Quarterly Review of Distance Education (eBook)

Charles Schlosser, Michael Simonson (Herausgeber)

eBook Download: PDF | EPUB

2018 | 1. Auflage
65 Seiten
Information Age Publishing (Verlag)
9781641133654 (ISBN)

Infos

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education is a rigorously refereed journal publishing articles, research briefs, reviews, and editorials dealing with the theories, research, and practices of distance education. The Quarterly Review publishes articles that utilize various methodologies that permit generalizable results which help guide the practice of the field of distance education in the public and private sectors. The Quarterly Review publishes full-length manuscripts as well as research briefs, editorials, reviews of programs and scholarly works, and columns. The Quarterly Review defines distance education as institutionally-based formal education in which the learning group is separated and interactive technologies are used to unite the learning group.

Inhalt

Front Cover 1
Title Page 2
Table of Contents 4
Student-to-Student Interaction 8
Humanizing the Online Classroom Using Technology and Group Assignments 8
Marianne C. Bickle Ryan Rucker 8
University of South Carolina Midlands Technical College 8
The purpose of this study was to examine student-to-student interactions in an asynchronous online undergraduate course in higher education. Respondents (N = 228) were students enrolled in an undergraduate course taught by one of the authors. Regress... 8
INTRODUCTION 8
Social Presence 9
VoiceThread 10
METHODS 11
Table 1 12
Participant Profile 12
25 12
198 12
228 12
33 12
125 12
15 12
10 12
8 12
222 12
220 12
7 12
1 12
228 12
57 12
48 12
118 12
223 12
Survey Instrument 13
RESULTS 13
Table 2 14
RQ1 Results 14
.58 14
.34 14
97.65 14
97.65 14
1 14
111.96*** 14
189.25 14
.87 14
216 14
286.91 14
217 14
Table 3 14
RQ2 Results 14
.70 14
.49 14
148.64 14
148.65 14
1 14
207.13*** 14
155.00 14
.71 14
216 14
303.65 14
217 14
.73 14
.53 14
162.70 14
81.35 14
2 14
124.09*** 14
140.94 14
.65 14
215 14
303.65 14
217 14
.73 14
.54 14
165.45 14
55.15 14
3 14
85.39*** 14
138.20 14
.64 14
214 14
303.65 14
217 14
DISCUSSION 14
Table 4 15
RQ3 Results 15
.56 15
.32 15
83.11 15
83.11 15
1 15
103.06*** 15
174.17 15
.80 15
216 15
257.28 15
217 15
.58 15
.34 15
89.21 15
44.60 15
2 15
7.81*** 15
168.07 15
.78 15
215 15
257.28 15
217 15
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
REFERENCES 16
Evaluating the Design and Development of the Quality Graduate Supervision miniMOOC 20
Hawazen Alharbi Michele Jacobsen 20
University of Calgary/King Abdulaziz University University of Calgary 20
This article reports on findings from a design-based research investigation into the analysis, design, and evaluation of online faculty development in graduate supervision. The design elements determined to be relevant and necessary for the developme... 20
INTRODUCTION 20
BACKGROUND 21
METHODOLOGY 22
PROCESS OF THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE miniMOOC 23
Table 1 25
The Six Learning Modules of the QGS miniMOOC and Subtopics 25
1 25
2 25
3 25
4 25
5 25
6 25
Figure 1 26
Table 2 27
Design Components Implemented in the QGS miniMOOC 27
Table 3 28
Example of Instructor’s Weekly E-mail to miniMOOC Participants 28
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 28
Evaluation of the QGS miniMOOC 29
Log-Ins and Completion Data 29
Video Segments 29
Table 4 29
Video Segments for the QGS miniMOOC 29
1 29
2.10 29
45 29
1 29
4.08 29
30 29
3 29
7.09 29
73 29
3 29
10.64 29
67 29
3 29
13.73 29
66 29
3 29
13.12 29
63 29
3 29
12.22 29
67 29
3 29
11.57 29
54 29
20 29
74.55 29
465 29
Participation in the Discussion Forums 29
Table 5 30
Participants’ Participation Rates by Task in the Discussion Forums 30
Café posts 30
5 30
7 30
12 posts 30
50 30
Module 1 30
14 30
32 30
46 posts 30
357 30
Module 2 30
11 30
32 30
43 posts 30
331 30
Module 3 30
14 30
27 30
41 posts 30
227 30
Module 4 30
13 30
27 30
40 posts 30
256 30
Module 5 30
12 30
28 30
40 posts 30
266 30
Module 6 30
21 30
30 30
51 posts 30
280 30
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF THE QGS MOOC 31
1. As for timing, the first pilot was offered in March and April, and the final two modules overlapped with the end of semester grading and reporting period. In future offerings, the QGS MOOC will be offered earlier in the semester, such as during th... 31
2. Based on the suggestions from several participants, it was recommended that the design team add a weekly or biweekly synchronous session offered by the instructor or an expert supervisor in a future offering of the QGS MOOC to enhance the developm... 31
3. To amplify and strengthen the learning network, it was recommended that the instructor takes steps to introduce the discussion moderators to participants earlier (live or by video), get the moderators involved in discussions so they can develop a ... 31
4. To expand the content in the MOOC in subsequent development, it was suggested by participants that the design team add two new modules: one on writing and one on bench or lab science. Participants indicated they would benefit from more guidance on... 31
CONCLUSION 31
REFERENCES 32
Online Learning Design and Implementation Models 34
A Model Validation Study Using Expert Instructional Designers 34
Ann Armstrong Albert J. Gale 34
Northcentral University Walden University 34
INTRODUCTION 35
Problem Statement 35
Purpose Statement 35
Research Questions 36
METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 36
Models Validated 37
R2D2/C3PO 38
eSUCCESS 38
RESULTS AND FINDINGS 38
Results From Participant Responses to R2D2/C3PO Model Evaluation Survey 38
Table 4 42
Rankings by Participants: R2D2/C3PO Model Evaluation Survey 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
2 42
2 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
2.4 42
2 42
.69 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3.2 42
3 42
.35 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3.2 42
3 42
.35 42
3 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3.4 42
3 42
.44 42
2 42
4 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
2.8 42
2 42
.87 42
3 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3.4 42
3 42
.44 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3.2 42
3 42
.35 42
2 42
3 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
2.6 42
2 42
.71 42
2 42
3 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
2.6 42
2 42
.71 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
3.4 42
3 42
.44 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
3 42
3 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
3.0 42
3 42
.53 42
3 42
2 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
2.8 42
3 42
.64 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
4 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
4 42
3.2 42
4 42
.87 42
4 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.4 42
4 42
.71 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
4 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.4 42
4 42
.71 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
4 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.8 42
4 42
.35 42
4 42
2 42
4 42
4 42
4 42
3.4 42
4 42
.71 42
4 42
2 42
2 42
4 42
4 42
3.2 42
4 42
.87 42
4 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.4 42
4 42
.71 42
4 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.4 42
4 42
.71 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
4 42
2 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.69 42
4 42
3 42
3 42
4 42
4 42
3.6 42
4 42
.44 42
Results From Participant Responses to eSUCCESS Model Evaluation Survey 38
Table 5 43
Rankings by Participants: eSUCCESS Model Evaluation Survey 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.2 43
3 43
.64 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
0 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
3 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
3.3 43
3 43
.64 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
4 43
4 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.69 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
0 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
0 43
4 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
2 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
3.2 43
3 43
.64 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.69 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.4 43
4 43
.71 43
3 43
2 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.0 43
3 43
.53 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
4 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
1 43
2 43
4 43
1 43
4 43
2.4 43
1 43
1.25 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.2 43
3 43
.35 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.2 43
3 43
.35 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.2 43
3 43
.35 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
3.4 43
3 43
.44 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.4 43
4 43
.71 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.4 43
4 43
.71 43
3 43
2 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
3.0 43
3 43
.53 43
4 43
2 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
3.0 43
4 43
