Beyond the Online Course

1 - Front Cover [Seite 1]
2 - Beyond the Online Course [Seite 2]
3 - Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning [Seite 2]
3.1 - A Volume in Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning [Seite 2]
3.2 - Series Editors: [Seite 2]
3.3 - Charles Schlosser and Michael Simonson, Nova Southeastern University [Seite 2]
4 - CONTENTS [Seite 6]
4.1 - Part I: Leading Innovation and Change [Seite 6]
4.1.1 - 1. Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education [Seite 6]
4.1.2 - 2. Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education at the Institutional Level: Considering Faculty Perceptions [Seite 6]
4.1.3 - 3. Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions [Seite 6]
4.1.4 - 4. Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them [Seite 6]
4.1.5 - 5. Bridging the Divide: Reconciling Administrator and Faculty Concerns Regarding Online Education [Seite 6]
4.2 - Part II: Leading Course and Program Design [Seite 7]
4.2.1 - 6. Expert Instructional Designer Voices: Leadership Competencies Critical to Global Practice and Quality Online Learning Designs [Seite 7]
4.2.2 - 7. Three Levels of Planned e-Learning Interactions: A Framework for Grounding Research and the Design of e-Learning Programs [Seite 7]
4.2.3 - 8. Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions: A Holistic Framework [Seite 7]
4.2.4 - 9. Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework [Seite 7]
4.2.5 - 10. Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort [Seite 7]
4.2.6 - 11. Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution: The Case of the University of Botswana [Seite 7]
4.3 - Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students [Seite 7]
4.3.1 - 12. Supporting the Distant Student: The Effect of ARCS-Based Strategies on Confidence and Performance [Seite 7]
4.3.2 - 13. Online Instruction: Student Satisfaction, Kudos, and Pet Peeves [Seite 7]
4.3.3 - 14. Assistive Technology: Enhancing the Life Skills of Students With Learning Disabilities [Seite 7]
4.3.4 - 15. Supervision on Site: A Critical Factor in the Online Facilitated Internship [Seite 8]
4.4 - Part IV: Leading the Development and Support of Online Faculty and Staff [Seite 8]
4.4.1 - 16. Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems [Seite 8]
4.4.2 - 17. Maximizing HR Professionals' Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness [Seite 8]
4.4.3 - 18. Off-Site Faculty Perspectives on Online Experiences [Seite 8]
4.4.4 - 19. Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses [Seite 8]
4.4.5 - 20. Assessing Online Faculty [Seite 8]
4.4.6 - 21. How University Faculty Members Develop Their Online Teaching Skills [Seite 8]
4.5 - Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues [Seite 8]
4.5.1 - 22. Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education [Seite 8]
4.5.2 - 23. Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property [Seite 8]
4.5.3 - 24. Intellectual Property and Online Courses Policies at Major Research Universities [Seite 8]
4.5.4 - 25. The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning [Seite 9]
4.6 - Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning [Seite 3]
4.7 - Beyond the Online Course [Seite 4]
4.8 - Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning [Seite 4]
4.8.1 - Edited by [Seite 4]
4.8.2 - Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System [Seite 4]
4.8.3 - and [Seite 4]
4.8.4 - Jason B. Huett University of West Georgia [Seite 4]
4.8.4.1 - Information Age Publishing, Inc. [Seite 4]
4.8.4.2 - Charlotte, North Carolina www.infoagepub.com [Seite 4]
4.8.4.3 - Foreword [Seite 10]
4.8.4.3.1 - Melanie N. Clay [Seite 10]
4.8.4.4 - Preface [Seite 14]
4.8.4.4.1 - Jason B. Huett and Anthony A. Piña [Seite 14]
4.8.4.4.2 - Acknowledgments [Seite 17]
4.8.4.4.3 - REFERENCES [Seite 17]
4.9 - Part I [Seite 20]
4.9.1 - Leading Innovation and Change [Seite 20]
4.9.2 - Table 1. Institutional Classification of Respondents [Seite 26]
4.10 - CHAPTER 1 [Seite 22]
4.10.1 - Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education [Seite 22]
4.10.1.1 - Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System [Seite 22]
4.10.1.2 - From Online Courses to Online Programs [Seite 23]
4.10.1.3 - Adoption versus Institutionalization [Seite 24]
4.10.1.4 - Institutionalization of a Distance Education Program [Seite 24]
4.10.1.5 - Purpose of the Study [Seite 25]
4.10.1.6 - Method [Seite 26]
4.10.1.6.1 - Participants [Seite 26]
4.10.1.6.2 - Development of the Instrument [Seite 26]
4.10.1.6.3 - Data Analysis [Seite 27]
4.10.1.7 - Results [Seite 30]
4.10.1.7.1 - Institutional Role [Seite 30]
4.10.1.7.2 - Institutional Academic Level [Seite 30]
4.10.1.7.3 - Institutional Locale [Seite 32]
4.10.1.8 - Conclusions [Seite 32]
4.10.1.8.1 - Institutional Role [Seite 33]
4.10.1.8.2 - Academic Level [Seite 34]
4.10.1.8.3 - Institutional Locale [Seite 35]
4.10.1.9 - Recommendations [Seite 35]
4.10.1.10 - References [Seite 36]
4.10.2 - Table 2. Topic Areas, Institutionalization Factors and Application Items [Seite 28]
4.10.3 - Table 2. (Continued) [Seite 29]
4.10.4 - Table 3. Mean Scores for Importance Across Five Topic Areas [Seite 30]
4.10.5 - Table 4. Mean Scores for Importance for 30 Institutionalization Factors-Faculty and Leaders [Seite 31]
4.11 - CHAPTER 2 [Seite 40]
4.11.1 - Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education At the Institutional Level [Seite 40]
4.11.1.1 - Jason Neben Concordia University Irvine [Seite 40]
4.11.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 40]
4.11.1.3 - Background [Seite 41]
4.11.1.3.1 - Relevance [Seite 42]
4.11.1.4 - The Challenge [Seite 43]
4.11.1.5 - Diffusion of Innovations Theory [Seite 43]
4.11.1.5.1 - Perceived Attributes of Innovations [Seite 44]
4.11.1.5.2 - The Innovation-Decision Process [Seite 46]
4.11.1.6 - Barriers to Distance Education [Seite 48]
4.11.1.6.1 - Institutional Barriers [Seite 48]
4.11.1.6.2 - Technological Barriers [Seite 49]
4.11.1.6.3 - Financial Barriers [Seite 50]
4.11.1.6.4 - Pedagogical Barriers [Seite 50]
4.11.1.7 - Summary [Seite 50]
4.11.1.8 - References [Seite 51]
4.12 - CHAPTER 3 [Seite 54]
4.12.1 - Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions [Seite 54]
4.12.1.1 - Baiyun Chen University of Central Florida [Seite 54]
4.12.1.2 - Theoretical Framework [Seite 55]
4.12.1.3 - Methods [Seite 56]
4.12.1.3.1 - Empirical Data [Seite 56]
4.12.1.4 - Measures [Seite 57]
4.12.1.4.1 - Adoption of TMDE [Seite 57]
4.12.1.4.2 - Institutional Characteristics [Seite 57]
4.12.1.4.3 - Barriers to TMDE Adoption [Seite 57]
4.12.1.4.4 - Statistical Procedure [Seite 58]
4.12.1.5 - Results [Seite 58]
4.12.1.5.1 - Factor Descriptive [Seite 58]
4.12.1.5.2 - Binary Logistic Regression Analysis [Seite 58]
4.12.1.6 - Discussion and Conclusions [Seite 60]
4.12.1.7 - References [Seite 61]
4.12.2 - Table 1. Adoption of TMDE by Type [Seite 57]
4.12.3 - Table 2. Descriptive on TMDE Adoption Factors [Seite 59]
4.13 - CHAPTER 4 [Seite 64]
4.13.1 - Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them [Seite 64]
4.13.1.1 - Dana Gutman Campus Management Corp [Seite 64]
4.13.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 64]
4.13.1.3 - Barrier 1: Salary [Seite 65]
4.13.1.4 - Barrier 2: Promotion and Tenure [Seite 65]
4.13.1.5 - Barrier 3: Workload [Seite 65]
4.13.1.6 - Barrier 4: Training [Seite 66]
4.13.1.7 - Barrier 5: Interpersonal Relations [Seite 68]
4.13.1.8 - Barrier 6: Quality [Seite 69]
4.13.1.9 - Conclusion [Seite 70]
4.13.1.10 - References [Seite 70]
4.13.2 - Table 1. Workshop Participants Training Experience and Needs [Seite 67]
4.13.3 - Table 1. Intensity of Concern by Academic College [Seite 76]
4.14 - CHAPTER 5 [Seite 72]
4.14.1 - Bridging the Divide [Seite 72]
4.14.1.1 - Leah E. Wickersham and Julie A. McElhany Texas A&M University-Commerce [Seite 72]
4.14.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 73]
4.14.1.3 - Purpose of Study [Seite 74]
4.14.1.4 - Methodology [Seite 74]
4.14.1.5 - Findings [Seite 75]
4.14.1.5.1 - SoCQ Results by College [Seite 75]
4.14.1.5.2 - Faculty Open-Ended Questionnaire Analysis [Seite 77]
4.14.1.5.3 - Administrator Interview Findings [Seite 78]
4.14.1.5.4 - Administrator Concerns [Seite 79]
4.14.1.5.5 - Barriers [Seite 79]
4.14.1.5.6 - University and Faculty Preparedness [Seite 80]
4.14.1.5.7 - Student Preparedness [Seite 80]
4.14.1.5.8 - Support and Resources for Faculty and Students [Seite 81]
4.14.1.5.9 - Quality [Seite 81]
4.14.1.5.10 - Communication [Seite 82]
4.14.1.5.10.1 - Institutional Standards of Quality for Online Courses [Seite 82]
4.14.1.5.10.2 - Faculty Development Related to Online Course Instructional Design [Seite 83]
4.14.1.6 - Comparative Analysis of Results [Seite 84]
4.14.1.7 - Conclusions and Recommendations [Seite 85]
4.14.1.8 - References [Seite 87]
4.14.2 - PART II [Seite 88]
4.14.2.1 - Leading course and program designs [Seite 88]
4.14.2.2 - Table 1. Example of Coded Phrases and Development from In-Depth Interviews [Seite 99]
4.15 - CHAPTER 6 [Seite 90]
4.15.1 - Expert Instructional Designer Voices [Seite 90]
4.15.1.1 - Marcia L. Ashbaugh University of Illinois [Seite 90]
4.15.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 90]
4.15.1.3 - BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT [Seite 92]
4.15.1.4 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK [Seite 93]
4.15.1.4.1 - Leadership Competencies [Seite 93]
4.15.1.4.2 - Strategy [Seite 94]
4.15.1.4.3 - Vision [Seite 94]
4.15.1.4.4 - Personality [Seite 94]
4.15.1.4.5 - Productivity [Seite 95]
4.15.1.4.6 - Leadership Attributes [Seite 95]
4.15.1.4.7 - Emotional/Psychological [Seite 95]
