Understanding Any Time, Any Place, Any Pace
A significant draw of virtual learning for both students and their families is the promise of flexibility (Beck et al., 2014). There is some evidence that in certain locales, families' demand for virtual learning options is strong (Diliberti & Schwartz, 2021), and autonomy is a factor that many consider when deciding to transition to virtual learning (Beck et al., 2014). Indeed, the popularity of virtual learning is increasing, with, for example, 150,304 (11%) Michigan K-12 students taking at least one virtual course in the 2024-2025 school year. This is a significant increase from the 91,000 (7%) who took at least one virtual course ten years ago (Freidhoff et al., 2026; Freidhoff, 2016). Furthermore, the number of plans for virtual schools appears to be increasing nationally (Diliberti & Schwartz, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, 2021). Depending on the type of school, program, and grade level, the proportion of asynchronous and synchronous course delivery may change. For example, research conducted by the Christensen Institute suggests that during emergency remote teaching in 2020, only 15% of the sampled teachers reported exclusively asynchronous instruction. On the other hand, the National Education Policy Center reports that, as of 2023, approximately 70% of virtual charter schools deliver instruction completely asynchronously. Other virtual schools serving K-12 populations report that high school students spend approximately 15-20% of their course time in synchronous instruction. It may be common for younger K-12 students to spend more time in synchronous instruction, while older students receive primarily asynchronous instruction (Arnett, 2021; Arizona State University, n.d.; Minnesota Virtual Schools, n.d.; Molnar et al., 2023; National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.).
Because virtual learning facilitates students’ ability to complete coursework outside of a traditional face-to-face classroom and outside of “typical” school hours, it is often touted as being able to deliver education “any time, any place, any pace.” This adage is used to describe modalities of asynchronous instruction where students can work on their coursework whenever they choose (typically guided by term start and end dates), in their chosen space, and at their own pace (presumably moving as quickly or as slowly as needed by the individual student; Connections Academy, 2020). In asynchronous courses, because instructors and students are not consistently interacting in real time, students have autonomy over when, where, and how quickly various learning activities, such as completing assignments, viewing lectures, reviewing materials, and studying (to name a few), occur.
While increased flexibility and autonomy are often desired by students and families, it is essential to note that they are not void of challenges. If students are unfamiliar with the expectations of virtual learning, adjusting to this asynchronous modality may be difficult (Michigan Virtual, n.d.; Veletsianos & Houlden, 2019) as it requires students to leverage a multitude of time management and self-regulated learning skills (SRL skills) to stay on track and be successful (Michigan Virtual, n.d.; Veletsianos & Houlden, 2019). The flexibility provided by virtual learning may create unique time management and pacing challenges that are related to course outcomes (Cuccolo & DeBruler, 2024; Cuccolo & Green, 2025; Lim, 2016a,b). Discrepancies in pass rates between virtual and face-to-face coursework may, in part, reflect these challenges (Freidhoff et al., 2024). To enhance student outcomes, it is critical to understand how they use the flexibility afforded to them in their day-to-day course navigation and how this may relate to important outcomes.
The goal of this Introductory Report is to synthesize the available research on flexibility in virtual K-12 settings, highlighting research that describes associations between students’ timing, place, and pace and course outcomes such as grades, completion status, assignment submissions, and overall engagement. By presenting the available research, we aim to describe how students use the flexibility of virtual learning to engage with their coursework and to identify the elements that may be particularly challenging or impactful on their performance. This report will also lay the foundation for exploring each element (time, place, pace) in more detail in subsequent reports.
The Double Bind of Flexibility
The benefits of flexibility
As previously mentioned, the desire for increased flexibility often leads families to pursue virtual learning (Beck et al., 2014). While flexibility was the most commonly reported reason students actively sought out virtual learning, a closer examination reveals a myriad of underlying reasons why flexibility is needed. For example, flexibility may be essential for accommodating busy schedules, health concerns, life events (e.g., moving), or pertinent academic needs (e.g., credit recovery, dual credit, access to certain courses) (The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning, 2017). Exerting more autonomy over when, where, and the rate of progression are core and individualized aspects of virtual learning’s flexibility. For example, one student may be able to start an online class midway through a term to recover credits to stay on track for graduation. Another student may need to engage with their coursework from a different state while traveling for a sporting competition. A student who excels in writing and has become disengaged, frustrated with the pace of their face-to-face course, can transition to virtual learning to move at their desired speed (The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning, 2017).
Taken together, this proposed flexibility can benefit students in terms of logistics, social interactions, and academic outcomes. Research suggests that one way this flexibility may benefit students is by boosting engagement. Compared to synchronous (e.g., Zoom-facilitated discussion) or quasi-synchronous (e.g., instant messaging) communication methods, asynchronous methods afford students more time to prepare responses, increasing their comfort and perceived quality of work and, in some cases, leading to greater engagement (Culbreth & Martin, 2025). Nevertheless, this flexibility presents unique challenges for students who must adapt to a new learning paradigm that places significantly more autonomy on them to manage their time and effort without the synchronous, face-to-face support of a teacher, to which they are likely accustomed (Michigan Virtual, n.d.; Veletsianos & Houlden, 2019).
Self-Regulated Learning Skills: A necessary (and developing) skillset in virtual learning
Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to the planning, performing, and reflecting processes students use to progress towards their learning goals. Consisting of metacognitive strategies (i.e., planning, monitoring learning, and progress), effort regulation, and cognitive strategies (i.e., how they learn, remember, and recall material), across contexts, SRL has been shown to be critical for students’ success (e.g., Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007; Ye et al., 2022). However, the environment in which students are situated may influence which (and to what extent) certain SRL skills are required, with virtual environments placing greater demands on students to plan, perform, and monitor actions that will help them progress toward the successful completion of the course. In asynchronous learning environments, SRL skills—specifically, goal setting, time management, and self-evaluation—appear to be particularly important for achieving success (as measured by final exam scores) among undergraduate college students (Alhazbi & Hasan, 2021).
SRL skills do not exist in a vacuum; rather, they occur in the context of students’ motivation to use them, engagement with course materials, and competing interests or priorities. Across modalities, teachers believe that motivation and interest are significant forces influencing engagement. Importantly, the unique aspects of a virtual learning context, such as fluid time, space, pace, and social boundaries, pose specific challenges for motivating students and sparking interest in coursework (An et al., 2021; Harrington & DeBruler, 2021). For example, teachers cannot solely rely on traditional cues to assess engagement (e.g., body language) or to encourage engagement (e.g., verbal praise; Bergdahl & Bond, 2022; Moskovich & Hershkovitz, 2024). When examining assignment engagement patterns (i.e., accessing and submitting assignments) among high- and low-performing undergraduate students, one notable difference is their usage of goal-setting behaviors, with low performers reporting fewer goal-setting behaviors (Lawanto et al., 2017). Goal setting may help set the stage for efficient navigation of assignments, as this allows students to identify a desired outcome and the steps needed to achieve it (e.g., what materials are needed, steps needed to complete the assignment, and when each step should be completed), but motivation and time management strategies are likely needed to ensure action. Taken together, SRL skills, combined with accelerating forces such as motivation and interest, likely work together to help students navigate virtual coursework effectively and efficiently.
Time management is another key factor in students’ success in virtual courses. Öztaş and colleagues (2024) observed that, among undergraduate students taking virtual courses, many students submitted assignments on the day of the deadline, whereas high-performing students generally followed one of two submission patterns: either submitting before or on the deadline day. On the other hand, low-performing students tended to follow one of three patterns: the assignment was either submitted late, viewed but not submitted, or not viewed at all. This finding suggests that low performance in virtual courses is not exclusively an issue of poor-quality work, but rather an issue with student pacing, particularly the timely submission of assignments.
Pacing: Assignment Submission Flexibility Leveraged by Students
In self-paced virtual courses, it is not uncommon for students to be guided only by an end-of-term deadline, which provides them considerable flexibility in submitting their assignments. Students’ pace, or the rate at which they submit assignments, does appear to factor into their success. Kwon (2018) examined students’ learning trajectories (i.e., points earned, enrollment status) throughout their time enrolled in virtual mathematics courses and observed four different pacing patterns, some of which were associated with more positive outcomes than others. Students who generally adhered to the pace set by their course pacing guides and those who showed a linear progression had higher pass rates than students who crammed in assignment submissions or had low overall engagement. Taken together, Kwon highlights how students’ management of the timing of their assignment submissions is predictive of course outcomes. Along a similar vein, last-minute assignment submissions (i.e., submitted 12 hours or less before the deadline) also have a negative relationship with course performance (Muljana, Dabas, & Luo, 2023).
Research conducted by the Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute, specifically with K-12 students, suggests that students do take advantage of learning at any pace in their virtual courses, although this may not always be in their best interest. Most students deviate from their course pacing guides, and submit almost half of their assignments out of alignment with what is outlined in their course pacing guides (Cuccolo & DeBruler, 2024; Cuccolo & Green, 2025). Similarly, students from high-free-and-reduced-price-lunch schools were more likely than their peers to not submit an assignment within the first week of a course. Both of these pacing behaviors are negatively related to course outcomes (Cuccolo & DeBruler, 2024; Cuccolo & Green, 2025; Zweig, 2023).
Altogether, the flexibility of virtual learning can put students in a double bind. Goal setting, time management, and self-evaluation may be particularly important for students in asynchronous learning environments because, while goals can direct students’ efforts, the increased autonomy afforded by asynchronous environments means students not only need to set goals but also plan the route to achieve them. They must also maintain their commitment and reflect on whether and when help or re-evaluation is necessary. This often needs to be done without the instructor's synchronous support. Adolescence is a time when SRL skills are undergoing important developmental changes; in particular, SRL skills begin to transition from being largely co-regulated to increasingly independent. Importantly, during adolescence, social relationships and environments play a significant role in the usage and growth of these skills (Opdenakker, 2022; Wesarg et al., 2023). Students’ motivations and goals, along with feedback from important people in their lives (e.g., friends, teachers, caregivers), can influence their use of SRL skills and strategies. While some students may be able to apply SRL skills independently, others may still require more co-regulation or assistance. In other words, the virtual learning environment, which often lacks social interaction and emphasizes independence, may pose additional challenges or barriers to students’ use of SRL skills.
All in all, while the increased flexibility provides increased access to learning, the independence puts pressure on students’ developing time management and SRL skills.
Practicality of Learning “Anytime, Anyplace”
Another significant aspect of this double bind is that, in practice, the concept of learning at any time, anywhere is ambiguous and messy (Fielding, 2016). Students must intentionally integrate their virtual courses into the context of their lives if the course is not integrated into their standard school day schedule; thus, in the most literal sense, it does not happen at any time, in any place, or at any pace. For K-12 students, especially, there may be tension in merging two distinct places - school and home, as students must set aside typical home activities in favor of learning (Fielding, 2016). Many students are accustomed to school being an academic and social space, but nonetheless, one with a distinct identity and function.
For some students, virtual learning may mean that the home or another third space (e.g., a car, a hotel, a sporting venue) has to accommodate a new function and/or identity (i.e., that of “school”). This is unlikely to happen without intentional actions on the student's part (e.g., making space to work, scheduling a time to work, ensuring a stable internet connection if needed, etc.). Little research has examined this aspect of virtual learning for K-12 students. Much of the research reviewed in this report focuses on post-secondary school students, as they are the most readily available population for study. However, post-secondary students may be more accustomed to the fluidity in a space’s purpose, posing a unique question about the relevance of these results to K-12 populations. College students may be more apt to view spaces as multi-purposeful. For example, the dorm room serves as a social space, a “home” space, and a designated area for schoolwork. Similarly, college students have a greater ability to easily transition to a space they perceive as being “for schoolwork,” such as the library or a café, than K-12 students may.
