 17:104192. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104192

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Destino, J. F., and Cunningham, K. (2020). At-home colorimetric and absorbance-based analyses: an opportunity for inquiry-based, laboratory-style learning. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 2960–2966. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00604

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dickson-Karn, N. M., and Orosz, S. (2021). Implementation of a python program to simulate sampling. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 3251–3257. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00597

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eldokhny, A. A., and Drwish, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of augmented reality in online distance learning at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 16, 198–218. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i09.17895

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

England, E. (2018). The librarian BFF: a case study of a cohort-based personal librarian program. J. Libr. Inf. Serv. Dist. Learn. 12, 3–12. doi: 10.1080/1533290X.2018.1467810

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eren, H. C., and Oztug, E. K. (2020). The implementation of virtual choir recordings for distance learning. Cypriot J. Educ. Stud. 15, 1117–1127. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v15i5.5159

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harsasi, M., and Sutawijaya, A. (2018). Determinants of student satisfaction in online tutorial: a study of a distance education institution. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 19, 89–99. doi: 10.17718/tojde.382732

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

He, L., Yang, N., Xu, L., Ping, F., Li, W., Sun, Q., et al. (2020). Synchronous distance education vs traditional education for health science students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med. Educ. 55, 293–308. doi: 10.1111/medu.14364

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heinerichs, S., Pazzaglia, G., and Gilboy, M. B. (2016). Using flipped classroom components in blended courses to maximize student learning. Athl. Train. Educ. J. 11, 54–57. doi: 10.4085/110154

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hills, L., Clarke, A., Hughes, J., Butcher, J., Shelton, I., and McPherson, E. (2018). Chinese whispers? Investigating the consistency of the language of assessment between a distance education institution, its tutors and students. Open Learn. 33, 238–249. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1500278

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hlescu, A. A., Birlescu, A. E., Hanganu, B., Manoilescu, I. S., and Ioan, B. G. (2020). Traditional teaching versus online teaching of forensic autopsy case study–Grigore T. Popa University of medicine and pharmacy in Iasi. Rev. Rom. Pentru Educ. Multidimen. 12, 41–54. doi: 10.18662/rrem/12.2Sup1/288

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jarab, F., Al-Qerem, W., Jarab, A. S., and Banyhani, M. (2022). Faculties’ satisfaction with distance education during COVID-19 outbreak in Jordan. Front. Educ. 7:789648. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.789648

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jeffery, A. J., Rogers, S. L., Jeffery, K. L. A., and Hobson, L. (2021). A flexible, open, and interactive digital platform to support online and blended experiential learning environments-Thinglink and thin sections. Geosci. Commun. 4, 95–110. doi: 10.5194/gc-4-95-2021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Juul, J. (2003). “The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness” in Level up: digital games research conference proceedings. eds. M. Copier and J. Raessens (Utrecht: Utrecht University), 30–45.

Google Scholar

Kanwar, A., Mohee, R., Carr, A., Ortlieb, K., and Sukon, K. (2019). A neo-institutionalist approach to understanding drivers of quality assurance in ODL: the case of the Open University of Mauritius. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 20, 79–98. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4117

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Karasneh, R. A., Al-Azzam, S. I., Alzoubi, K. H., Hawamdeh, S. S., and Sweileh, W. M. (2022). Global research trends of health-related publications on Ramadan fasting from 1999 to 2021: a bibliometric analysis. J. Relig. Health 61, 3777–3794. doi: 10.1007/s10943-022-01573-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kato, F., Spring, R., and Mori, C. (2020). Incorporating project-based language learning into distance learning: creating a homepage during computer-mediated learning sessions. Lang. Teach. Res. 27, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/13621688209544

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khaleel, F. L., Ashaari, N. S., Meriam, T. S., Wook, T., and Ismail, A.. (2015). The study of gamification application architecture for programming language course. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on ubiquitous information management and communication, No. 17, pp. 1–5.

Google Scholar

Kowalski, S., Samól, P., and Hirsch, R. (2020). Virtual reality tools in teaching the conservation and history of polish architecture. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 18, 399–404.

Google Scholar

Kruse, I., Lutskovskaia, L., and Stepanova, V. V. (2022). Advantages and disadvantages of distance teaching in foreign language education during COVID-19. Front. Educ. 7:964135. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.964135

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Beirne, E., Conole, G., Costello, E., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., et al. (2020). Innovating pedagogy 2020: Open University innovation report 8. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Google Scholar

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., et al. (2021). Innovating pedagogy 2021: Open University innovation report 9. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Google Scholar

Kulikowski, K. (2021). Emergency forced pandemic e-learning–feedback from students for HEI management. Open Learn. 36, 245–262. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2021.1942810

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kusuma, W. M., Sudira, P., Hasibuan, M. A., and Daryono, R. W. (2021). The perceptions of vocational school students of video animation-based learning media to operate lathes in distance learning. J. Educ. Technol. 5, 200–206. doi: 10.23887/jet.v5i2.33139