4.15.1.4.8 - Values [Seite 95]
4.15.1.5 - METHODOLOGY [Seite 96]
4.15.1.5.1 - Research Design [Seite 96]
4.15.1.5.2 - Data Instrumentation and Collection [Seite 97]
4.15.1.6 - ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS [Seite 98]
4.15.1.7 - A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP FOR ID [Seite 100]
4.15.1.7.1 - Strategy [Seite 101]
4.15.1.7.2 - Design Process Strategy [Seite 102]
4.15.1.7.3 - Design Structure Strategy [Seite 103]
4.15.1.7.3.1 - Vision [Seite 105]
4.15.1.7.3.2 - Personality (Interpersonal Skills) [Seite 106]
4.15.1.7.3.3 - Productivity [Seite 107]
4.15.1.7.3.4 - Emotional/Psychological Strength [Seite 108]
4.15.1.7.3.5 - Values [Seite 108]
4.15.1.7.4 - Duties [Seite 109]
4.15.1.8 - DISCUSSION [Seite 110]
4.15.1.9 - CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH [Seite 111]
4.15.1.10 - APPENDIX A: Profiles of Study Participants [Seite 112]
4.15.1.10.1 - Participant 1 (P1) [Seite 112]
4.15.1.10.2 - Participant 2 (P2) [Seite 113]
4.15.1.10.3 - Participant 3 (P3) [Seite 113]
4.15.1.10.4 - Participant 4 (P4) [Seite 114]
4.15.1.10.5 - Participant 5 (P5) [Seite 114]
4.15.1.10.6 - Participant 6 (P6) [Seite 114]
4.15.1.11 - REFERENCES [Seite 115]
4.15.2 - Table 2. Ranking of Course Designs by a Modified Quality Matters Rubric of Standards [Seite 100]
4.15.2.1 - Figure 1. Model of leadership for instructional design. [Seite 101]
4.15.2.2 - Figure 2. Components of a well-designed online course structure. [Seite 104]
4.15.2.3 - Figure 3. Components of a well-designed online course instructional strategy. [Seite 104]
4.15.2.4 - Figure 1. Three levels for planning e-learning interactions. [Seite 124]
4.16 - CHAPTER 7 [Seite 122]
4.16.1 - Three Levels of Planned E-learning Interactions [Seite 122]
4.16.1.1 - Atsusi "2c" Hirumi University of Central Florida [Seite 122]
4.16.1.2 - Three Levels for Planning eLearning Interactions [Seite 125]
4.16.1.2.1 - Level I: Internal Learner-Self Interactions [Seite 126]
4.16.1.2.2 - Level III: Learner-Instructional Interactions [Seite 130]
4.16.1.2.3 - Level II: Learner-Human and Learner-Nonhuman Interactions [Seite 133]
4.16.1.3 - Applications of the Three-Level Framework [Seite 135]
4.16.1.3.1 - Analyzing and Organizing Research [Seite 135]
4.16.1.4 - Summary [Seite 137]
4.16.1.5 - References [Seite 138]
4.16.2 - Table 1. Major Classes of Learning Theories and Related Theories and Lines of Research [Seite 127]
4.16.3 - Table 2. Relating Instructional Strategies, Tools, and Techniques to Basic Instructional Approaches and Theoretical Orientations [Seite 132]
4.16.4 - Table 3. Six-Step Process for Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions [Seite 136]
4.16.4.1 - Figure 1. Macro view of online education components. [Seite 146]
4.17 - CHAPTER 8 [Seite 144]
4.17.1 - Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions [Seite 144]
4.17.1.1 - Jomon Aliyas Paul and Justin Daniel Cochran Kennesaw State University [Seite 144]
4.17.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 145]
4.17.1.3 - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK [Seite 145]
4.17.1.4 - Student ? Faculty [Seite 146]
4.17.1.4.1 - Course Development [Seite 147]
4.17.1.4.2 - Interaction and Feedback [Seite 147]
4.17.1.4.3 - Communicate Expectations [Seite 148]
4.17.1.4.4 - Assessment of Student Learning [Seite 148]
4.17.1.5 - Student ? Technology [Seite 149]
4.17.1.5.1 - Student-Centered and Intuitive Systems [Seite 149]
4.17.1.5.2 - Technology Orientation for Students [Seite 150]
4.17.1.6 - Student ? Institution [Seite 150]
4.17.1.6.1 - Student Advising and Other Support Services [Seite 151]
4.17.1.6.2 - Career Services Offerings [Seite 152]
4.17.1.6.3 - Institution Engagement and Immersion Offerings [Seite 152]
4.17.1.6.4 - Support Services for Students [Seite 153]
4.17.1.6.5 - Faculty ? Technology [Seite 153]
4.17.1.6.6 - Instructor Training and Technological Know-How [Seite 154]
4.17.1.6.7 - Continuous Technology Improvement [Seite 154]
4.17.1.7 - Faculty ? Institution [Seite 154]
4.17.1.7.1 - Administrative and Monetary Support [Seite 154]
4.17.1.7.2 - Pedagogical Support [Seite 155]
4.17.1.7.3 - Mechanisms to Ensure Ethical Learning [Seite 155]
4.17.1.8 - Institution ? Technology [Seite 156]
4.17.1.9 - The Impact of Cross Pollination [Seite 157]
4.17.1.10 - Student ? Student [Seite 158]
4.17.1.11 - Faculty ? Faculty [Seite 159]
4.17.1.12 - Technology ? Technology [Seite 160]
4.17.1.13 - CONCLUSION [Seite 161]
4.17.1.14 - references [Seite 161]
4.17.1.14.1 - Figure 2. Cross-pollination of students, technologies, and faculty. [Seite 158]
4.18 - CHAPTER 9 [Seite 166]
4.18.1 - Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework [Seite 166]
4.18.1.1 - Arthur J. Borgemenke, William C. Holt, and Wade W. Fish Texas A&M University-Commerce [Seite 166]
4.18.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 166]
4.18.1.3 - Purpose [Seite 167]
4.18.1.4 - Rationale [Seite 167]
4.18.1.5 - Literature Review [Seite 168]
4.18.1.5.1 - Course Quality Design Factors [Seite 168]
4.18.1.5.2 - Component Design Efficacy [Seite 169]
4.18.1.6 - Instructional Design Process [Seite 171]
4.18.1.6.1 - Universal Course Shell Template Components [Seite 171]
4.18.1.6.2 - Course Content and Assignments [Seite 173]
4.18.1.7 - Summary and Implications [Seite 174]
4.18.1.8 - References [Seite 175]
4.19 - CHAPTER 10 [Seite 178]
4.19.1 - Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort [Seite 178]
4.19.1.1 - Mary E. Engstrom, Susan A. Santo, and Rosanne M. Yost University of South Dakota [Seite 178]
4.19.1.2 - Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort [Seite 178]
4.19.1.3 - Review of the Literature [Seite 179]
4.19.1.3.1 - 1. Tapping students' personal and professional experiences, motivation, and their learning preferences [Seite 181]
4.19.1.3.2 - 2. The nature of the class (survey, core, elective, etc.) [Seite 181]
4.19.1.3.3 - 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... [Seite 181]
4.19.1.4 - Methodology [Seite 182]
4.19.1.4.1 - Participants [Seite 182]
4.19.1.4.2 - Cohort Program Design [Seite 183]
4.19.1.4.3 - Research Design [Seite 183]
4.19.1.4.4 - Data Collection [Seite 184]
4.19.1.4.4.1 - 1. What did it mean to be a cohort group working on your master's degree together? [Seite 184]
4.19.1.4.4.2 - 2. What role did cohort members play in helping you construct knowledge in the master's program? [Seite 184]
4.19.1.4.4.3 - 3. What role did others play in helping you construct knowledge in the master's program? [Seite 184]
4.19.1.4.4.4 - 1. Our cohort group drew upon one another's strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. [Seite 184]
4.19.1.4.4.5 - 2. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning. [Seite 185]
4.19.1.4.4.6 - 3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face-to- face) with other cohort members. [Seite 185]
4.19.1.4.5 - Data Analysis [Seite 185]
4.19.1.4.6 - Collaboration [Seite 185]
4.19.1.4.7 - Learning Community [Seite 186]
4.19.1.4.8 - Course Design [Seite 187]
4.19.1.4.9 - Individual Factors [Seite 188]
4.19.1.5 - Discussion and Recommendations [Seite 188]
4.19.1.5.1 - Collaboration [Seite 189]
4.19.1.5.2 - Learning Community [Seite 190]
4.19.1.5.3 - Course Design [Seite 191]
4.19.1.5.4 - Individual Factors [Seite 192]
4.19.1.5.5 - Recommendations [Seite 193]
4.19.1.5.5.1 - 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... [Seite 193]
4.19.1.5.5.2 - 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... [Seite 193]
4.19.1.5.5.3 - 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... [Seite 193]
4.19.1.5.5.4 - 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. [Seite 193]
4.19.1.5.5.5 - 5. Select advisors for cohort programs with care. Advisors should be able to establish and maintain a good rapport with students at a distance. [Seite 194]
4.19.1.5.5.6 - 6. For students who indicate a preference for working individually, counsel them to consider other program delivery options. [Seite 194]
4.19.1.6 - References [Seite 194]
4.19.1.7 - Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort Survey [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.1 - Part 1: Collaboration [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.1.1 - 1. I knew the other Chamberlain cohort members, as professional colleagues, before entering this program. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.2 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.2.1 - 2. Our cohort group drew upon one another's strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.3 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.3.1 - 3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face- to-face) with other cohort members. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.4 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.4.1 - 4. I selected as informal study group partners those Chamberlain cohort colleagues for whom I held professional respect. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.5 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.5.1 - 5. I selected my informal study group partners based on convenience (same building, common time schedules, etc.). [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.6 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.6.1 - 6. My informal study group drew upon one another's strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.7 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.7.1 - 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. [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.8 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 195]
