Simonson / Schlosser Quarterly Review of Distance Education

1. Auflage 2016
ISBN: 978-1-68123-545-5
Verlag: Information Age Publishing
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 64 Seiten

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.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Simonson, Michael

Schlosser, Charles

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover
;1
2;Statement of Purpose;6
2.1;Quarterly Review of Distance Education;4
2.2;“Research That Guides Practice”;4
2.2.1;Volume 17 Number 1, 2016;4
2.2.1.1;ARTICLES;4
2.3;Quarterly Review of Distance Education Editors and Editorial Board;3
2.3.1;Editors;3
2.3.2;Assistant Editor;3
2.3.3;Editorial Assistant;3
2.3.4;Department Editors;3
2.3.5;International;3
2.3.6;Lya Visser, Learning Development Institute;3
2.3.7;Lucy Green, Georgia Southern University;3
2.3.8;Editorial Board;3
3;An Online Social Constructivist Course;8
3.1;Toward a Framework for Usability Evaluations;8
3.1.1; Alana S. Phillips, Anneliese Sheffield, Michelle Moore, and Heather A. Robinson;8
3.1.1.1;University of North Texas;8
3.1.1.1.1;There is a need for a holistic usability evaluation framework that accommodates social constructivist online courses. Social knowledge construction may not be adequately evaluated using current frameworks. This qualitative research study examined the...;8
3.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;8
3.1.1.1.1.2;OBJECTIVES;9
3.1.1.1.1.3;THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;9
3.1.1.1.1.4;Social Constructivism;9
3.1.1.1.1.5;Usability and Stress;10
3.1.1.1.1.6;PHENOMENOGRAPHY;10
3.1.1.1.1.7;METHODS AND DATA SOURCES;11
3.1.1.1.1.8;Study Context ;11
3.1.1.1.1.9;Participants;12
3.1.1.1.1.10;Data Sources ;12
3.1.1.1.1.11;Data Analysis;12
3.1.1.1.1.12;Results;13
3.1.1.1.1.13;Positive Feedback;14
3.1.1.1.1.14;DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS;14
3.1.1.1.1.15;REFERENCES;16
3.1.1.1.1.15.1;Figure 1;15
3.1.1.1.1.16;Classification Scheme for Analysis of Student Experiences;15
4;An Analysis of Technological Issues Emanating From Faculty Transition to a New Learning Management System;18
4.1;Mapopa William Sanga;18
4.1.1;Southwestern Oklahoma State University;18
4.1.1.1;This case study investigated the process 119 faculty members underwent as they transitioned from using Desire to Learn (D2L) learning management system (LMS), to using Canvas LMS. Other than analyzing technological issues faculty members encountered ...;18
4.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;18
4.1.1.1.2;PURPOSE OF STUDY;19
4.1.1.1.3;RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY;20
4.1.1.1.4;Context and Participants;20
4.1.1.1.5;Data Collection;20
4.1.1.1.6;Researcher Stance;21
4.1.1.1.7;Data Analysis;21
4.1.1.1.8;FINDINGS;21
4.1.1.1.9;Research Question 1: What general Canvas interface issues did faculty members face in transition from D2L?;21
4.1.1.1.10;Research Question 2: What issues did faculty members encounter while integrating various software applications in Canvas?;23
4.1.1.1.11;Voice Thread;24
4.1.1.1.12;Panopto;25
4.1.1.1.13;Turnitin and Grademark;25
4.1.1.1.14;Respondus Lockdown Browser;26
4.1.1.1.15;Research Question 3: What implications did these issues have on preparing future faculty development workshops?;26
4.1.1.1.16;IMPLICATIONS;27
4.1.1.1.17;REFERENCES;27
4.1.1.1.17.1;Table 1;22
4.1.1.1.18;General Canvas Interface Issues Encountered by Faculty Members;22
4.1.1.1.18.1;Table 2;22
4.1.1.1.19;Issues Arising From Integrating External Applications Into Canvas;22
4.1.1.1.19.1;Table 2;23
4.1.1.1.20;(Continued);23
4.1.1.1.20.1;Table 3;23
4.1.1.1.21;General Observations;23
4.1.1.1.21.1;Figure 1;24
5;Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication in Distance Learning;30
5.1;A Review of the Literature;30
5.1.1;Lynette Watts;30
5.1.1.1;Midwestern State University;30