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Laal, M., and Ghodsi, S. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Soc. Behav. Sci. 31, 486–490. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Larriba, M., Rodríguez-Llorente, D., Cañada-Barcala, A., Sanz-Santos, E., Gutiérrez-Sánchez, P., Pascual-Muñoz, G., et al. (2021). Lab at home: 3d printed and low-cost experiments for thermal engineering and separation processes in COVID-19 time. Educ. Chem. Eng. 36, 24–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2021.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Levonis, S. M., Tauber, A. L., Schweiker, S. S., and Levonis, S. M. (2021). 360C virtual laboratory tour with embedded skills videos. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 651–654. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00622

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindfors, E., and Hilmola, A. (2016). Innovation learning in comprehensive education? Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 26, 373–389. doi: 10.1007/s10798-015-9311-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lischer, S., Schmitz, S. C., Krüger, P., Safi, N., and Dickson, C. (2021). Distance education in social work during the COVID-19 pandemic: changes and challenges. Front. Educ. 6:720565. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.720565

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahande, R. D., and Akram, A. (2021). Motivational factors underlying the use of online learning system in higher education: an analysis of measurement model. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 22, 89–105. doi: 10.17718/tojde.849888

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin, F. L., Sun, T., Westine, C. D., and Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2022). Examining research on the impact of distance and online learning: a second-order meta-analysis study. Educ. Res. Rev. 36, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100438

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Merino, C., Marzábal, A., Quiroz, W., Pino, S., López-Cortés, F., Carrasco, X., et al. (2022). Use of augmented reality in chromatography learning: how is this dynamic visual artifact fostering the visualization capacities of chemistry undergraduate students? Front. Educ. 7:932713. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.932713

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Muda, M. N., and Yusof, Z. M. (2015). Conceptual framework for knowledge sharing initiative in institution of higher learning to enhance the teaching performance and innovation. Sci. J. PPI-UKM 2, 10–16.

Google Scholar

Nikolaevna, T., Leonidovna, E., Sergeevna, S., Alexandrovna, N., Ramazanovna, F., and Alexandrovna, E. (2021). Distance learning experience in the context of globalization of education. Propósitosy Representaciones 9, 1–7. doi: 10.20511/pyr2021.v9nSPE2.985

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nugroho, A. A., and Wahyono, S. B. (2019). E-learning development as a blended-learning learning to support interactive learning multimedia development course. Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Hum. Res. 511, 41–43. doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.201221.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ødegaard, N. B., Myrhaug, H. T., Dahl-Michelsen, T., and Røe, Y. (2021). Digital learning designs in physiotherapy education: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Med. Educ. 21, 1–18. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02483-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oduaran, A. (2017). Influence of students’ feedback on the quality of adult higher distance education service delivery. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 18, 160–176. doi: 10.17718/tojde.340407

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orduña, L. P., Rodriguez-Gil, J., Garcia-Zubia, I., Angulo, U., Hernandez, H., and Azcuenaga, E. (2018). “Increasing the value of remote laboratory federations through an open sharing platform: LabsLand” in Online Engineering & Internet of things. eds. M. E. Auer and D. G. Zutin (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), 859–873.

Google Scholar

Osman, G., Duffy, T. M., Chang, J. Y., and Lee, J. (2011). Learning through collaboration: student perspectives. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 12, 547–558. doi: 10.1007/s12564-011-9156-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Padmo, D., Idrus, O., and Ardiasih, L. S. (2019). The utilization of mobile devices for improving access to online learning for distance education’s students. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 20, 147–161. doi: 10.17718/tojde.557858

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pakinee, A., and Puritat, K. (2021). Designing a gamified e-learning environment for teaching undergraduate ERP course based on big five personality traits. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 4049–4067. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10456-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Panova, E. P., Tjumentseva, E. V., Koroleva, I. A., Ibragimova, E. R., and Samusenkov, V. O. (2021). Organization of project work with the help of digital technologies in teaching Russian as a foreign language at the initial stage. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 16, 208–220. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i22.20573

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pecori, R. (2018). A virtual learning architecture enhanced by fog computing and big data streams. Future Int. 10, 1–30. doi: 10.3390/fi10070057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinchbeck, J., and Heaney, C. (2017). Case report: the impact of a resubmission intervention on level 1 distance learning students. Open Learn. 32, 236–242. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2017.1348290

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prasetya, D. D., Wibawa, A. P., and Ahmar, A. S. (2018). Design of web-based lightweight interactive multimedia for distance learning. International conference on statistics, mathematics, teaching, and research 2017. Makassar: Indonesia.