Du et al. (2022) aimed to investigate the relationship between learning anytime and anywhere and course performance. Using LMS data, researchers extracted the dates and locations of student logins to an undergraduate social sciences course, along with their course pass/fail status. Students who had a high frequency of learning “anytime, anyplace” had the lowest pass rates, while students whose learning was more fixed in terms of when and where the course was accessed had higher pass rates. Researchers point to cognitive memory theories as a possible explanation, as information is often easier to recall in environments similar to where it was learned. This principle has been demonstrated over time across numerous contexts (for a summary, refer to Vinney, 2025), including with exam performance among secondary school students (Seddon, 2019). It should be noted, however, that research specifically examining the relationship between K-12 virtual learners’ frequency of learning “anytime, any place” and course outcomes is significantly lacking. Additionally, there may be important differences (e.g., SRL skills, organization, time management) between students who learn “any time, any place” and those who don't, that contribute to differences in course outcomes. While research on SRL and virtual learning at the college level can inform our understanding, these findings are not necessarily automatically transferable to K-12 populations, suggesting a gap in the available research.
Notable gaps in the research and goals of this five-part series
Virtual courses offer students significant flexibility and autonomy. Overall, there appears to be a scarcity of research describing how K-12 students leverage their proposed ability to learn at any time, from any place, and at any pace. Research conducted by the Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute, specifically with K-12 students, suggests that they do take advantage of learning at any pace in their virtual courses, although this may not always be in their best interest. Most students deviate from their course pacing guides, and submit almost half of their assignments out of alignment with what is outlined in their course pacing guides (Cuccolo & DeBruler, 2024; Cuccolo & Green, 2025). Similarly, students from high-free-and-reduced-price-lunch schools were more likely than their peers to not submit an assignment within the first week of a course. Both of these pacing behaviors are negatively related to course outcomes. Relatedly, engagement is dynamic — waxing and waning throughout a course, requiring responsiveness from instructors to help ensure student success.
Most research examining how students exert autonomy in the context of their courses is focused on the college level. Given that college students and K-12 students are developmentally distinct populations, it cannot be assumed that research conducted with undergraduate students can be applied seamlessly to K-12 students (Opdenakker, 2022; Wesarg et al., 2023). As such, while research from Du et al. (2022) suggests that most students vary their learning location, and that this is detrimental to performance, it cannot be assumed that this would replicate with K-12 students. There is a clear gap in the research on what 'any time, any place, any pace' learning looks like in daily practice for K-12 students. For example, when do most students complete their virtual coursework? Is it during school hours (like in a study hall) or outside of these blocked-off times? Where are students completing their virtual coursework? School? Home? A third space? How many different locations do they log over the course of a term? What sort of pacing is most common for students completing virtual coursework? Additionally, research paints an incomplete picture of how these elements (time, place, pace) relate to course outcomes.
The following reports in this series will more closely explore the concepts of learning any time, any place, and at any pace. They will pay particular attention to what the existing research says about these topics, specifically how students leverage the flexibility of virtual learning and their unique relationships with course outcomes
References
Alhazbi, S., & Hasan, M. A. (2021). The Role of Self-Regulation in Remote Emergency Learning: Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Learning. Sustainability, 13(19), 11070. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911070
An, Y., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Yang, J., Conan, J., Kinard, W., & Daughrity, L. (2021). Examining
K-12 teachers’ feelings, experiences, and perspectives regarding online teaching during
the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 69(5), 2589-2613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10008-5
Arnett, T. (2021). Will pandemic shift to online classes speed progress toward
student-centered learning?. Christensen Institute.