5.1.1.1.1;Distance learning is commonplace in higher education, with increasing numbers of students enjoying the flexibility e-learning provides. Keeping students connected with peers and instructors has been a challenge with e-learning, but as technology has ...;30
5.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;30
5.1.1.1.1.2;METHODOLOGY;31
5.1.1.1.1.3;DISCUSSION;31
5.1.1.1.1.4;Transactional Distance;31
5.1.1.1.1.5;Course Outcomes;35
5.1.1.1.1.6;Motivation;36
5.1.1.1.1.7;RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION;37
5.1.1.1.1.8;CONCLUSIONS;38
5.1.1.1.1.9;REFERENCES;38
5.1.1.1.1.9.1;Table 1;32
5.1.1.1.1.10;Summary of the Literature;32
5.1.1.1.1.10.1;Table 1;33
5.1.1.1.1.11;Summary of the Literature;33
6;Key Components of Online Group Projects;40
6.1;Faculty Perceptions;40
6.1.1;Christine E. Wade and Bruce A. Cameron Kari Morgan;40
6.1.1.1;University of Wyoming Kansas State University;40
6.1.2;Karen C. Williams;40
6.1.2.1;University of Wyoming;40
6.1.2.1.1;In order to better understand faculty perceptions of group work, a survey was deployed to online teaching instructors. Results suggest that most faculty find student socialization (e.g., being supportive, caring about each other), communication, reli...;40
6.1.2.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;40
6.1.2.1.1.2;METHOD;41
6.1.2.1.1.3;Survey Instrument;41
6.1.2.1.1.4;Participants;41
6.1.2.1.1.5;RESULTS;42
6.1.2.1.1.6;Importance of Process, Experience, and Group Dynamics;42
6.1.2.1.1.7;Group Roles;42
6.1.2.1.1.8;Group Trust;42
6.1.2.1.1.9;Group Member Qualities;42
6.1.2.1.1.10;DISCUSSION;43
6.1.2.1.1.11;IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING;44
6.1.2.1.1.12;REFERENCES;45
6.1.2.1.1.13;Appendix: Group projects survey for faculty;46
6.1.2.1.1.14;1. What is your age?;46
6.1.2.1.1.15;2. What is your race or ethnicity?;46
6.1.2.1.1.16;3. What is your sex?;46
6.1.2.1.1.17;4. What is your faculty status?;46
6.1.2.1.1.18;5. In what college do you teach?;46
6.1.2.1.1.19;6. Including this course, how many online classes have you taught?;46
6.1.2.1.1.20;7. Do you read journal articles regarding online teaching?;46
6.1.2.1.1.21;8. Have you attended any trainings, workshops, or conferences regarding online teaching?;46
6.1.2.1.1.22;9. Of the online classes you have taught previously, including your current class, how many have included a group project?;46
6.1.2.1.1.23;10. If you do not utilize group projects in your online classes, why? Are there barriers, problems, and/or concerns that keep you from utilizing group projects?;46
6.1.2.1.1.24;11. If you do utilize group projects in your online courses, why? What do you see as the benefits?;46
6.1.2.1.1.25;12. What has gone smoothly or worked well with your online group projects?;46
6.1.2.1.1.26;13. What has been problematic with your online group projects?;46
6.1.2.1.1.27;14. What level(s) of courses do you teach online that include a group project? Please check all that apply. (answer choices: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate);46
6.1.2.1.1.28;15. What are the typical durations of your online group projects? Please check all that apply. (answer choices: Less than 1 week, 1–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks, 1–2 months, longer than 2 months);46
6.1.2.1.1.29;16. Have you seen differences in how online groups perform based on the duration of the project? If so, please explain.;47
6.1.2.1.1.30;17. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group regarding online group projects? If so, please provide us with your e- mail address.;47
6.1.2.1.1.31;18. It is important that group members care about each other.;47
6.1.2.1.1.32;19. It is important for online group members to encourage each other to ask questions.;47
6.1.2.1.1.33;20. It is important for students to be able to rely on other online group members.;47