Google Scholar

Pulukuri, S., and Abrams, B. (2020). Incorporating an online interactive video platform to optimize active learning and improve student accountability through educational videos. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 4505–4514. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00855

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raharjo, S. R., Handayani, P. W., and Putra, P. O. H. (2021). Active student learning through gamification in a learning management system. Electron. J. E-Learn. 19, 601–613. doi: 10.34190/ejel.19.6.2089

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramdass, K., and Nemavhola, F. (2018). Quality practices: an open distance learning perspective. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 19, 234–246. doi: 10.17718/tojde.382806

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Raymond, A., Jacob, E., Jacob, D., and Lyons, J. (2016). Peer learning a pedagogical approach to enhance online learning: a qualitative exploration. Nurse Educ. Today 44, 165–169. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.05.016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salem, A. A. M. (2022). Multimedia presentations through digital storytelling for sustainable development of EFL learners’ argumentative writing skills, self-directed learning skills and learner autonomy. Front. Educ. 7:884709. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.884709

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sangra, A., Vlachopoulos, D., and Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: an approach to the conceptual framework. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 13, 145–159. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seaton, K. M., Stockton, A., and O’Mahony, C. (2021). Capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection for the diagnosis of phenylketonuria-a versatile wet or dry laboratory experiment in upper-level undergraduate analytical chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 2097–2013. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01342

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shakirova, N., Al Said, N., and Konyushenko, S. (2020). The use of virtual reality in geo-education. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 59–70. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i20.15433

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharpe, R., and Abrahams, I. (2019). Secondary school students’ attitudes to practical work in biology, chemistry and physics in England. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 38, 84–104. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1597696

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., et al. (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013: open University innovation report 2. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Google Scholar

Somerton, M. (2022). Develoing an educational app for students with autism. Front. Educ. 7:998694. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.998694

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sterling, L., Mckay, J., and Ericson, C. (2017). Long distance relationships: assessing the library service needs of rural students in e-learning courses. J. Libr. Inf. Serv. Dist. Learn. 11, 140–157. doi: 10.1080/1533290X.2016.1229425

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sugilar, S. (2020). The role of service quality management in students’ reenrollmen. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 21, 45–56. doi: 10.17718/tojde.690335

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sweileh, W. M. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of health-related literature on natural disasters from 1900 to 2017. Health Res. Policy Syst. 17:18. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0418-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomas, J. W. . (2000). A review of research on project based learning. Available at: http://www.autodesk.com/foundation/news/pblpaper.htm.

Google Scholar

Tibingana-Ahimbisibwe, B., Willis, S., Catherall, S., Butler, F., and Harrison, R. (2020). A systematic review of peer-assisted learning in fully online higher education distance learning programmes. Open Learn. 37, 251–272. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2020.1758651

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tladi, L. S. (2017). Perceived ability and success: which self-efficacy measures matter? A distance learning perspective. Open Learn. 32, 243–261. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2017.1356711

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tonbuloğlu, B., and Tonbuloğlu, İ. (2023). Trends and patterns in blended learning research (1965–2022). Educ. Inf. Technol. 1, 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11754-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Toprak, E., and Sakar, A. N. (2021). Need for accreditation agencies as stakeholders in open and distance learning: case of audak in Turkish higher education system. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 21, 29–48. doi: 10.17718/tojde.770904

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tugetkin, E. B., and Dursun, O. O. (2022). Effect of animated and interactive video variations on learners’ motivation in distance education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 3247–3276. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10735-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Urueta, S. H., and Ogi, T. (2021). 3D VR180 livestreaming system for semi-synchronous distance learning in TEFL applications. CALL-EJ 22, 180–200. doi: 10.30630/joiv.5.3.632

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vargas-Oviedo, D., Morantes, S. J., and Diaz-Báez, D. (2021). Human salivary α-amylase and starch digestion-a simple and inexpensive at-home laboratory experience in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 98, 3975–3983. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vasylyshyn, I., and Vasylyshyn, V. (2017). Teaching types in innovation processes of education. Scientific thinking: Collection of articles of the participants of the sixteenth all-Ukrainian practical-cognitive conference “scientific thought of the present and the future”. Part 1–NM Publishing House. Dnipro.

Google Scholar

Volk, F. (2020). Active duty military learners and distance education: factors of persistence and attrition. Am. J. Dist. Educ. 34, 106–120. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2019.1708842

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weicht, M., Maciuszek, D., and Martens, A. (2012). Designing virtual experiments in the context of marine sciences. IEEE 2012, 712–713. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2012.191

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wenzel, T. (2020). Collaborative group learning in remotely taught analytical chemistry courses. J. Chem. Educ. 97, 2715–2718. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00520

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, B. T. M., and Li, K. C. (2020). “Meeting diverse student needs for support services: a comparison between face-to-face and distance-learning students” in Innovating education in technology-support environments. eds. K. C. Li, E. Y. M. Tsang, and B. T. M. Wong (Berlin: Springer), 253–268.

Google Scholar

Yan, N., and Batako, A. D. L. (2020). Online teaching: a relational study of perception and satisfaction. Int. J. TESOL Stud. 2, 128–145. doi: 10.46451/ijts.2020.12.12

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar