Dr. Swapna Kumar

Faculty who e‑mentor dissertations in online doctoral programs or remotely due to COVID‑19 responded to an open‑ended survey about effective strategies, challenges, and needed institutional supports. Consistent communication, individualized support, and structure were helpful; time, workload, and lack of institutional support were major challenges. Respondents recommended process support, research and writing resources, and time/incentives for e‑mentoring.

This exploratory study examined how instructional designers (IDs) in higher education integrate generative AI (GenAI) into their institutions and their own practice. Fifteen IDs in the southeastern U.S. participated in semi‑structured Zoom interviews. Three themes emerged: (a) use of GenAI for instructional design, (b) collaborative guidance for faculty integrating GenAI, and (c) development of training, resources, and guidelines. Across themes, participants described conscientious, cautious use and ethical concerns. Implications address how IDs can support organizational, faculty, and student needs in online and blended education.

Bichronous online learning is the intentional blending of asynchronous and synchronous online experiences. Interviews with 12 award‑winning online instructors identified best practices for combining modalities (e.g., course structure, instructor presence, synchronous formats and community building), along with benefits and challenges. Findings suggest that intentional blending of synchronous and asynchronous components can enhance students’ online learning experiences and inform faculty, instructional designers, and administrators considering this modality.

Surveying faculty who supervise dissertations online or at a distance (including during COVID‑19), this study examined helpful technologies and strategies for e‑mentoring. The instrument focused on technology use, communication and expectations, research processes, socio‑emotional support, and institutional support. Results identify what faculty find most helpful across these domains and are discussed in relation to prior literature and future research.

Analyzing 69 dissertations from the first five cohorts of an online EdD in Educational Technology, the authors examined theories/frameworks used, research designs, and how literature and rigor were articulated. Dissertations reflected diverse disciplinary bases, purposeful conceptual frameworks that guided research, and a range of approaches (with mixed methods and qualitative more prevalent). Program design implications are discussed.

This qualitative study investigated how 12 award‑winning online instructors design, facilitate, and assess bichronous online learning (the blending of asynchronous and synchronous modalities). Through interviews, the study reports instructors’ blending decisions, sequencing (e.g., asynchronous→synchronous or A→S→A), and models (complement, replacement, enhancement), and details design, facilitation, and assessment strategies across modalities. Implications are offered for instructors, students, instructional designers, and administrators.

This article describes the creation and validation of the Online Instructor Support Survey (OISS) to assess institutional support for online instructors across five sections: technology and technical support, course development/teaching support, administrative and academic support, institutional policies, and recognition/rewards. Responses from 275 online instructors highlight areas of prevalent support and areas needing attention in higher education institutions.

Focusing on an online doctoral program, interviews with 10 graduates supervised in research groups (4–6 students) reveal how supervisors structured and supported individual and group research progress, contributing to a sense of online community. Strategies used, challenges faced, and implications for online supervision are presented.

Surveying 141 online instructors, this study categorized eight roles (e.g., Subject Matter Expert, Course Designer/Developer, Facilitator, Advisor/Mentor, Assessor/Evaluator, Technology Expert, Lifelong Learner) and examined associated competencies. All role categories were used frequently; participation in training and collaboration with instructional designers were associated with higher frequency of competency performance. Implications for instructors, instructional designers, and administrators are discussed.

To identify course design, assessment/evaluation, and facilitation practices of award‑winning online faculty, eight instructors from across the U.S. were interviewed. Results show use of systematic/backward design, attention to learner needs and interaction, and a variety of assessments (traditional and authentic) supported by rubrics. Facilitation emphasized timely response/feedback, availability and presence, and periodic communication. Recommendations for research and practice are provided.