6.1.2.1.1.34;21. It is important for online group members to connect with one another.;47
6.1.2.1.1.35;22. It is important for group members to communicate frequently.;47
6.1.2.1.1.36;23. It is important for online group members to trust each other to complete assigned tasks.;47
6.1.2.1.1.37;24. It is important for online group members to be supportive of one another.;47
6.1.2.1.1.38;25. It is important for online groups to exhibit a sense of community.;47
6.1.2.1.1.39;26. It is important for differences of opinion within online groups to be successfully negotiated by the group members themselves.;47
6.1.2.1.1.40;27. It is important for online groups to be a cohesive unit.;47
6.1.2.1.1.41;28. When working with an online group project, I encourage my students to meet … (Answer choices: face to face, through online threads, in an online chat room, using web casting, by voice [phone, Bluetooth, etc.], using Skype, using social networki...;47
6.1.2.1.1.42;29. It is important for online group members to provide constructive feedback to each other when communicating.;47
6.1.2.1.1.43;30. What do you see as your role in facilitating online group work?;47
6.1.2.1.1.44;31. Do you facilitate online group roles or creating a sense of community within the online groups? Why or why not?;47
6.1.2.1.1.45;32. Does your level of facilitation change based on the level of the course? If so, how?;47
6.1.2.1.1.46;33. It is important for groups to develop goals regarding the online group project.;47
6.1.2.1.1.47;34. It is important for students to make their expectations for the online group known.;47
6.1.2.1.1.48;35. It is important that students invest at an interpersonal level with online group members.;47
6.1.2.1.1.49;36. It is important for students to provide feedback about processes associated with the online group project.;47
6.1.2.1.1.50;37. It is important for students to develop deep relationships with the online group members.;47
6.1.2.1.1.51;38. How important is it that students get to know each other on a personal level in online group work?;47
6.1.2.1.1.52;39. How important is it for students to develop specific roles in online groups?;47
6.1.2.1.1.53;40. Are you typically able to identify the roles students have taken in their online groups? (answer choices: yes, no);47
6.1.2.1.1.54;41. How are roles typically assigned in your online groups? (answer choices: by me, by a group member[s], created as individual group members volunteered, created by group agreement, seemed to “just happen,” other —please specify).;47
6.1.2.1.1.55;42. What role(s) do you feel are important for students to fill in online group work? Please check all that apply. (answer choices: leader, facilitator, editor, cheerleader/supporter, presenter, writer, liaison with instructor, researcher, other—pl...;47
6.1.2.1.1.56;43. How important is it for students to develop supportive relationships with their online group members?;48
6.1.2.1.1.57;44. How important is it for students to develop a sense of trust with their online group members?;48
6.1.2.1.1.58;45. If you have perceived a lack of trust in an online group, what do you think contributed to that lack of trust? Please check all that apply. (answer choices: group members were not able to meet face to face, group members did not answer questions ...;48
6.1.2.1.1.59;46. What are the top five characteristics you believe it is important that students identify in other online group members? Below is a list of characteristics. While many may be important to you, please select ONLY your top five, and indicate which i...;48
6.1.2.1.1.60;47. How important is it for students to identify specific characteristics of their online group members?;48
6.1.2.1.1.61;48. How important is it that ground rules be developed for online group interactions?;48
6.1.2.1.1.62;49. Please select the 5 most important group etiquette behaviors in order of their importance to group performance. Below is a list of behaviors. While many may be important to you, please select ONLY your top five, and indicate which is the most imp...;48
6.1.2.1.1.63;50. How important is it that online group members contribute to etiquette within the group?;48
7;Blended Versus Traditional Course Delivery;50
7.1;Comparing Students’ Motivation, Learning Outcomes, and Preferences;50
7.1.1;Hungwei Tseng and Eamonn Joseph Walsh, Jr.;50
7.1.1.1;Jacksonville State University;50
7.1.1.1.1;This study sought to compare and assess students’ experiences and perceptions in a blended and a traditional course, as well as their level of learning motivation, level of learning outcomes and skills, and learning achievement. Two instructors who...;50
7.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;50
7.1.1.1.1.2;1. to combine or mix modes of web-based technology (e.g., live virtual classroom, self-paced instruction, collaborative learning, streaming video, audio, and text) to accomplish an educational goal;;51
7.1.1.1.1.3;2. to combine various pedagogical approaches (e.g., constructivism, behaviorism, cognitivism) to produce an optimal learning outcome with or without instructional technology;;51
7.1.1.1.1.4;3. to combine any form of instructional technology (e.g., videotape, CD-ROM, web- based training, film) with face-to-face instructor-led training; and;51
7.1.1.1.1.4.1;4. to mix or combine instructional technology with actual job tasks in order to create a harmonious effect of learning and working (p. 1).;51
7.1.1.1.1.4.2;Motivation in Blended Learning Environments;52
7.1.1.1.1.4.3;Purpose of the Study;52
7.1.1.1.1.4.4;METHOD;53
7.1.1.1.1.4.5;Sample Selection;53
7.1.1.1.1.4.6;Instrumentation;53
7.1.1.1.1.4.7;Data Collection and Data Analysis;54
7.1.1.1.1.4.8;RESULTS;54
7.1.1.1.1.4.9;DISCUSSION;55
7.1.1.1.1.4.10;CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH;57
7.1.1.1.1.4.11;REFERENCES;57
7.1.1.1.1.4.11.1;Table 1;54
7.1.1.1.1.5;Demographic and Courses Taken Information of Participants;54
7.1.1.1.1.5.1;Table 2;55
7.1.1.1.1.6;Independent t Test of Participants’ Motivation, Learning Outcomes and Skills, and Learning Achievement;55
7.1.1.1.1.7;3.39;55
7.1.1.1.1.8;(.75);55
7.1.1.1.1.9;3.32;55
7.1.1.1.1.10;(.53);55
7.1.1.1.1.11;.40;55
7.1.1.1.1.12;3.87;55
7.1.1.1.1.13;(.59);55
7.1.1.1.1.14;3.58;55
7.1.1.1.1.15;(.53);55
7.1.1.1.1.16;1.88;55
7.1.1.1.1.17;4.15;55
7.1.1.1.1.18;(.56);55
7.1.1.1.1.19;3.68;55
7.1.1.1.1.20;(.49);55
7.1.1.1.1.21;3.24;55
7.1.1.1.1.22;3.80;55
7.1.1.1.1.23;(.69);55
7.1.1.1.1.24;3.45;55
7.1.1.1.1.25;(.49);55
7.1.1.1.1.26;2.12;55
7.1.1.1.1.27;3.81;55
7.1.1.1.1.28;(.61);55
7.1.1.1.1.29;3.51;55
7.1.1.1.1.30;(.43);55
7.1.1.1.1.31;2.05;55
7.1.1.1.1.32;3.79;55
7.1.1.1.1.33;(.73);55
7.1.1.1.1.34;3.65;55
7.1.1.1.1.35;(.59);55
7.1.1.1.1.36;.76;55
7.1.1.1.1.37;84.49;55
7.1.1.1.1.38;(10.19);55
7.1.1.1.1.39;82.13;55
7.1.1.1.1.40;(10.50);55
7.1.1.1.1.41;1.31;55
7.1.1.1.1.41.1;Table 3;56
7.1.1.1.1.42;Delivery Mode Perceptions;56
7.1.1.1.1.43;3.88;56
7.1.1.1.1.44;.77;56
7.1.1.1.1.45;3.88;56
7.1.1.1.1.46;.59;56
7.1.1.1.1.47;2.85;56
7.1.1.1.1.48;1.08;56
7.1.1.1.1.49;3.19;56
7.1.1.1.1.50;1.13;56
7.1.1.1.1.51;3.76;56
7.1.1.1.1.52;.91;56
7.1.1.1.1.53;2.81;56
7.1.1.1.1.54;.98;56
7.1.1.1.1.55;3.92;56
7.1.1.1.1.56;.80;56
7.1.1.1.1.57;3.92;56
7.1.1.1.1.58;.89;56
7.1.1.1.1.59;3.92;56
7.1.1.1.1.60;.89;56
8;Conference Calendar;60
8.1;Charles Schlosser;60
8.1.1;Nova Southeastern University;60
8.1.1.1;Distance Teaching and Learning Conference, August 9-11, Madison, WI;60
8.1.1.2;AECT International Convention, October 17-21, Las Vegas, NV;60
8.1.1.3;E-Learn 2016: World Conference on E-Learning, November 14-16, Washington, DC;60
8.1.1.4;OLC Accelerate, November 16-18, Orlando, FL;60
8.1.1.5;FETC, January 24-27, 2017, Orlando, FL;61
9;AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL DATA;62
10;Back Cover
;64