.87 43
2 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.2 43
4 43
.87 43
2 43
2 43
2 43
2 43
4 43
2.4 43
2 43
.69 43
2 43
2 43
3 43
2 43
4 43
2.6 43
2 43
.71 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
4 43
2 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.4 43
4 43
.71 43
1 43
2 43
3 43
1 43
4 43
2.2 43
1 43
1.07 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
4 43
3.8 43
4 43
.35 43
4 43
3 43
3 43
4 43
4 43
3.6 43
4 43
.44 43
4 43
3 43
2 43
4 43
4 43
3.4 43
4 43
.71 43
Results of the Focus Group 44
Significance of the Study 46
CONCLUSION 48
FUTURE RESEARCH 48
REFERENCES 48
APPENDIX A: MODEL EVALUATION SURVEY 1, R2D2/C3PO MODEL 50
APPENDIX B: MODEL EVALUATION SURVEY 2, eSUCCESS Framework 51
Appendix C: Focus Group, Nominal Group Technique-Model Validation, eSUCCESS, R2D2/C3PO, Agenda 52
Appendix D: Brookfield’s Discussion Techniques 52
Table 1 39
R2D2/C3PO Components, Instructional Strategies/Learning Activities, Synchronous Tools 39
Table 1 40
(Continued) 40
Table 2 40
eSUCCESS Tenets With Descriptions 40
1 40
2 40
3 40
Table 2 41
(Continued) 41
4 41
5 41
6 41
7 41
8 41
Table 3 41
Participant Demographics 41
P1 41
> 20
EdD 41
P 41
> 20
EdD 41
P3 41
15–20 41
PhD 41
P4 41
15–20 41
PhD 41
P5 41
> 20
PhD 41
Table 7 46
eSUCCESS Tenets Updated with Descriptions 46
Table 7 47
(Continued) 47
Table 6 44
R2D2/C3PO Components Updated, Instructional Strategies/Learning Activities, Synchronous Tools 44
Table 6 45
(Continued) 45
Ensuring Academic Integrity in Online Courses 54
A Case Analysis in Three Testing Environments 54
Berhane Teclehaimanot Jiyu You 54
The University of Toledo University of Michigan 54
Diana R. Franz, Mingli Xiao, and Sue Ann Hochberg 54
University of Toledo 54
The purpose of this study was to determine which remote testing systems, all designed to ensure academic integrity, offer a realistic and secure approach to online examinations and best fulfill the needs for faculty and students. This study explored ... 54
INTRODUCTION 54
FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 54
WAYS TO ENSURE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY 55
Nonproctored Recorded Online Testing Environment 55
Nonproctored Lockdown Online Testing Environment 55
Nonproctored Online Testing Environment 56
ABOUT THE COURSE IN THE STUDY 56
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 56
RESULTS 56
Table 1 57
Mean and Standard Deviation of Exams Administered in Monitor 57
86 57
50 57
100 57
83.49 57
12.009 57
86 57
0 57
100 57
84.28 57
15.459 57
86 57
0 57
150 57
127.37 57
25.421 57
86 57
70.0 57
481.0 57
389.907 57
71.1879 57
86 57
Table 2 57
Mean and Standard Deviation of Exams Administered in Lock Down 57
33 57
42 57
98 57
81.94 57
14.313 57
33 57
58 57
100 57
83.82 57
10.409 57
33 57
86 57
148 57
132.18 57
15.559 57
33 57
336.5 57
479.5 57
418.424 57
41.6126 57
33 57
Table 3 57
Mean and Standard Deviation of Exams Administered in Blackboard 57
39 57
58 57
96 57
80.56 57
10.789 57
39 57
52 57
100 57
84.00 57
11.211 57
39 57
84 57
150 57
125.18 57
17.881 57
39 57
269.0 57
512.0 57
423.013 57
56.3328 57
39 57
Table 4 58
ANOVA Results for Exam 1 by Method of Testing Environments 58
21.194 58
23 58
.921 58
1.375 58
.135 58
89.825 58
134 58
.670 58
111.019 58
157 58
Table 5 58
ANOVA Results for Exam 2 by Method of Testing Environments 58
23.242 58
23 58
1.011 58
1.543 58
.067 58
87.777 58
134 58
.655 58
111.019 58
157 58
Table 6 58
ANOVA Results for Final Exam by Method of Testing Environments 58
28.449 58
29 58
.981 58
1.521 58
.059 58
82.570 58
128 58
.645 58
111.019 58
157 58
Table 7 58
ANOVA Results for Total Points by Method of Testing Environments 58
84.019 58
116 58
.724 58
1.100 58
.372 58
27.000 58
41 58
.659 58
111.019 58
157 58
Table 8 58
Percentages of Letter Grades 58
34.88 58
36.04 58
24.42 58
4.62 58
33.33 58
36.36 58
21.21 58
9.09 58
25.64 58
33.33 58
35.90 58
5.12 58
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION 57
REFERENCES 59
Conference Calendar 60
Charles Schlosser 60
Nova Southeastern University 60
E-Learn World Conference on E-Learning, October 15–18, Las Vegas, NV 60
AECT International Convention, October 23–27, Kansas City, MO 60
Future of Education Technology Conference (FETC), January 27–30, 2019, Orlando, FL 60
SITE, March 18-22, 2019, Las Vegas, NV 61
Author Biographical Data 62
Back Cover 66

Produkt-Details

• Erscheint lt. Verlag: 1.7.2018
• Sprache: englisch
• Themenwelt: Schulbuch / Wörterbuch ► Lexikon / Chroniken
• Themenwelt: Sozialwissenschaften ► Pädagogik
• Themenwelt: Sozialwissenschaften ► Soziologie ► Empirische Sozialforschung
• ISBN-13: 9781641133654 / 9781641133654