https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/will-pandemic-shift-to-online-classes-spee
d-progress-toward-student-centered-learning
Arizona State University. (n.d.). What is the balance between synchronous and
asynchronous courses for high school learners?. ASU Prep Digital.
https://www.asuprepdigital.org/faqs/what-is-the-balance-between-synchronous-and-
asynchronous-courses-for-high-school-learners/
Beck, D., Egalite, A. and Maranto, R. (2014), “Why they choose and how it goes: comparing
special education and general education cyber student perceptions”, Computers and
Education, Vol. 76, pp. 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.011
Bergdahl, N., & Bond, M. (2022). Negotiating (dis-) engagement in K-12 blended learning.
Education and Information. Technologies, 27(2), 2635-2660.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10714-w
Connections Academy. (2020, August 18). Differences Between Real Time and Anytime
Learning.
https://www.connectionsacademy.com/support/resources/article/differences-betwee
n-real-time-and-anytime-learning/
Cuccolo, K. & DeBruler, K. (2024). Out of Order, Out of Reach: Navigating Assignment
Sequences for STEM Success. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/out-of-order-out-of-reach-navigatin
G-assignment-sequences-for-stem-success/
Cuccolo, K., & DeBruler, K. (2024). Assignment submission patterns and performance in K-12
online STEM courses. Learning: Research and Practice, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2024.2441113
Cuccolo, K. & Green, C. (2025). Out of Order, Still Out of Reach: Navigating Assignment
Sequences for MV World Language Courses. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/navigating-assignment-sequence
s-for-mv-world-language-courses/
Culbreth, D., & Martin, F. (2025). Exploring the role of synchrony in asynchronous, synchronous,
and quasi-synchronous online learner engagement. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10504-y
Diliberti, M. K., & Schwartz, H. L. (2021). The rise of virtual schools: Selected findings from
the third American School District Panel survey (RR-A956-5). RAND Corporation.
https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA956-5
Du, X., Zhang, M., Shelton, B. E., & Hung, J. L. (2022). Learning anytime, anywhere: a
spatio-temporal analysis for online learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1),
34-48. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1633546
Fielding, H. (2016). “Any time, any place”: The myth of universal access and the semiprivate
space of online education. Computers and Composition, 40, 103-114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.002
Freidhoff, J. R. (2016). Michigan’s K-12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2014-15. Lansing,
MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from
http://media.mivu.org/institute/pdf/er_2015.pdf
Freidhoff, J. R., DeBruler, K., Cuccolo, K., & Green, C. (2024). Michigan’s k-12 virtual learning
effectiveness report 2022-23. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/michigans-k-12-virtual-learning-e
Freidhoff, J. R., DeBruler, K., Cuccolo, K., & Green, C. (2026). Michigan’s k-12 virtual learning
effectiveness report 2024-25. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/michigans-k-12-virtual-learning-effec
Harrington, C. & DeBruler, K. (2021). Key strategies for engaging students in virtual learning
environments. Michigan Virtual University. https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/key- strategies-for-engaging-students-in-virtual-learning-environments/
Kwon, J. B. (2018, August 16). Learning trajectories in online mathematics courses. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/learning-trajectories-in-online-mathematics-
Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., Lawanto, K. N., & Goodridge, W. (2017). Self-regulated learning
skills and online activities between higher and lower performers on a web-intensive
undergraduate engineering course. Journal of Educators Online, 11(3), n3.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033324
Lin, Chin-Hsi, Ph.D. (2019). Auto-grading versus Instructor Grading in Online English Courses.
Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. Retrieved from
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/auto-grading-versus-instructor-grading-in-online-
Lim, J. M. (2016). Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in
undergraduate self-paced online courses. Distance Education, 37(3), 317-332.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1233050
Lim, J. M. (2016b). The relationship between successful completion and sequential movement
in self-paced distance courses. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 17(1), 159-179. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i1.2167
Michigan Virtual. (n.d.). Student Guide to Online Learning. Michigan Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/resources/guides/student-guide/
Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute. (2024a, June 21). Key Strategies for
Supporting Disengaged and Struggling Students: An Interview With A Researcher.
Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute.
https://michiganvirtual.org/blog/key-strategies-for-supporting-disengaged-and-str
uggling-students-an-interview-with-a-researcher/
Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute. (2024b, October 22). Understanding
Teacher-Student Communication in Online Courses: An Interview with a Researcher.
Michigan Virtual .
https://michiganvirtual.org/blog/understanding-teacher-student-communication/
Minnesota Virtual Schools. (n.d.). How much of the School Day Is Live (synchronous) vs.
Independent (asynchronous)?. Minnesota Virtual Schools.
https://mtcs.org/virtual/faq-items/how-much-of-the-school-day-is-live-synchronous-v
Muljana, P. S., Dabas, C. S., & Luo, T. (2023). Examining the relationships among
self-regulated learning, homework timeliness, and course achievement: a context of
female students learning quantitative topics. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 55(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1936703
Molnar, A. (Ed.), Miron, G., Hagle, S., Gulosino, C., Mann, B., Huerta, L.A., Rice, J.K.,
Glover, A., & Bill, K. (2023). Virtual schools in the U.S. 2023. Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2023
Moskovich, S., & Hershkovitz, A. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of student engagement in online
learning. Journal of Online Learning Research, 10(2), 215-253.
https://doi.org/10.70725/830549oejyjz
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.). Online courses: Percentage of K–12
schools that normally offered any courses entirely online prior to the coronavirus
pandemic, and among those schools, the percentage distribution of schools, by
percentage of students who were enrolled online, school type, and selected school
characteristics: 2020–21. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/estable/table/ntps/ntps2021_fl01_s12n
Opdenakker, M. C. (2022). Developments in early adolescents’ self-regulation: The importance
of teachers’ supportive vs. undermining behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1021904.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021904
Öztaş, G. S., Akçapınar, G., Hasnine, M. N., & Er, E. (2024). Understanding High and Low-Performing
Students’ Time Management Strategies through Assignment Submission Patterns. Procedia
Computer Science, 246, 3503-3511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.206
Seddon, M. (2019). Context-Dependent Memory: Do Changes in Environmental Context Cues
Affect Student Recall?. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal, 11(3),
25-34. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1266305
The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning. (2017). Why do students choose blended and
online schools? The “end of average” requires personalized learning environments. The
Foundation for Blended and Online Learning and Evergreen Education Group.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED589983
Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (2019). An analysis of flexible learning and flexibility over the last
40 years of Distance Education. Distance Education, 40(4), 454-468.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1681893
Wesarg-Menzel, C., Ebbes, R., Hensums, M., Wagemaker, E., Zaharieva, M. S., Staaks, J. P. C.,
Van Den Akker, A. L., Visser, I., Hoeve, M., Brummelman, E., Dekkers, T. J., Schuitema, J.
A., Larsen, H., Colonnesi, C., Jansen, B. R. J., Overbeek, G., Huizenga, H. M., & Wiers, R.
W. (2023). Development and socialization of self-regulation from infancy to
adolescence: A meta-review differentiating between self-regulatory abilities, goals, and
motivation. Developmental Review, 69, 101090.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2023.101090
Ye, Z., Jiang, L., Li, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, G., & Chen, H. (2022). Analysis of differences in
self-regulated learning behavior patterns of online learners. Electronics, 11(23), 4013.
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11234013
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71-83
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.2.71
Vinney, C. (2025, December). Context-Dependent Memory: How it Works and Examples.
https://www.verywellmind.com/how-context-dependent-memory-works-5195100
Zweig. J. (2023). The first week in an online course: Differences across schools. Michigan
Virtual.
https://michiganvirtual.org/research/publications/first-weeks-in-an-online-course/