4.19.1.7.8.1 - 8. Small group projects/assignments in "skills" courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) were an important source of knowledge building for me. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.9 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.9.1 - 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. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.10 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.10.1 - 10. Small group projects/assignments in "skills" courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.11 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.11.1 - 11. Instructors encouraged students to collaborate with one another. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.12 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.12.1 - 12. The Internship requirement was an important source of knowledge building for me. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.13 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.13.1 - 13. The Internship requirement promoted collaboration with other professionals. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.14 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.14.1 - Part 2: Learning Community [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.14.1.1 - 14. The TET cohort model successfully promoted knowledge building among the cohort members. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.15 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.15.1 - 15. Cohort members supported and encouraged one another. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.16 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.16.1 - 16. Cohort members challenged one another's ideas and beliefs. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.17 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.17.1 - 17. Sometimes I changed my viewpoint on issues based on others' online discussion contributions. [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.18 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 196]
4.19.1.7.18.1 - 18. Sometimes I changed my beliefs about teaching and learning based on others' online discussion contributions. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.19 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.19.1 - 19. Students shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e.: provided web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.) [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.20 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.20.1 - 20. The cohort group increased my knowledge of K-12 student learning. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.21 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.21.1 - 21. The cohort group added to my knowledge of teaching methods. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.22 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.22.1 - 22. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.23 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.23.1 - 23. I was committed to the success of all cohort members in the program. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.24 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.24.1 - 24. I would choose to be a part of a cohort again. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.25 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.25.1 - 25. I would choose to be part of this cohort group again. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.26 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.26.1 - 26. If knowledge building is "(our definition goes here)," how would you rate the level of knowledge building in your cohort group? [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.27 - (need a different response scale for this item) [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.27.1 - 27. If community is "our definition goes here," how would you rate the level of community in your cohort group? [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.28 - (need a different response scale for this item) [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.28.1 - Part 3: Course Design [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.28.1.1 - 28. Online discussions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.29 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 197]
4.19.1.7.29.1 - 29. Online chat sessions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.30 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.30.1 - 30. Student-to-student communication in courses promoted knowledge building. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.31 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.31.1 - 31. Instructor facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.32 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.32.1 - 32. Student facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.33 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.33.1 - 33. Instructors encouraged students to work in small groups when it was appropriate. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.34 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.34.1 - 34. Small group work in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.35 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.35.1 - 35. Instructors shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e., provided Web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.). [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.36 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.36.1 - 36. WebCT was an effective tool for building an online learning community. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.37 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.37.1 - 37. The face-to-face course meetings contributed to the development of a learning community. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.38 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.38.1 - 38. Sharing food at face-to-face sessions contributed to the development of a learning community. [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.39 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 198]
4.19.1.7.39.1 - Part 4: Interactions With the Instructor [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.39.1.1 - 39. Instructor-student communication in courses led to my individual knowledge building. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.40 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.40.1 - 40. Interaction with professors during courses was a strong factor in promoting my knowledge building. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.41 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.41.1 - 41. Instructor feedback on assignments was effective in helping me build knowledge. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.42 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.42.1 - 42. Instructors encouraged students to ask questions about things they didn't understand. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.43 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.43.1 - 43. Group advising sessions with faculty members contributed to my sense of belonging to a professional cohort. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.44 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.44.1 - 44. The TET cohort model successfully promoted a learning community among the cohort members. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.45 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.45.1 - Part 5: Individual Factors [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.45.1.1 - 45. My comfort level with my Chamberlain colleagues was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.46 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.46.1 - 46. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.47 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.47.1 - 47. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, grew over the course of the program. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.48 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.48.1 - 48. I grew professionally during this cohort experience. [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.49 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 199]
4.19.1.7.49.1 - 49. I was actively involved with my cohort group. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.50 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.50.1 - 50. I felt responsible for my own knowledge building. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.51 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.51.1 - 51. I felt responsible for the knowledge building of everyone in my cohort group. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.52 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.52.1 - 52. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically greater than that of other cohort members. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.53 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.53.1 - 53. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically the same that of other cohort members. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.54 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.54.1 - 54. I assumed responsibility for contacting instructors when questions or problems arose. [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.55 - Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.55.1 - 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? [Seite 200]
4.19.1.7.55.2 - 56. You can use the space below to provide any additional comments. [Seite 200]
4.19.2 - Table 1. Enrollment in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Education in Botswana from 1978 to 1991 [Seite 204]
4.19.3 - Table 2. 2001 Tertiary Institution's Intake [Seite 204]
4.20 - CHAPTER 11 [Seite 202]
4.20.1 - Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution [Seite 202]
4.20.1.1 - Ontiretse S. Tau University of Botswana [Seite 202]
4.20.1.2 - Background [Seite 202]
4.20.1.3 - Education in Botswana [Seite 203]
4.20.1.4 - Development of Distance Education in Botswana [Seite 204]
4.20.1.5 - Challenges of a Dual Mode Institution [Seite 205]
4.20.1.6 - Introducing Distance Education into the University of Botswana [Seite 207]
4.20.1.6.1 - 1. Ignorance of the unit's mandate by the rest of UB, particularly the teaching departments which were expected to work collaboratively with DEU to develop distance education programs [Seite 209]
4.20.1.6.2 - 2. Lack of an implementation framework and/or a poorly articulated strategy [Seite 209]
4.20.1.6.3 - 3. Lack of an effective organizational structure both within the unit and in relation to the university faculties and teaching departments. [Seite 210]
4.20.1.7 - Conclusion [Seite 211]
4.20.1.7.1 - 1. Distance education as a subsystem was introduced into a system that was not ready for it. [Seite 211]
4.20.1.7.2 - 2. The Distance Education Unit as a subsystem of UB was not aligned with the rest of the UB academic structure. [Seite 211]
4.20.1.7.3 - 3. As a result, DEU could not perform the process of providing education at a distance to the optimum level. [Seite 211]
4.20.1.7.4 - 1. The university should conduct a front-end analysis to guide all the decisions including that of the distance education model to be adopted. [Seite 211]
4.20.1.7.5 - 2. The organizational structure that is devised should ensure that the distance education unit will not be isolated from the academic mainstream [Seite 212]
4.20.1.7.6 - 3. An implementation framework should be developed to guide the process. [Seite 212]
4.20.1.7.7 - 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. [Seite 212]
4.20.1.8 - References [Seite 212]
4.20.2 - Table 1. Confidence Tactics (CT) [Seite 223]
4.20.3 - Table 1 (Continued) [Seite 225]
4.20.4 - PART III [Seite 214]
4.20.4.1 - LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE STUDENTS [Seite 214]
4.21 - CHAPTER 12 [Seite 216]
4.21.1 - Supporting the Distant Student [Seite 216]
4.21.1.1 - Jason Bond Huett University of West Georgia [Seite 216]
4.21.1.2 - Leslie Moller University of South Dakota [Seite 216]
4.21.1.3 - Jon Young University of North Texas [Seite 216]
4.21.1.4 - Marty Bray Forsynth County Schools [Seite 216]
4.21.1.5 - Kimberly Cleaves Huett University of West Georgia [Seite 216]
4.21.1.6 - Introduction [Seite 217]
4.21.1.6.1 - Keller's ARCS Model and Previous Studies [Seite 217]
4.21.1.7 - Confidence [Seite 218]
4.21.1.7.1 - Perceived Competence [Seite 219]
4.21.1.7.2 - Perceived Control [Seite 219]
4.21.1.7.3 - Expectancy for Success [Seite 220]
4.21.1.8 - Method [Seite 221]
4.21.1.8.1 - Participants [Seite 221]
4.21.1.8.2 - Variables [Seite 222]
4.21.1.8.3 - Instruments [Seite 222]
4.21.1.8.4 - Research Design [Seite 222]
4.21.1.8.4.1 - 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). [Seite 226]
4.21.1.8.4.2 - 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. [Seite 226]
4.21.1.8.4.3 - 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. [Seite 227]
4.21.1.8.4.4 - 4. The instructor presented the materials, with and without modification, to the respective treatment and control groups. [Seite 227]
4.21.1.8.5 - Distance Education Software [Seite 227]
4.21.1.9 - Results [Seite 228]
4.21.1.10 - Discussion [Seite 229]
4.21.1.10.1 - Performance [Seite 231]
4.21.1.10.2 - Additional Analysis [Seite 231]
4.21.1.11 - Conclusion [Seite 232]
4.21.1.12 - References [Seite 232]
4.21.1.12.1 - Figure 2. Screen shot from posttest measure (reproduced with permission from Course Technology). [Seite 227]
4.21.1.12.2 - Figure 1. Example of confidence-enhancing e-mail with comments. [Seite 226]
4.21.2 - Table 2. Results for the Confidence Subsection of the IMMS [Seite 228]
4.21.3 - Table 3. Results for Posttest Measure [Seite 229]
4.21.4 - Table 1. Responses to Survey Questions 1-15 Expressed in Percentages [Seite 242]
4.21.4.1 - 1. Please indicate whether you are: [Seite 242]
4.21.4.2 - Female [Seite 242]
4.21.4.3 - Male [Seite 242]
4.21.4.4 - Total Respondents [Seite 242]
4.21.4.5 - (skipped this question) [Seite 242]
4.21.4.6 - 2. What degree are you obtaining? [Seite 242]
4.21.4.7 - Undergraduate [Seite 242]
4.21.4.8 - 60.9 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.9 - 185 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.10 - Graduate [Seite 242]
4.21.4.11 - 39.1 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.12 - 119 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.13 - Total Respondents [Seite 242]
4.21.4.14 - 304 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.15 - (skipped this question) [Seite 242]
4.21.4.16 - 0 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.17 - 3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 242]
4.21.4.18 - Strongly agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.19 - 27.6 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.20 - 84 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.21 - Agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.22 - 61.2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.23 - 186 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.24 - Neutral [Seite 242]
4.21.4.25 - 8.2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.26 - 25 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.27 - Disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.28 - 2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.29 - 6 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.30 - Strongly disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.31 - 0.7 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.32 - 2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.33 - Not applicable [Seite 242]
4.21.4.34 - 0.3 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.35 - 1 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.36 - Total Respondents [Seite 242]
4.21.4.37 - 304 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.38 - (skipped this question) [Seite 242]
4.21.4.39 - 0 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.40 - 4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 242]
4.21.4.41 - Strongly agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.42 - 30.6 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.43 - 93 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.44 - Agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.45 - 56.6 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.46 - 172 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.47 - Neutral [Seite 242]
4.21.4.48 - 9.5 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.49 - 29 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.50 - Disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.51 - 2.3 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.52 - 7 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.53 - Strongly disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.54 - 0.7 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.55 - 2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.56 - Not applicable [Seite 242]
4.21.4.57 - 0.3 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.58 - 1 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.59 - Total Respondents [Seite 242]
4.21.4.60 - 304 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.61 - (skipped this question) [Seite 242]
4.21.4.62 - 0 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.63 - 5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 242]
4.21.4.64 - Strongly agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.65 - 25.4 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.66 - 77 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.67 - Agree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.68 - 48.5 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.69 - 147 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.70 - Neutral [Seite 242]
4.21.4.71 - 16.2 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.72 - 49 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.73 - Disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.74 - 4.3 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.75 - 13 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.76 - Strongly disagree [Seite 242]
4.21.4.77 - 1.7 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.78 - 5 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.79 - Not applicable [Seite 242]
4.21.4.80 - 4 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.81 - 12 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.82 - Total respondents [Seite 242]
4.21.4.83 - 303 [Seite 242]
4.21.4.84 - (skipped this question) [Seite 242]
4.21.4.85 - 1 [Seite 242]
4.21.5 - Table 1 (Continued) [Seite 243]
4.21.5.1 - 6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 243]
4.21.5.2 - Strongly agree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.3 - 24.5 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.4 - 74 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.5 - Agree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.6 - 48.7 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.7 - 147 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.8 - Neutral [Seite 243]
4.21.5.9 - 14.9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.10 - 45 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.11 - Disagree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.12 - 5.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.13 - 17 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.14 - Strongly disagree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.15 - 1 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.16 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.17 - Not applicable [Seite 243]
4.21.5.18 - 5.3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.19 - 16 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.20 - Total Respondents [Seite 243]
4.21.5.21 - 302 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.22 - (skipped this question) [Seite 243]
4.21.5.23 - 2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.24 - 7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses. [Seite 243]
4.21.5.25 - Strongly agree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.26 - 6.9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.27 - 21 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.28 - Agree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.29 - 20.4 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.30 - 62 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.31 - Neutral [Seite 243]
4.21.5.32 - 29.9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.33 - 91 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.34 - Disagree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.35 - 8.2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.36 - 25 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.37 - Strongly disagree [Seite 243]
4.21.5.38 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.39 - 9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.40 - Not applicable [Seite 243]
4.21.5.41 - 31.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.42 - 96 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.43 - Total Respondents [Seite 243]
4.21.5.44 - 304 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.45 - (skipped this question) [Seite 243]
4.21.5.46 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.47 - 8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days? [Seite 243]
4.21.5.48 - 1 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.49 - 6.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.50 - 20 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.51 - 2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.52 - 25.5 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.53 - 77 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.54 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.55 - 29.8 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.56 - 90 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.57 - 4 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.58 - 8.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.59 - 26 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.60 - 5 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.61 - 11.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.62 - 35 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.63 - 6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.64 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.65 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.66 - 7 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.67 - 14.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.68 - 44 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.69 - 8 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.70 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.71 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.72 - 9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.73 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.74 - 0 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.75 - 10 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.76 - 2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.77 - 6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.78 - Other [Seite 243]
4.21.5.79 - 1.3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.80 - 4 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.81 - Total Respondents [Seite 243]
4.21.5.82 - 302 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.83 - (skipped this question) [Seite 243]
4.21.5.84 - 2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.85 - 9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days? [Seite 243]
4.21.5.86 - 1 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.87 - 0.3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.88 - 1 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.89 - 2 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.90 - 5.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.91 - 17 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.92 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.93 - 13 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.94 - 39 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.95 - 4 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.96 - 11.3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.97 - 34 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.98 - 5 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.99 - 20.6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.100 - 62 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.101 - 6 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.102 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.103 - 9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.104 - 7 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.105 - 20.9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.106 - 63 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.107 - 8 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.108 - 4.7 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.109 - 14 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.110 - 9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.111 - 1 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.112 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.113 - 10 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.114 - 16.9 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.115 - 51 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.116 - Other [Seite 243]
4.21.5.117 - 2.7 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.118 - 8 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.119 - Total Respondents [Seite 243]
4.21.5.120 - 301 [Seite 243]
4.21.5.121 - (skipped this question) [Seite 243]
4.21.5.122 - 3 [Seite 243]
4.21.6 - Table 1 (Continued) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.1 - 10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair. [Seite 244]
4.21.6.2 - Strongly agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.3 - 37.4 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.4 - 113 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.5 - Agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.6 - 52 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.7 - 157 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.8 - Neutral [Seite 244]
4.21.6.9 - 8.6 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.10 - 26 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.11 - Disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.12 - 2 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.13 - 6 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.14 - Strongly disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.15 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.16 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.17 - Total Respondents [Seite 244]
4.21.6.18 - 302 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.19 - (skipped this question) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.20 - 2 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.21 - 11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective. [Seite 244]
4.21.6.22 - Strongly agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.23 - 1.7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.24 - 5 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.25 - Agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.26 - 9.9 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.27 - 30 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.28 - Neutral [Seite 244]
4.21.6.29 - 48 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.30 - 145 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.31 - Disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.32 - 34.1 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.33 - 103 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.34 - Strongly disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.35 - 6.3 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.36 - 19 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.37 - Total Respondents [Seite 244]
4.21.6.38 - 302 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.39 - (skipped this question) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.40 - 2 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.41 - 12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation. [Seite 244]
4.21.6.42 - Strongly agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.43 - 2.4 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.44 - 7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.45 - Agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.46 - 12.5 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.47 - 37 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.48 - Neutral [Seite 244]
4.21.6.49 - 31.3 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.50 - 93 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.51 - Disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.52 - 40.4 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.53 - 120 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.54 - Strongly disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.55 - 13.5 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.56 - 40 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.57 - Total Respondents [Seite 244]
4.21.6.58 - 297 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.59 - (skipped this question) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.60 - 7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.61 - 13. I found 8-week courses long enough to adequately cover the course material. [Seite 244]
4.21.6.62 - Strongly agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.63 - 19.7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.64 - 59 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.65 - Agree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.66 - 46.5 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.67 - 139 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.68 - Neutral [Seite 244]
4.21.6.69 - 10.7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.70 - 32 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.71 - Disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.72 - 7 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.73 - 21 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.74 - Strongly disagree [Seite 244]
4.21.6.75 - 3 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.76 - 9 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.77 - Not applicable [Seite 244]
4.21.6.78 - 13 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.79 - 39 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.80 - Total Respondents [Seite 244]
4.21.6.81 - 299 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.82 - (skipped this question) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.83 - 5 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.84 - 14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been. [Seite 244]
4.21.6.85 - Very excessive [Seite 244]
4.21.6.86 - 3 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.87 - 9 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.88 - Excessive [Seite 244]
4.21.6.89 - 24 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.90 - 72 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.91 - About right [Seite 244]
4.21.6.92 - 73 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.93 - 219 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.94 - Too little [Seite 244]
4.21.6.95 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.96 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.97 - Far too little [Seite 244]
4.21.6.98 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.99 - 0 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.100 - Total Respondents [Seite 244]
4.21.6.101 - 300 [Seite 244]
4.21.6.102 - (skipped this question) [Seite 244]
4.21.6.103 - 4 [Seite 244]
4.21.7 - Table 1 (Continued) [Seite 245]
4.21.7.1 - 15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been. [Seite 245]
4.21.7.2 - Very positive [Seite 245]
4.21.7.3 - 49.8 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.4 - 149 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.5 - Positive [Seite 245]
4.21.7.6 - 42.5 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.7 - 127 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.8 - Neutral [Seite 245]
4.21.7.9 - 4.7 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.10 - 14 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.11 - Negative [Seite 245]
4.21.7.12 - 2.7 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.13 - 8 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.14 - Very negative [Seite 245]
4.21.7.15 - 0.3 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.16 - 1 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.17 - Total Respondents [Seite 245]
4.21.7.18 - 299 [Seite 245]
4.21.7.19 - (skipped this question) [Seite 245]
4.21.7.20 - 5 [Seite 245]
4.22 - CHAPTER 13 [Seite 236]
4.22.1 - Online Instruction [Seite 236]
4.22.1.1 - C. Eugene Walker and Erika Kelly University of Oklahoma [Seite 236]
4.22.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 237]
4.22.1.3 - Methods [Seite 238]
4.22.1.4 - Analysis [Seite 239]
4.22.1.5 - Results [Seite 239]
4.22.1.6 - Discussion [Seite 241]
4.22.1.7 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT [Seite 248]
4.22.1.8 - References [Seite 248]
4.22.1.9 - Appendix A: OU College of Liberal Studies Online Course Survey [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.1 - 1. Please indicate whether you are: [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.2 - Female__ Male __ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.3 - 2. What degree are you obtaining: [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.4 - Undergraduate__ Graduate __ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.5 - 3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.6 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.7 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.8 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.9 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.10 - Strongly disagree __ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.11 - Not applicable__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.12 - 4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.13 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.14 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.15 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.16 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.17 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.18 - Not applicable__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.19 - 5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.20 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.21 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.22 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.23 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.24 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.25 - Not applicable__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.26 - 6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.27 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.28 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.29 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.30 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.31 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.32 - Not applicable__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.33 - 7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.34 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.35 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.36 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.37 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.38 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.39 - Not applicable__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.40 - 8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days? [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.41 - 1__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.42 - 2__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.43 - 3__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.44 - 4__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.45 - 5__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.46 - 6__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.47 - 7__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.48 - 8__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.49 - 9__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.50 - 10__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.51 - Other__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.52 - 9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days? [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.53 - 1__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.54 - 2__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.55 - 3__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.56 - 4__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.57 - 5__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.58 - 6__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.59 - 7__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.60 - 8__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.61 - 9__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.62 - 10__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.63 - Other__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.64 - 10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.65 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.66 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.67 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.68 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.69 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.70 - 11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.71 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.72 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.73 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.74 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.75 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.76 - 12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation. [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.77 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.78 - Agree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.79 - Neutral__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.80 - Disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.81 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 249]
4.22.1.9.82 - 13. If you were in an 8 weeks course, was it long enough to adequately cover the course material. [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.83 - Strongly agree__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.84 - Agree__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.85 - Neutral__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.86 - Disagree__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.87 - Strongly disagree__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.88 - Not applicable__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.89 - 14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been. [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.90 - Very excessive__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.91 - Excessive__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.92 - About right__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.93 - Too little__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.94 - Far too little__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.95 - 15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been. [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.96 - Very positive__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.97 - Positive__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.98 - Neutral__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.99 - Negative__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.100 - Very negative__ [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.101 - 16. The best thing (kudos) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3): [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.102 - 17. The worst thing (pet peeves) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3). [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.103 - Thank you very much for your participation. College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma. [Seite 250]
4.22.1.9.103.1 - Figure 1. Kudos or best feature of online courses reported in frequencies. [Seite 245]
4.22.1.9.103.2 - Figure 2. Pet peeves or worst features of online courses reported in frequencies. [Seite 246]
4.22.2 - Table 1. Assistive Technology Devices for Specific Learning Disabilities [Seite 254]
4.23 - CHAPTER 14 [Seite 252]
4.23.1 - Assistive Technology [Seite 252]
4.23.1.1 - Aries Cobb Baldwin-Wallace College [Seite 252]
4.23.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 252]
4.23.1.3 - Assistive Technology [Seite 253]
4.23.1.4 - Assistive Technology Used by Applied Behavior Analysts [Seite 253]
4.23.1.5 - Special Instructional Interventions: Regular Classroom [Seite 254]
4.23.1.6 - Literature Review [Seite 255]
4.23.1.6.1 - Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Managed Instruction [Seite 255]
4.23.1.6.2 - Computer Multimedia and Learning Disabilities [Seite 256]
4.23.1.6.3 - Technology Productive Tools: Augmentative Technology [Seite 256]
4.23.1.6.4 - Education and Students With Learning Disabilities [Seite 256]
4.23.1.6.5 - Learning Centers [Seite 257]
4.23.1.6.6 - Hearing Impaired Learners and Visually Impaired Learners [Seite 258]
4.23.1.6.7 - EDU-AT-TECH Clients [Seite 258]
4.23.1.7 - Conclusions [Seite 262]
4.23.1.8 - References [Seite 264]
4.23.2 - Table 2. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Gender [Seite 258]
4.23.3 - Table 3. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Age and Gender [Seite 258]
4.23.4 - Table 6. Reference Resources [Seite 260]
4.23.5 - Table 4. Parent/Guardian Consent for Study Participation in Invest in Children [Seite 259]
4.23.6 - Table 5. Number and Reason for Continuing or Discontinuing the EDU-AT-TECH Program [Seite 259]
4.23.7 - Table 7. Paired Sample Statistics [Seite 261]
4.23.8 - Table 8. Paired Sample Correlation [Seite 262]
4.23.9 - Table 9. Paired Samples Test [Seite 263]
4.23.10 - Table 10. Group Statistics [Seite 263]
4.23.10.1 - Figure 1. PRECEDE-PROCEED model. [Seite 273]
4.24 - CHAPTER 15 [Seite 268]
4.24.1 - Supervision on Site [Seite 268]
4.24.1.1 - Kaye B. Dotson and Hui Bian East Carolina University [Seite 268]
4.24.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 268]
4.24.1.2.1 - Technology in Library Science Internships [Seite 270]
4.24.1.3 - THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK [Seite 270]
4.24.1.3.1 - Situated Cognition [Seite 270]
4.24.1.3.2 - PRECEDE-PROCEED Model [Seite 272]
4.24.1.4 - PURPOSE OF THE STUDY [Seite 272]
4.24.1.5 - RESEARCH QUESTIONS [Seite 274]
4.24.1.5.1 - 1. What were site supervisors' perceptions regarding predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing domains for the online facilitated internship program? [Seite 274]
4.24.1.5.2 - 2. Were there significant relationships between the three domains and the success of the internship program? [Seite 274]
4.24.1.5.3 - 3. What did qualitative data clarify for us regarding the site experience? [Seite 274]
4.24.1.6 - METHOD [Seite 274]
4.24.1.6.1 - Participants [Seite 274]
4.24.1.6.2 - Design and Procedure [Seite 274]
4.24.1.6.3 - Measures [Seite 275]
4.24.1.6.4 - Predisposing Domain [Seite 275]
4.24.1.6.5 - Enabling Domain [Seite 275]
4.24.1.6.6 - Reinforcing Domain [Seite 276]
4.24.1.6.7 - Open-Ended Questions [Seite 276]
4.24.1.6.8 - Outcome [Seite 276]
4.24.1.7 - ANALYSIS [Seite 276]
4.24.1.8 - RESULTS [Seite 276]
4.24.1.9 - DISCUSSION [Seite 279]
4.24.1.10 - CONCLUSIONS [Seite 281]
4.24.1.11 - REFERENCES [Seite 282]
4.24.2 - Table 1. Associations Between PRECEDE Model Domains and Success of Internship [Seite 277]
4.24.3 - Table 2. Themes Generated from Qualitative Data [Seite 278]
4.24.4 - Table 1. Effects of Training and Staff Development on Content Knowledge [Seite 293]
4.24.5 - PART IV [Seite 284]
4.24.5.1 - LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE FACULTY AND STAFF [Seite 284]
4.25 - CHAPTER 16 [Seite 286]
4.25.1 - Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems [Seite 286]
4.25.1.1 - Shahinshah Babar Khan Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Model College [Seite 286]
4.25.1.2 - Saeed-ul-Hasan Chishti International Islamic University, Pakistan [Seite 286]
4.25.1.3 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 287]
4.25.1.4 - LITERATURE [Seite 288]
4.25.1.4.1 - Quality Education [Seite 289]
4.25.1.4.2 - Quality Higher Education and Higher Education Institutions [Seite 289]
4.25.1.4.3 - Staff Training and Development [Seite 290]
4.25.1.4.4 - Quality Education and ICTs in Staff Training and Development [Seite 290]
4.25.1.4.5 - Staff Training and Development in Distance Education [Seite 291]
4.25.1.4.6 - AIOU's Faculty Development Programs [Seite 291]
4.25.1.4.7 - Objectives of the Study [Seite 292]
4.25.1.4.7.1 - 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. [Seite 292]
4.25.1.4.7.2 - 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. [Seite 292]
4.25.1.5 - THE STUDY [Seite 292]
4.25.1.5.1 - Sample [Seite 292]
4.25.1.5.2 - Instrument [Seite 292]
4.25.1.5.3 - Validation of the Questionnaire [Seite 295]
4.25.1.5.4 - Final Version of the Questionnaire and Distribution [Seite 295]
4.25.1.5.5 - Data Analysis and Results [Seite 295]
4.25.1.6 - DISCUSSION [Seite 295]
4.25.1.7 - FINDINGS [Seite 296]
4.25.1.8 - REFERENCES [Seite 296]
4.25.2 - Table 1. e-Learning Opportunities for HR Professionals [Seite 302]
4.26 - CHAPTER 17 [Seite 300]
4.26.1 - Maximizing HR Professionals' Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness [Seite 300]
4.26.1.1 - Jane Waweru Nova Southeastern University [Seite 300]
4.26.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 300]
4.26.1.3 - Perceptions of Innovation Attributes [Seite 301]
4.26.1.3.1 - Implications of Limited e-Learning [Seite 301]
4.26.1.4 - Focus Group Qualitative Data [Seite 303]
4.26.1.4.1 - Reasons for Use or Nonuse of e-Learning [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.1 - 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... [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.2 - 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... [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.3 - 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. [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.4 - 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. [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.5 - 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... [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.6 - Potential Barriers [Seite 304]
4.26.1.4.1.6.1 - 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 ... [Seite 305]
4.26.1.4.1.6.2 - 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... [Seite 305]
4.26.1.4.1.6.3 - 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... [Seite 305]
4.26.1.4.1.6.4 - 4. Effectiveness. Participants believed that the inability to measure the effectiveness of e-learning was a barrier to learning. [Seite 305]
4.26.1.4.1.6.5 - 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... [Seite 305]
4.26.1.5 - Interpretation of the Focus Group Results on the Use or Nonuse of e-Learning [Seite 305]
