[1. Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group, Pearson, Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Arreola, R.A. (1979). Strategy for developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. In Engineering Education, 12, (pp. 239-244).]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Arreola, R.A. (1986). Evaluating the dimensions of teaching. In Instructional Evaluation, 8(2), (pp. 4-14).]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Arreola, R.A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Arreola, R.A. (2000a). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Arreola, R.A. (2000b). Interview. In The Department Chair, 11(2), (pp. 4-5).]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Arreola, R.A.; Aleamoni, L.A.; Theall, M. (2001). College teaching as meta-profession: Reconceptualizing the scholarship of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 9th Annual American AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, Tampa, FL.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Baran, E.; Correia, A. and Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. In Distance Education, 32(3), (pp. 421-439). doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.61029310.1080/01587919.2011.610293]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Beebe, R.; Vonderwell, S.; Boboc, M. (2010). Emerging Patterns in Transferring Assessment Practices from F2f to Online Environments. In Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 8(1), (pp. 1-12).]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communications research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Berk, R.A. (2006). Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer’s guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Berk, R.A. (2013). Face-to-face versus online course evaluations: A “consumer's guide” to seven strategies. In Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9(1), (pp. 140-148).]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Berk, R.A. (2014). Should student outcomes be used to evaluate teaching? In Journal of Faculty Development, 28(2), (pp. 87-96).]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. In Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, (pp. 11-20).10.2307/3824459]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Braskamp, L.A. (2000). Toward a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. In K. Ryan (ed.), Evaluating teaching in higher education: A vision for the future. New directions for teaching and learning, Number 83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Braskamp, L.A.; Brandenburg, D.C. and Ory, J.C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Burke, L.A. (2005). Transitioning to online course offerings: Tactical and strategic considerations. In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(2), (pp. 94-107).]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Carney, T.F. (1972). Content analysis. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Glassick, C.E.; Huber, M.T. and Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Harrington, C.F. and Reasons, S.G. (2005). Online student evaluation of teaching for distance education: A perfect match? In The Journal of Educators Online, 2(1), (pp. 1-12). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/ReasonsFinal.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Hathorn, L. and Hathorn, J. (2010). Evaluation of online course websites: Is teaching online a tug-of-war? In Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), (pp. 197-217). doi:10.2190/EC.42.2.d10.2190/EC.42.2.d]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Hixon, E.; Barczyk, C.; Buckenmeyer, J.; Feldman, L. (2011). Mentoring university faculty to become high quality online educators: A program evaluation. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(5).]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Holsti, O.R. (1968). Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aaronson (eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Krippendorff, K.H. and Bock, M.A. (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Education, 6(1).]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Loveland, K.A. (2007). Student evaluation of teaching (SET) in web-based classes: Preliminary findings and a call for further research. In The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), (pp. 1-18). Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Loveland Final.pdf10.9743/JEO.2007.2.4]Search in Google Scholar
[31. MacMillan, M.; Mitchell, M. and Manarin, K. (2010). Evaluating teaching as the first step to SoTL. Paper presented at SoTL Commons Conference, Statesboro, GA, 2010, March 1. ]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Mandernach, J.B.; Donnelli, E.; Dailey, A.; Schulte, M. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3).]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CENGAGE.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Mueller, B.; Mandernach, B.J.; Sanderson, K. (2013). Adjunct versus full-time faculty: Comparison of student outcomes in the online classroom. In Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 9(3), (pp. 341-352).]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203507711]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Roblyer, M.D. and Ekhaml, L.E. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2).]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Rockwell, K.; Furgason, J.; Marx, D.B. (2000). Research and evaluation needs for distance education: A Delphi study. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(3).]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Rothman, T.; Romeo, L.; Brennan, M.; Mitchell, D. (2011). Criteria for assessing student satisfaction with online courses. In International Journal for e-Learning Security, 1(1-2), (pp. 27-32). Retrieved from http://www.infonomics-society.org/IJeLS/Criteria for Assessing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses.pdf10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2011.0004]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Schulte, M. (2014). Faculty Perceptions on the Benefits of Instructor Evaluation for Improved Online Facilitation. In the Proceedings of TCC Online Conference, 2014, (pp. 98-110). Retrieved from: http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2014/Schulte.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009). Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice. In the encyclopedia of informal education. Available online at http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Sunal, D.W.; Sunal, C.S.; Odell, M.R. and Sundberg, C.A. (2003). Research-supported best practices for developing online learning. In The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2(1).]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Tallent-Runnels, M.K.; Thomas, J.A.; Lan, W.Y.; Cooper, S.; Ahern, T.C.; Shaw, S.M.; Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. In Review of Educational Research, 76(1), (pp. 93-135). doi:10.3102/0034654307600109310.3102/00346543076001093]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Tobin, T.J. (2004). Best practices for administrative evaluation of online faculty. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2).]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Wellein, M.G.; Ragucci, K.R. and Lapointe, M. (2009). A peer review process for classroom teaching. In American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(5), (pp. 1-7).10.5688/aj730579]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. In Organization, 7(2), (pp. 225-246). 10.1177/135050840072002]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Wenger, E. (2012). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/theory/]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Wenger, E.; Trayner, B. and de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Raport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/11-04- Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf ]Search in Google Scholar