Beyond the Online Course (eBook)

Jason B Huett, Anthony A Pina (Herausgeber)

eBook Download: PDF | EPUB

2016 | 1. Auflage
441 Seiten
Information Age Publishing (Verlag)
978-1-68123-511-0 (ISBN)

Infos

Beyond the Online Course: Leadership Perspectives on eLearning addresses a need for the growing body of professionals who are called upon to lead the online/distance learning efforts at their various organizations. It will also be of interest to those wishing to prepare for leadership positions or who are engaged in research and study of issues “beyond the online course.” The book brings together scholarly and practicebased writings from the pages of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education and Distance Learning for Educators, Trainers and Leaders.

---

Beyond the Online Course: Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning addresses a need for the growing body of professionals who are called upon to lead the online/distance learning efforts at their various organizations. It will also be of interest to those wishing to prepare for leadership positions or who are engaged in research and study of issues "e;beyond the online course."e; The book brings together scholarly and practice-based writings from the pages of the Quarterly Review of Distance Education and Distance Learning for Educators, Trainers and Leaders.

Inhalt

Front Cover 1
Beyond the Online Course 2
Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning 2
A Volume in Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2
Series Editors: 2
Charles Schlosser and Michael Simonson, Nova Southeastern University 2
CONTENTS 6
Part I: Leading Innovation and Change 6
1. Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education 6
2. Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education at the Institutional Level: Considering Faculty Perceptions 6
3. Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions 6
4. Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them 6
5. Bridging the Divide: Reconciling Administrator and Faculty Concerns Regarding Online Education 6
Part II: Leading Course and Program Design 7
6. Expert Instructional Designer Voices: Leadership Competencies Critical to Global Practice and Quality Online Learning Designs 7
7. Three Levels of Planned e-Learning Interactions: A Framework for Grounding Research and the Design of e-Learning Programs 7
8. Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions: A Holistic Framework 7
9. Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework 7
10. Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort 7
11. Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution: The Case of the University of Botswana 7
Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students 7
12. Supporting the Distant Student: The Effect of ARCS-Based Strategies on Confidence and Performance 7
13. Online Instruction: Student Satisfaction, Kudos, and Pet Peeves 7
14. Assistive Technology: Enhancing the Life Skills of Students With Learning Disabilities 7
15. Supervision on Site: A Critical Factor in the Online Facilitated Internship 8
Part IV: Leading the Development and Support of Online Faculty and Staff 8
16. Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems 8
17. Maximizing HR Professionals’ Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness 8
18. Off-Site Faculty Perspectives on Online Experiences 8
19. Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses 8
20. Assessing Online Faculty 8
21. How University Faculty Members Develop Their Online Teaching Skills 8
Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues 8
22. Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education 8
23. Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property 8
24. Intellectual Property and Online Courses Policies at Major Research Universities 8
25. The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning 9
Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 3
Beyond the Online Course 4
Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning 4
Edited by 4
Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System 4
and 4
Jason B. Huett University of West Georgia 4
Information Age Publishing, Inc. 4
Charlotte, North Carolina • www.infoagepub.com 4
Foreword 10
Melanie N. Clay 10
Preface 14
Jason B. Huett and Anthony A. Piña 14
Acknowledgments 17
REFERENCES 17
Part I 20
Leading Innovation and Change 20
Table 1. Institutional Classification of Respondents 26
CHAPTER 1 22
Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education 22
Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System 22
From Online Courses to Online Programs 23
Adoption versus Institutionalization 24
Institutionalization of a Distance Education Program 24
Purpose of the Study 25
Method 26
Participants 26
Development of the Instrument 26
Data Analysis 27
Results 30
Institutional Role 30
Institutional Academic Level 30
Institutional Locale 32
Conclusions 32
Institutional Role 33
Academic Level 34
Institutional Locale 35
Recommendations 35
References 36
Table 2. Topic Areas, Institutionalization Factors and Application Items 28
Table 2. (Continued) 29
Table 3. Mean Scores for Importance Across Five Topic Areas 30
Table 4. Mean Scores for Importance for 30 Institutionalization Factors—Faculty and Leaders 31
CHAPTER 2 40
Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education At the Institutional Level 40
Jason Neben Concordia University Irvine 40
Introduction 40
Background 41
Relevance 42
The Challenge 43
Diffusion of Innovations Theory 43
Perceived Attributes of Innovations 44
The Innovation-Decision Process 46
Barriers to Distance Education 48
Institutional Barriers 48
Technological Barriers 49
Financial Barriers 50
Pedagogical Barriers 50
Summary 50
References 51
CHAPTER 3 54
Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions 54
Baiyun Chen University of Central Florida 54
Theoretical Framework 55
Methods 56
Empirical Data 56
Measures 57
Adoption of TMDE 57
Institutional Characteristics 57
Barriers to TMDE Adoption 57
Statistical Procedure 58
Results 58
Factor Descriptive 58
Binary Logistic Regression Analysis 58
Discussion and Conclusions 60
References 61
Table 1. Adoption of TMDE by Type 57
Table 2. Descriptive on TMDE Adoption Factors 59
CHAPTER 4 64
Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them 64
Dana Gutman Campus Management Corp 64
Introduction 64
Barrier 1: Salary 65
Barrier 2: Promotion and Tenure 65
Barrier 3: Workload 65
Barrier 4: Training 66
Barrier 5: Interpersonal Relations 68
Barrier 6: Quality 69
Conclusion 70
References 70
Table 1. Workshop Participants Training Experience and Needs 67
Table 1. Intensity of Concern by Academic College 76
CHAPTER 5 72
Bridging the Divide 72
Leah E. Wickersham and Julie A. McElhany Texas A& M University-Commerce
Introduction 73
Purpose of Study 74
Methodology 74
Findings 75
SoCQ Results by College 75
Faculty Open-Ended Questionnaire Analysis 77
Administrator Interview Findings 78
Administrator Concerns 79
Barriers 79
University and Faculty Preparedness 80
Student Preparedness 80
Support and Resources for Faculty and Students 81
Quality 81
Communication 82
Institutional Standards of Quality for Online Courses 82
Faculty Development Related to Online Course Instructional Design 83
Comparative Analysis of Results 84
Conclusions and Recommendations 85
References 87
PART II 88
Leading course and program designs 88
Table 1. Example of Coded Phrases and Development from In-Depth Interviews 99
CHAPTER 6 90
Expert Instructional Designer Voices 90
Marcia L. Ashbaugh University of Illinois 90
INTRODUCTION 90
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 92
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 93
Leadership Competencies 93
Strategy 94
Vision 94
Personality 94
Productivity 95
Leadership Attributes 95
Emotional/Psychological 95
Values 95
METHODOLOGY 96
Research Design 96
Data Instrumentation and Collection 97
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 98
A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP FOR ID 100
Strategy 101
Design Process Strategy 102
Design Structure Strategy 103
Vision 105
Personality (Interpersonal Skills) 106
Productivity 107
Emotional/Psychological Strength 108
Values 108
Duties 109
DISCUSSION 110
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 111
APPENDIX A: Profiles of Study Participants 112
Participant 1 (P1) 112
Participant 2 (P2) 113
Participant 3 (P3) 113
Participant 4 (P4) 114
Participant 5 (P5) 114
Participant 6 (P6) 114
REFERENCES 115
Table 2. Ranking of Course Designs by a Modified Quality Matters Rubric of Standards 100
Figure 1. Model of leadership for instructional design. 101
Figure 2. Components of a well-designed online course structure. 104
Figure 3. Components of a well-designed online course instructional strategy. 104
Figure 1. Three levels for planning e-learning interactions. 124
CHAPTER 7 122
Three Levels of Planned E-learning Interactions 122
Atsusi “2c” Hirumi University of Central Florida 122
Three Levels for Planning eLearning Interactions 125
Level I: Internal Learner-Self Interactions 126
Level III: Learner-Instructional Interactions 130
Level II: Learner-Human and Learner-Nonhuman Interactions 133
Applications of the Three-Level Framework 135
Analyzing and Organizing Research 135
Summary 137
References 138
Table 1. Major Classes of Learning Theories and Related Theories and Lines of Research 127
Table 2. Relating Instructional Strategies, Tools, and Techniques to Basic Instructional Approaches and Theoretical Orientations 132
Table 3. Six-Step Process for Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions 136
Figure 1. Macro view of online education components. 146
CHAPTER 8 144
Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions 144
Jomon Aliyas Paul and Justin Daniel Cochran Kennesaw State University 144
INTRODUCTION 145
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 145
Student ? Faculty 146
Course Development 147
Interaction and Feedback 147
Communicate Expectations 148
Assessment of Student Learning 148
Student ? Technology 149
Student-Centered and Intuitive Systems 149
Technology Orientation for Students 150
Student ? Institution 150
Student Advising and Other Support Services 151
Career Services Offerings 152
Institution Engagement and Immersion Offerings 152
Support Services for Students 153
Faculty ? Technology 153
Instructor Training and Technological Know-How 154
Continuous Technology Improvement 154
Faculty ? Institution 154
Administrative and Monetary Support 154
Pedagogical Support 155
Mechanisms to Ensure Ethical Learning 155
Institution ? Technology 156
The Impact of Cross Pollination 157
Student ? Student 158
Faculty ? Faculty 159
Technology ? Technology 160
CONCLUSION 161
references 161
Figure 2. Cross-pollination of students, technologies, and faculty. 158
CHAPTER 9 166
Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework 166
Arthur J. Borgemenke, William C. Holt, and Wade W. Fish Texas A& M University-Commerce
Introduction 166
Purpose 167
Rationale 167
Literature Review 168
Course Quality Design Factors 168
Component Design Efficacy 169
Instructional Design Process 171
Universal Course Shell Template Components 171
Course Content and Assignments 173
Summary and Implications 174
References 175
CHAPTER 10 178
Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort 178
Mary E. Engstrom, Susan A. Santo, and Rosanne M. Yost University of South Dakota 178
Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort 178
Review of the Literature 179
1. Tapping students’ personal and professional experiences, motivation, and their learning preferences 181
2. The nature of the class (survey, core, elective, etc.) 181
3. Program pacing. “Community building must take into account the ‘collegiality’ of student relationships, not the least of which is their prior experience as classmates and/or project partners, and the likelihood that they will continue to wor... 181
Methodology 182
Participants 182
Cohort Program Design 183
Research Design 183
Data Collection 184
1. What did it mean to be a cohort group working on your master’s degree together? 184
2. What role did cohort members play in helping you construct knowledge in the master’s program? 184
3. What role did others play in helping you construct knowledge in the master’s program? 184
1. Our cohort group drew upon one another's strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. 184
2. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning. 185
3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face-to- face) with other cohort members. 185
Data Analysis 185
Collaboration 185
Learning Community 186
Course Design 187
Individual Factors 188
Discussion and Recommendations 188
Collaboration 189
Learning Community 190
Course Design 191
Individual Factors 192
Recommendations 193
1. Recognize that online cohort members from the same school district are not likely to limit their learning and community involvement to the online environment. This has instructional design implications for the program. One possibility is to create... 193
2. Provide a program orientation. Explain the cohort online model to learners so that they can make an informed decision about participating in such a group. In addition, discuss philosophical basis of the program in detail. Discuss privacy issues re... 193
3. Ensure, as a department, consistency across courses in terms of course design and online discussion protocols. This includes a willingness for faculty to share effective discussion facilitation practices with one another. Develop a consistent base... 193
4. Establish an ongoing relationship with the administrators at the school site to garner their support of the program. Work collaboratively to develop solutions regarding access to needed hardware and software. 193
5. Select advisors for cohort programs with care. Advisors should be able to establish and maintain a good rapport with students at a distance. 194
6. For students who indicate a preference for working individually, counsel them to consider other program delivery options. 194
References 194
Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort Survey 195
Part 1: Collaboration 195
1. I knew the other Chamberlain cohort members, as professional colleagues, before entering this program. 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
2. Our cohort group drew upon one another’s strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face- to-face) with other cohort members. 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
4. I selected as informal study group partners those Chamberlain cohort colleagues for whom I held professional respect. 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
5. I selected my informal study group partners based on convenience (same building, common time schedules, etc.). 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
6. My informal study group drew upon one another’s strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. 195
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
7. Small group projects/assignments in “content” courses (Learning Principles, Instructional Design, Social & Philosophical Foundations of Ed., etc.) were an important source of knowledge building for me.
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 195
8. Small group projects/assignments in “skills” courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) were an important source of knowledge building for me. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
9. Small group projects/assignments in “content” courses (Learning Principles, Instructional Design, Social & Philosophical Foundations of Ed., etc.) encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
10. Small group projects/assignments in “skills” courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
11. Instructors encouraged students to collaborate with one another. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
12. The Internship requirement was an important source of knowledge building for me. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
13. The Internship requirement promoted collaboration with other professionals. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
Part 2: Learning Community 196
14. The TET cohort model successfully promoted knowledge building among the cohort members. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
15. Cohort members supported and encouraged one another. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
16. Cohort members challenged one another’s ideas and beliefs. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
17. Sometimes I changed my viewpoint on issues based on others’ online discussion contributions. 196
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 196
18. Sometimes I changed my beliefs about teaching and learning based on others’ online discussion contributions. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
19. Students shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e.: provided web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.) 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
20. The cohort group increased my knowledge of K-12 student learning. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
21. The cohort group added to my knowledge of teaching methods. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
22. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
23. I was committed to the success of all cohort members in the program. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
24. I would choose to be a part of a cohort again. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
25. I would choose to be part of this cohort group again. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
26. If knowledge building is “(our definition goes here),” how would you rate the level of knowledge building in your cohort group? 197
(need a different response scale for this item) 197
27. If community is “our definition goes here,” how would you rate the level of community in your cohort group? 197
(need a different response scale for this item) 197
Part 3: Course Design 197
28. Online discussions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. 197
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 197
29. Online chat sessions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
30. Student-to-student communication in courses promoted knowledge building. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
31. Instructor facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
32. Student facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
33. Instructors encouraged students to work in small groups when it was appropriate. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
34. Small group work in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
35. Instructors shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e., provided Web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.). 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
36. WebCT was an effective tool for building an online learning community. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
37. The face-to-face course meetings contributed to the development of a learning community. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
38. Sharing food at face-to-face sessions contributed to the development of a learning community. 198
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 198
Part 4: Interactions With the Instructor 199
39. Instructor-student communication in courses led to my individual knowledge building. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
40. Interaction with professors during courses was a strong factor in promoting my knowledge building. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
41. Instructor feedback on assignments was effective in helping me build knowledge. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
42. Instructors encouraged students to ask questions about things they didn’t understand. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
43. Group advising sessions with faculty members contributed to my sense of belonging to a professional cohort. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
44. The TET cohort model successfully promoted a learning community among the cohort members. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
Part 5: Individual Factors 199
45. My comfort level with my Chamberlain colleagues was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
46. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
47. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, grew over the course of the program. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
48. I grew professionally during this cohort experience. 199
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 199
49. I was actively involved with my cohort group. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
50. I felt responsible for my own knowledge building. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
51. I felt responsible for the knowledge building of everyone in my cohort group. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
52. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically greater than that of other cohort members. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
53. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically the same that of other cohort members. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
54. I assumed responsibility for contacting instructors when questions or problems arose. 200
Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA 200
55. Now that you have completed the MS TET program as a cohort member, what is your opinion of the cohort model as a way to build both knowledge and a learning community? 200
56. You can use the space below to provide any additional comments. 200
Table 1. Enrollment in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Education in Botswana from 1978 to 1991 204
Table 2. 2001 Tertiary Institution’s Intake 204
CHAPTER 11 202
Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution 202
Ontiretse S. Tau University of Botswana 202
Background 202
Education in Botswana 203
Development of Distance Education in Botswana 204
Challenges of a Dual Mode Institution 205
Introducing Distance Education into the University of Botswana 207


3. Lack of an effective organizational structure both within the unit and in relation to the university faculties and teaching departments. 210
Conclusion 211
1. Distance education as a subsystem was introduced into a system that was not ready for it. 211
2. The Distance Education Unit as a subsystem of UB was not aligned with the rest of the UB academic structure. 211
3. As a result, DEU could not perform the process of providing education at a distance to the optimum level. 211
1. The university should conduct a front-end analysis to guide all the decisions including that of the distance education model to be adopted. 211

3. An implementation framework should be developed to guide the process. 212
4. A systems approach must be used to ensure that all the other units and departments of the university that will have a role in the process of distance education provision are fully informed and readied for the endeavor. 212
References 212
Table 1. Confidence Tactics (CT) 223
Table 1 (Continued) 225
PART III 214
LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE STUDENTS 214
CHAPTER 12 216
Supporting the Distant Student 216
Jason Bond Huett University of West Georgia 216
Leslie Moller University of South Dakota 216
Jon Young University of North Texas 216
Marty Bray Forsynth County Schools 216
Kimberly Cleaves Huett University of West Georgia 216
Introduction 217
Keller’s ARCS Model and Previous Studies 217
Confidence 218
Perceived Competence 219
Perceived Control 219
Expectancy for Success 220
Method 221
Participants 221
Variables 222
Instruments 222
Research Design 222
1. The instructor selected SAM Office 2003’s simulation of Microsoft Access to be used for the duration of this experiment and WebCT for the delivery of confidence-enhancing emails (CEE). 226
2. As outlined in Table 1, the instructor modified SAM Office 2003’s Access simulation by incorporating the interventions and tactics based on the component of confidence in Keller’s ARCS model for the treatment group. 226
3. The instructor composed supplementary CEEs (see Figure 1) to help disseminate the remaining confidence-enhancing tactics based on Keller’s ARCS model for the treatment group. 227
4. The instructor presented the materials, with and without modification, to the respective treatment and control groups. 227
Distance Education Software 227
Results 228
Discussion 229
Performance 231
Additional Analysis 231
Conclusion 232
References 232
Figure 2. Screen shot from posttest measure (reproduced with permission from Course Technology). 227
Figure 1. Example of confidence-enhancing e-mail with comments. 226
Table 2. Results for the Confidence Subsection of the IMMS 228
Table 3. Results for Posttest Measure 229
Table 1. Responses to Survey Questions 1-15 Expressed in Percentages 242
1. Please indicate whether you are: 242
Female 242
Male 242
Total Respondents 242
(skipped this question) 242
2. What degree are you obtaining? 242
Undergraduate 242
60.9 242
185 242
Graduate 242
39.1 242
119 242
Total Respondents 242
304 242
(skipped this question) 242
0 242
3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 242
Strongly agree 242
27.6 242
84 242
Agree 242
61.2 242
186 242
Neutral 242
8.2 242
25 242
Disagree 242
2 242
6 242
Strongly disagree 242
0.7 242
2 242
Not applicable 242
0.3 242
1 242
Total Respondents 242
304 242
(skipped this question) 242
0 242
4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 242
Strongly agree 242
30.6 242
93 242
Agree 242
56.6 242
172 242
Neutral 242
9.5 242
29 242
Disagree 242
2.3 242
7 242
Strongly disagree 242
0.7 242
2 242
Not applicable 242
0.3 242
1 242
Total Respondents 242
304 242
(skipped this question) 242
0 242
5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 242
Strongly agree 242
25.4 242
77 242
Agree 242
48.5 242
147 242
Neutral 242
16.2 242
49 242
Disagree 242
4.3 242
13 242
Strongly disagree 242
1.7 242
5 242
Not applicable 242
4 242
12 242
Total respondents 242
303 242
(skipped this question) 242
1 242
Table 1 (Continued) 243
6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning. 243
Strongly agree 243
24.5 243
74 243
Agree 243
48.7 243
147 243
Neutral 243
14.9 243
45 243
Disagree 243
5.6 243
17 243
Strongly disagree 243
1 243
3 243
Not applicable 243
5.3 243
16 243
Total Respondents 243
302 243
(skipped this question) 243
2 243
7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses. 243
Strongly agree 243
6.9 243
21 243
Agree 243
20.4 243
62 243
Neutral 243
29.9 243
91 243
Disagree 243
8.2 243
25 243
Strongly disagree 243
3 243
9 243
Not applicable 243
31.6 243
96 243
Total Respondents 243
304 243
(skipped this question) 243
0 243
8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days? 243
1 243
6.6 243
20 243
2 243
25.5 243
77 243
3 243
29.8 243
90 243
4 243
8.6 243
26 243
5 243
11.6 243
35 243
6 243
0 243
0 243
7 243
14.6 243
44 243
8 243
0 243
0 243
9 243
0 243
0 243
10 243
2 243
6 243
Other 243
1.3 243
4 243
Total Respondents 243
302 243
(skipped this question) 243
2 243
9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days? 243
1 243
0.3 243
1 243
2 243
5.6 243
17 243
3 243
13 243
39 243
4 243
11.3 243
34 243
5 243
20.6 243
62 243
6 243
3 243
9 243
7 243
20.9 243
63 243
8 243
4.7 243
14 243
9 243
1 243
3 243
10 243
16.9 243
51 243
Other 243
2.7 243
8 243
Total Respondents 243
301 243
(skipped this question) 243
3 243
Table 1 (Continued) 244
10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair. 244
Strongly agree 244
37.4 244
113 244
Agree 244
52 244
157 244
Neutral 244
8.6 244
26 244
Disagree 244
2 244
6 244
Strongly disagree 244
0 244
0 244
Total Respondents 244
302 244
(skipped this question) 244
2 244
11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective. 244
Strongly agree 244
1.7 244
5 244
Agree 244
9.9 244
30 244
Neutral 244
48 244
145 244
Disagree 244
34.1 244
103 244
Strongly disagree 244
6.3 244
19 244
Total Respondents 244
302 244
(skipped this question) 244
2 244
12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation. 244
Strongly agree 244
2.4 244
7 244
Agree 244
12.5 244
37 244
Neutral 244
31.3 244
93 244
Disagree 244
40.4 244
120 244
Strongly disagree 244
13.5 244
40 244
Total Respondents 244
297 244
(skipped this question) 244
7 244
13. I found 8-week courses long enough to adequately cover the course material. 244
Strongly agree 244
19.7 244
59 244
Agree 244
46.5 244
139 244
Neutral 244
10.7 244
32 244
Disagree 244
7 244
21 244
Strongly disagree 244
3 244
9 244
Not applicable 244
13 244
39 244
Total Respondents 244
299 244
(skipped this question) 244
5 244
14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been. 244
Very excessive 244
3 244
9 244
Excessive 244
24 244
72 244
About right 244
73 244
219 244
Too little 244
0 244
0 244
Far too little 244
0 244
0 244
Total Respondents 244
300 244
(skipped this question) 244
4 244
Table 1 (Continued) 245
15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been. 245
Very positive 245
49.8 245
149 245
Positive 245
42.5 245
127 245
Neutral 245
4.7 245
14 245
Negative 245
2.7 245
8 245
Very negative 245
0.3 245
1 245
Total Respondents 245
299 245
(skipped this question) 245
5 245
CHAPTER 13 236
Online Instruction 236
C. Eugene Walker and Erika Kelly University of Oklahoma 236
Introduction 237
Methods 238
Analysis 239
Results 239
Discussion 241
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 248
References 248
Appendix A: OU College of Liberal Studies Online Course Survey 249
1. Please indicate whether you are: 249
Female__ Male __ 249
2. What degree are you obtaining: 249
Undergraduate__ Graduate __ 249
3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree __ 249
Not applicable__ 249
4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
Not applicable__ 249
5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
Not applicable__ 249
6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
Not applicable__ 249
7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
Not applicable__ 249
8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days? 249
1__ 249
2__ 249
3__ 249
4__ 249
5__ 249
6__ 249
7__ 249
8__ 249
9__ 249
10__ 249
Other__ 249
9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days? 249
1__ 249
2__ 249
3__ 249
4__ 249
5__ 249
6__ 249
7__ 249
8__ 249
9__ 249
10__ 249
Other__ 249
10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation. 249
Strongly agree__ 249
Agree__ 249
Neutral__ 249
Disagree__ 249
Strongly disagree__ 249
13. If you were in an 8 weeks course, was it long enough to adequately cover the course material. 250
Strongly agree__ 250
Agree__ 250
Neutral__ 250
Disagree__ 250
Strongly disagree__ 250
Not applicable__ 250
14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been. 250
Very excessive__ 250
Excessive__ 250
About right__ 250
Too little__ 250
Far too little__ 250
15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been. 250
Very positive__ 250
Positive__ 250
Neutral__ 250
Negative__ 250
Very negative__ 250
16. The best thing (kudos) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3): 250
17. The worst thing (pet peeves) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3). 250
Thank you very much for your participation. College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma. 250
Figure 1. Kudos or best feature of online courses reported in frequencies. 245
Figure 2. Pet peeves or worst features of online courses reported in frequencies. 246
Table 1. Assistive Technology Devices for Specific Learning Disabilities 254
CHAPTER 14 252
Assistive Technology 252
Aries Cobb Baldwin-Wallace College 252
Introduction 252
Assistive Technology 253
Assistive Technology Used by Applied Behavior Analysts 253
Special Instructional Interventions: Regular Classroom 254
Literature Review 255
Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Managed Instruction 255
Computer Multimedia and Learning Disabilities 256
Technology Productive Tools: Augmentative Technology 256
Education and Students With Learning Disabilities 256
Learning Centers 257
Hearing Impaired Learners and Visually Impaired Learners 258
EDU-AT-TECH Clients 258
Conclusions 262
References 264
Table 2. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Gender 258
Table 3. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Age and Gender 258
Table 6. Reference Resources 260
Table 4. Parent/Guardian Consent for Study Participation in Invest in Children 259
Table 5. Number and Reason for Continuing or Discontinuing the EDU-AT-TECH Program 259
Table 7. Paired Sample Statistics 261
Table 8. Paired Sample Correlation 262
Table 9. Paired Samples Test 263
Table 10. Group Statistics 263
Figure 1. PRECEDE-PROCEED model. 273
CHAPTER 15 268
Supervision on Site 268
Kaye B. Dotson and Hui Bian East Carolina University 268
INTRODUCTION 268
Technology in Library Science Internships 270
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 270
Situated Cognition 270
PRECEDE-PROCEED Model 272
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 272
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 274
1. What were site supervisors’ perceptions regarding predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing domains for the online facilitated internship program? 274
2. Were there significant relationships between the three domains and the success of the internship program? 274
3. What did qualitative data clarify for us regarding the site experience? 274
METHOD 274
Participants 274
Design and Procedure 274
Measures 275
Predisposing Domain 275
Enabling Domain 275
Reinforcing Domain 276
Open-Ended Questions 276
Outcome 276
ANALYSIS 276
RESULTS 276
DISCUSSION 279
CONCLUSIONS 281
REFERENCES 282
Table 1. Associations Between PRECEDE Model Domains and Success of Internship 277
Table 2. Themes Generated from Qualitative Data 278
Table 1. Effects of Training and Staff Development on Content Knowledge 293
PART IV 284
LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE FACULTY AND STAFF 284
CHAPTER 16 286
Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems 286
Shahinshah Babar Khan Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Model College 286
Saeed-ul-Hasan Chishti International Islamic University, Pakistan 286
INTRODUCTION 287
LITERATURE 288
Quality Education 289
Quality Higher Education and Higher Education Institutions 289
Staff Training and Development 290
Quality Education and ICTs in Staff Training and Development 290
Staff Training and Development in Distance Education 291
AIOU’s Faculty Development Programs 291
Objectives of the Study 292
1. To find the opinion of AIOU faculty members about the learning of ICTs in staff training and development programs and its impact on research work. 292
2. To find the opinion of teachers about the effects of staff training and development on their content knowledge, teaching methods, material development, and research work. 292
THE STUDY 292
Sample 292
Instrument 292
Validation of the Questionnaire 295
Final Version of the Questionnaire and Distribution 295
Data Analysis and Results 295
DISCUSSION 295
FINDINGS 296
REFERENCES 296
Table 1. e-Learning Opportunities for HR Professionals 302
CHAPTER 17 300
Maximizing HR Professionals’ Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness 300
Jane Waweru Nova Southeastern University 300
Introduction 300
Perceptions of Innovation Attributes 301
Implications of Limited e-Learning 301
Focus Group Qualitative Data 303
Reasons for Use or Nonuse of e-Learning 304
1. Professional/personal development. Most HR professionals stated they participated in e-learning for their own professional or personal development. On professional development, participants indicated they utilized e-learning resources to recertify... 304
2. Convenience. Participants generally perceived that e-learning provides easy access to learning. Consequently, distance from a training site or even time of day was not an obstacle when training was done through e-learning. One participant stated s... 304
3. Compliance. Participants stated they were able to educate employees on mandated courses such as code of ethics and harassment policies among others through e-learning. 304
4. Facilitate/instruct/intervention. Several participants indicated they had been exposed to e-learning as facilitators or instructors or utilized e-learning as an intervention. 304
5. Customized training. Participants stated that e-learning provided the ability to provide customized training to employees with special needs. A HR professional stated that “different learners require unique needs which may not be met through e-l... 304
Potential Barriers 304
1. Lack of face-to-face interaction. Participants stated that a lack of face-to-face interaction or engagement does create a barrier to e- learning. A participant was of the view that online interaction “can be strange.” The participant added by ... 305
2. Accessibility and usability. Some participants were of the view that technical challenges can create a barrier to e-learning. Participants stated that, sometimes, e-learning may not be easy to use because of “terrible technology.” An HR profes... 305
3. Cost. Participants stated that cost of e-learning can be a barrier to e- learning because finances are needed to support the software, people, developers, and designers of the innovation. Some believed that due to hard economic challenges, complia... 305
4. Effectiveness. Participants believed that the inability to measure the effectiveness of e-learning was a barrier to learning. 305
5. Lack of time. HR professionals stated they were sometimes busy and may not have had time for e-learning on the job. One participant stated that not having enough time at work made e-learning “a bother at work.” Others felt that interruptions o... 305
Interpretation of the Focus Group Results on the Use or Nonuse of e-Learning 305
Interpretation of Results for the Barriers of e-Learning 306
Implications for Practice 307
Publication of the Research 307
Offering Workshops 307
Offering Technical Support 308
Enhancing Organizational Synergy 309
Enhancing Communication Within the Organization 309
Implications for Future Research 310
Conducting Studies in Specific Companies 310
Research on Specific HR Management Functions 310
Summary 311
References 311
CHAPTER 18 314
Off-Site Faculty 314
Barbara L. Stewart, Carole Goodson, and Susan L. Miertschin University of Houston 314
Introduction 314
Abbreviated Summary of Review of Literature 315
Methodology 315
Findings 316
Administration 316
Curriculum and Instruction 317
Faculty Characteristics 318
Reflection 318
References 319
Table 1. The Nonsequential Chapter Exam Method to Reduce Academic Dishonesty by Web Students 330
CHAPTER 19 322
Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses 322
Newell Chiesl Indiana State University 322
INTRODUCTION 322
Academic Dishonesty 323
Cheating Rationale 324
Reducing Classroom Dishonesty 324
Reducing Distance Learning Dishonesty 325
SUGGESTED PRAGMATIC APPROACHES TO REDUCE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 325
Disseminate Information to Distant Students 326
Change the Process Used by Students to Turn in Written Assignments 326
Change the Process by Which Exams Are Administered 327
1. Select the tightest time frame possible for students to complete each exam. Most professors have suggested to me, depending on the nature of the questions and the difficulty of the subject material, 40 questions in 40 minutes. I disagree. I sugges... 327
2. Select the option “show one question at a time to the student.” This will discourage students from conducting a “copy and paste” into a document and then printing out the entire exam. Copying and pasting one question at a time will be very... 327
3. Select “no backtracking” on the part of the student. Once a student has selected an answer, do not allow him or her go back and see the prior questions. 328
4. Select “randomizing” the exam from a pool of questions. 328
5. Select allow the exam to be taken for an entire week. This reduces the time pressure to cheat. 328
6. Create a large number of exams to be taken during the semester— for example, 10 exams. Yes, perhaps a student will persuade a sibling or friend to take an exam and cheat for him or her once. But, will the sibling or friend agree to take 10 exams? 328
7. Set a low point value for each exam say, 5% of the total semester points for each exam. This will reduce the pressure to cheat on an exam since the exam is not worth a large percentage of their grade.
8. Finally, select “allow multiple attempts” by students to take the exam. Students are allowed to take each exam as many times as they wish during an entire week, but each time they retake the exam, a new set of randomized questions appear. An a... 328
Create a Nonsequential Chapter Assortment of Questions 328
FEEDBACK 329
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 331
REFERENCES 332
Table 2. Importance of Taking Multiple Exam Attempts 331
Table 3. Student Learning 331
Table 4. Cheating in This Web Class Compared to Classroom Courses 331
Table 5. Cheating in this Web Class Compared to Other Web Courses 331
Table 1. Assessment Measures Used By Institutions 341
CHAPTER 20 336
Assessing Online Faculty 336
Anthony A. Piña and Larry Bohn Sullivan University System 336
INTRODUCTION 336
Online Course Quality 337
Limitations of Quality Rubrics 338
Class Observation/Indicators of Online Quality 339
METHOD 339
Participants 339
Instrumentation 339
Data Analysis 340
RESULTS 341
Assessment Methods Used by Institutions 341
Importance of Indicators for Assessing Instructor Quality 342
Minimum Standards for Assessing Instructor Quality 343
CONCLUSION 345
Where Do We Go From Here? 346
REFERENCES 346
Table 2. Assessment Rubrics Used By Institutions 342
Table 3. Indicators for Assessing Online Instructor Quality 343
Table 4. Minimum Standards for Instructor Activity 344
Frequency of Instructor Login 344
Daily 344
4 times per week 344
3 times per week 344
2 times per week 344
Frequency of Course Announcements 344
Multiple times per week 344
Weekly 344
Every 2 weeks 344
Less than every 2 weeks 344
Conciseness of Course Announcements 344
No word limit 344
300 word limit 344
200 word limit 344
100 word limit 344
Response to Student Inquiries 344
1 day 344
2 days 344
3 days 344
4 days 344
Completeness of Instructor Biography 344
Full descriptive bio with vita 344
Full descriptive bio 344
Single paragraph brief bio 344
Contact info only 344
Minimum Instructor Discussion Posts 344
Post more than 4 times 344
Post 3-4 times 344
Post 2-3 times 344
No requirement to post 344
CHAPTER 21 350
How University Faculty Members Developed Their Online Teaching Skills 350
Steven W. Schmidt, Elizabeth M. Hodge, and Christina M. Tschida East Carolina University 350
INTRODUCTION 350
1. How did university professors begin teaching online? What were the experiences associated with that initial online teaching experience? 352
2. What have these professors learned about teaching online as a result of their online teaching experiences? 352
3. How have these professors evolved as online instructors? 352
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 352
METHOD 354
FINDINGS 355
Initial Experiences 355
Learning From Early Experiences 357
The Evolution of the Online Instructor 359
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 360
DISCUSSION 361
IMPLICATIONS 361
REFERENCES 362
PART V 364
LEGAL AND ACCREDITATION ISSUES 364
CHAPTER 22 366
Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education 366
Soonhwa Seok D’youville College 366
Introduction 366
Standards 367
Accreditation 368





6. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges and
7. Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 370
Benchmarks and Guidelines 370
Conclusion 376
References 377
Appendix A 379
Quality on the Line 379
Appendix B 381
ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Teaching and Learning 381
Appendix C 382
ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Learning updated, July 24, 2002 382
Table 1. The Authors, the Publishing Dates, the Names, and the URLs of the Guidelines 376
CHAPTER 23 384
Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property? 384
Douglas A. Kranch North Central State College 384
Introduction 384
Ownership and Control in the Distance Learning Age 385
Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Rights 386
1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment or
2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2003, p. 7). 387
The Administration View 388
The Faculty View 389
Copyright Ownership or Rights and Remuneration 390
A Negotiated Alternative 391
Conclusion 393
References 393
Table 1. Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics of Public and Private Research Universities 405
Table 1. (Continued) 406
CHAPTER 24 396
Intellectual Property and Online Courses 396
Kathryn Ann Loggie Marathon (Florida) High School 396
Ann E. Barron, Elizabeth Gulitz, Tina N. Hohlfeld, and Jeffrey D. Kromrey University of South Florida 396
Phyllis Sweeney Nova Southeastern University 396
Overview and Introduction 397
Background 397
Copyright law 399
Work Made for Hire 399
Faculty Exception 400
Previous Research on Intellectual Property Policy 401
Digital course materials 402
Method 403
Results 404
Public Versus Private Research Universities 404
Policy Changes Across Time 404
Typical Policy at a Research University in 2005 409
Discussion and Conclusions 412
References 414
Appendix A: Web Sources for Intellectual Property Policies 416
Appendix B: Policy Coding Framework 418
Figure 1. Significant differences between public and private universities. 406
Table 2. Changes in Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics Between 1992 and 2005 407
Table 2. (Continued) 408
CHAPTER 25 420
The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning 420
Kevin L. Crow Harper College 420
Overview: Federal Disability Legislation and Online Postsecondary Learning 421
Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 421
Section 504 and Postsecondary Online Learning 422
The Americans With Disabilities Act 422
ADA Titles 423
The ADA and Postsecondary Online Learning 423
Auxiliary Aids and Services 424
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights 425
Three Additional Acts 425
Section 508 426
The Telecommunications Act of 1966 427
Assistive Technology Act of 1998 427
Why Be Concerned? 428
First Steps Toward Accessible Online Content 428
Policies 428
Universal Design 429
Summary 430
Further Reading and Additional Resources 431
References 431
APPENDIX A 432
APPENDIX B: Additional Resources 434
ABOUT THE EDITORS 436
Original Publications 438
Part I: Leading Innovation and Change 438
1. Piña, A. A. (2008). Factors influencing the institutionalization of distance learning in higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4). 438
2. Neben, J. (2014). Attributes and barriers impacting diffusion of online education at the institutional level: Considering faculty perceptions. Distance Learning, 11(1). 438
3. Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4). 438
4. Gutman, D. (2012). Six barriers causing educators to resist teaching online, and how institutions can break them. Distance Learning, 9(3). 438
5. Wickersham, L. E., & McElhany, J. A. (2010). Bridging the divide: Reconciling administrator and faculty concerns regarding online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1).
Part II: Leading Course and Program Design 438
6. Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical to global practice and quality online learning designs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(2). 438
7. Hirumi, A. (2013). Three levels of planned e-learning interactions: A framework for grounding research and the design of e-learning programs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1). 438
8. Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and universities: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1).
9. Borgemenke, A. J., Holt, W. C., & Fish, W. W. (2013). Universal course shell template design and implementation to enhance student outcomes in online coursework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1).
10. Engstrom, M. E., Santo, S. A., & Yost, R. M. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2).
11. Tau, O. S. (2008). Converting a conventional university to a dual mode institution: The case of the University of Botswana. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2). 439
Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students 439
12. Huett, J., Moller, L., Young, J., Bray, M., & Huett, K. (2008). Supporting the distant student: The effect of ARCS-based strategies on confidence and performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2).
13. Walker C. E., & Kelly, E. (2007). Online instruction: Student satisfaction, kudos, and pet peeves. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4).
14. Cobb, A. (2011). Assistive technology: Enhancing the life skills of students with learning disabilities. Distance Learning, 8(4). 439
15. Dotson, K. &  Bian, H. (2013). Supervision on site: A critical factor in the online facilitated internship. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(2).
Part Iv: Leading The Development And Support Of Online Faculty And Staff 439
16. Khan, S. B., & Chishti, S. (2012). Effects of staff training and development on teachers in a distance learning program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2).
17. Waweru, J. (2013). Maximizing HR professionals’ leadership role in e-learning for organizational effectiveness. Distance Learning, 10(4). 439
18. Stewart, B. L., Goodson, C., & Miertschin, S. L. (2010). Off-site faculty: Perspectives on online experiences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3).
19. Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web- based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3). 440
20. Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2014). Assessing online faculty: More than student surveys and design rubrics. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3).
21. Schmidt, S., Hodge, E., & Tschida, C. (2013). How university faculty members develop their online teaching skills. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3).
Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues 440
22. Seok, S. (2007). Standards, accreditation, benchmarks, and guidelines in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4). 440
23. Kranch, D. A. (2008). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4). 440
24. Loggie, K., Barron, A., Gulitz, E., Hohlfeld, T., Kromrey, J., Venable, M., & Sweeney, P. (2007). Intellectual property and online courses: Policies at major research universities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(2).
25. Crow, K. L. (2008). The legal environment of accessible postsecondary online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9(2). 440
Back Cover 442

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 1.5.2016
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Schulbuch / Wörterbuch ► Lexikon / Chroniken
• Themenwelt: Schulbuch / Wörterbuch ► Unterrichtsvorbereitung ► Unterrichts-Handreichungen
• Themenwelt: Sozialwissenschaften ► Pädagogik
• ISBN-10: 1-68123-511-0 / 1681235110
• ISBN-13: 978-1-68123-511-0 / 9781681235110