4.26.1.6 - Interpretation of Results for the Barriers of e-Learning [Seite 306]
4.26.1.7 - Implications for Practice [Seite 307]
4.26.1.7.1 - Publication of the Research [Seite 307]
4.26.1.7.2 - Offering Workshops [Seite 307]
4.26.1.7.3 - Offering Technical Support [Seite 308]
4.26.1.7.4 - Enhancing Organizational Synergy [Seite 309]
4.26.1.7.5 - Enhancing Communication Within the Organization [Seite 309]
4.26.1.8 - Implications for Future Research [Seite 310]
4.26.1.8.1 - Conducting Studies in Specific Companies [Seite 310]
4.26.1.9 - Research on Specific HR Management Functions [Seite 310]
4.26.1.10 - Summary [Seite 311]
4.26.1.11 - References [Seite 311]
4.27 - CHAPTER 18 [Seite 314]
4.27.1 - Off-Site Faculty [Seite 314]
4.27.1.1 - Barbara L. Stewart, Carole Goodson, and Susan L. Miertschin University of Houston [Seite 314]
4.27.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 314]
4.27.1.3 - Abbreviated Summary of Review of Literature [Seite 315]
4.27.1.4 - Methodology [Seite 315]
4.27.1.5 - Findings [Seite 316]
4.27.1.5.1 - Administration [Seite 316]
4.27.1.5.2 - Curriculum and Instruction [Seite 317]
4.27.1.5.3 - Faculty Characteristics [Seite 318]
4.27.1.6 - Reflection [Seite 318]
4.27.1.7 - References [Seite 319]
4.27.2 - Table 1. The Nonsequential Chapter Exam Method to Reduce Academic Dishonesty by Web Students [Seite 330]
4.28 - CHAPTER 19 [Seite 322]
4.28.1 - Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses [Seite 322]
4.28.1.1 - Newell Chiesl Indiana State University [Seite 322]
4.28.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 322]
4.28.1.3 - Academic Dishonesty [Seite 323]
4.28.1.3.1 - Cheating Rationale [Seite 324]
4.28.1.3.2 - Reducing Classroom Dishonesty [Seite 324]
4.28.1.3.3 - Reducing Distance Learning Dishonesty [Seite 325]
4.28.1.4 - SUGGESTED PRAGMATIC APPROACHES TO REDUCE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY [Seite 325]
4.28.1.4.1 - Disseminate Information to Distant Students [Seite 326]
4.28.1.4.2 - Change the Process Used by Students to Turn in Written Assignments [Seite 326]
4.28.1.4.3 - Change the Process by Which Exams Are Administered [Seite 327]
4.28.1.4.3.1 - 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... [Seite 327]
4.28.1.4.3.2 - 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... [Seite 327]
4.28.1.4.3.3 - 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. [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.3.4 - 4. Select "randomizing" the exam from a pool of questions. [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.3.5 - 5. Select allow the exam to be taken for an entire week. This reduces the time pressure to cheat. [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.3.6 - 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? [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.3.7 - 7. Set a low point value for each exam [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.3.8 - 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... [Seite 328]
4.28.1.4.4 - Create a Nonsequential Chapter Assortment of Questions [Seite 328]
4.28.1.5 - FEEDBACK [Seite 329]
4.28.1.6 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS [Seite 331]
4.28.1.7 - REFERENCES [Seite 332]
4.28.2 - Table 2. Importance of Taking Multiple Exam Attempts [Seite 331]
4.28.3 - Table 3. Student Learning [Seite 331]
4.28.4 - Table 4. Cheating in This Web Class Compared to Classroom Courses [Seite 331]
4.28.5 - Table 5. Cheating in this Web Class Compared to Other Web Courses [Seite 331]
4.28.6 - Table 1. Assessment Measures Used By Institutions [Seite 341]
4.29 - CHAPTER 20 [Seite 336]
4.29.1 - Assessing Online Faculty [Seite 336]
4.29.1.1 - Anthony A. Piña and Larry Bohn Sullivan University System [Seite 336]
4.29.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 336]
4.29.1.2.1 - Online Course Quality [Seite 337]
4.29.1.2.2 - Limitations of Quality Rubrics [Seite 338]
4.29.1.2.3 - Class Observation/Indicators of Online Quality [Seite 339]
4.29.1.3 - METHOD [Seite 339]
4.29.1.3.1 - Participants [Seite 339]
4.29.1.3.2 - Instrumentation [Seite 339]
4.29.1.3.3 - Data Analysis [Seite 340]
4.29.1.4 - RESULTS [Seite 341]
4.29.1.4.1 - Assessment Methods Used by Institutions [Seite 341]
4.29.1.4.2 - Importance of Indicators for Assessing Instructor Quality [Seite 342]
4.29.1.4.3 - Minimum Standards for Assessing Instructor Quality [Seite 343]
4.29.1.5 - CONCLUSION [Seite 345]
4.29.1.5.1 - Where Do We Go From Here? [Seite 346]
4.29.1.6 - REFERENCES [Seite 346]
4.29.2 - Table 2. Assessment Rubrics Used By Institutions [Seite 342]
4.29.3 - Table 3. Indicators for Assessing Online Instructor Quality [Seite 343]
4.29.4 - Table 4. Minimum Standards for Instructor Activity [Seite 344]
4.29.4.1 - Frequency of Instructor Login [Seite 344]
4.29.4.2 - Daily [Seite 344]
4.29.4.3 - 4 times per week [Seite 344]
4.29.4.4 - 3 times per week [Seite 344]
4.29.4.5 - 2 times per week [Seite 344]
4.29.4.6 - Frequency of Course Announcements [Seite 344]
4.29.4.7 - Multiple times per week [Seite 344]
4.29.4.8 - Weekly [Seite 344]
4.29.4.9 - Every 2 weeks [Seite 344]
4.29.4.10 - Less than every 2 weeks [Seite 344]
4.29.4.11 - Conciseness of Course Announcements [Seite 344]
4.29.4.12 - No word limit [Seite 344]
4.29.4.13 - 300 word limit [Seite 344]
4.29.4.14 - 200 word limit [Seite 344]
4.29.4.15 - 100 word limit [Seite 344]
4.29.4.16 - Response to Student Inquiries [Seite 344]
4.29.4.17 - 1 day [Seite 344]
4.29.4.18 - 2 days [Seite 344]
4.29.4.19 - 3 days [Seite 344]
4.29.4.20 - 4 days [Seite 344]
4.29.4.21 - Completeness of Instructor Biography [Seite 344]
4.29.4.22 - Full descriptive bio with vita [Seite 344]
4.29.4.23 - Full descriptive bio [Seite 344]
4.29.4.24 - Single paragraph brief bio [Seite 344]
4.29.4.25 - Contact info only [Seite 344]
4.29.4.26 - Minimum Instructor Discussion Posts [Seite 344]
4.29.4.27 - Post more than 4 times [Seite 344]
4.29.4.28 - Post 3-4 times [Seite 344]
4.29.4.29 - Post 2-3 times [Seite 344]
4.29.4.30 - No requirement to post [Seite 344]
4.30 - CHAPTER 21 [Seite 350]
4.30.1 - How University Faculty Members Developed Their Online Teaching Skills [Seite 350]
4.30.1.1 - Steven W. Schmidt, Elizabeth M. Hodge, and Christina M. Tschida East Carolina University [Seite 350]
4.30.1.2 - INTRODUCTION [Seite 350]
4.30.1.2.1 - 1. How did university professors begin teaching online? What were the experiences associated with that initial online teaching experience? [Seite 352]
4.30.1.2.2 - 2. What have these professors learned about teaching online as a result of their online teaching experiences? [Seite 352]
4.30.1.2.3 - 3. How have these professors evolved as online instructors? [Seite 352]
4.30.1.3 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE [Seite 352]
4.30.1.4 - METHOD [Seite 354]
4.30.1.5 - FINDINGS [Seite 355]
4.30.1.5.1 - Initial Experiences [Seite 355]
4.30.1.5.2 - Learning From Early Experiences [Seite 357]
4.30.1.5.3 - The Evolution of the Online Instructor [Seite 359]
4.30.1.6 - LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH [Seite 360]
4.30.1.7 - DISCUSSION [Seite 361]
4.30.1.8 - IMPLICATIONS [Seite 361]
4.30.1.9 - REFERENCES [Seite 362]
4.30.2 - PART V [Seite 364]
4.30.2.1 - LEGAL AND ACCREDITATION ISSUES [Seite 364]
4.31 - CHAPTER 22 [Seite 366]
4.31.1 - Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education [Seite 366]
4.31.1.1 - Soonhwa Seok D'youville College [Seite 366]
4.31.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 366]
4.31.1.3 - Standards [Seite 367]
4.31.1.4 - Accreditation [Seite 368]
4.31.1.4.1 - 1. Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.2 - 2. Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.3 - 3. Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.4 - 4. Commission on Colleges, The Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.5 - 5. Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.6 - 6. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges [Seite 370]
4.31.1.4.7 - 7. Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges. [Seite 370]
4.31.1.5 - Benchmarks and Guidelines [Seite 370]
4.31.1.6 - Conclusion [Seite 376]
4.31.1.7 - References [Seite 377]
4.31.1.8 - Appendix A [Seite 379]
4.31.1.8.1 - Quality on the Line [Seite 379]
4.31.1.9 - Appendix B [Seite 381]
4.31.1.9.1 - ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Teaching and Learning [Seite 381]
4.31.1.10 - Appendix C [Seite 382]
4.31.1.10.1 - ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Learning updated, July 24, 2002 [Seite 382]
4.31.2 - Table 1. The Authors, the Publishing Dates, the Names, and the URLs of the Guidelines [Seite 376]
4.32 - CHAPTER 23 [Seite 384]
4.32.1 - Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property? [Seite 384]
4.32.1.1 - Douglas A. Kranch North Central State College [Seite 384]
4.32.1.2 - Introduction [Seite 384]
4.32.1.3 - Ownership and Control in the Distance Learning Age [Seite 385]
4.32.1.4 - Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Rights [Seite 386]
4.32.1.4.1 - 1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment [Seite 387]
4.32.1.4.2 - 2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2003, p. 7). [Seite 387]
4.32.1.5 - The Administration View [Seite 388]
4.32.1.6 - The Faculty View [Seite 389]
4.32.1.7 - Copyright Ownership or Rights and Remuneration [Seite 390]
4.32.1.8 - A Negotiated Alternative [Seite 391]
4.32.1.9 - Conclusion [Seite 393]
4.32.1.10 - References [Seite 393]
4.32.2 - Table 1. Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics of Public and Private Research Universities [Seite 405]
4.32.3 - Table 1. (Continued) [Seite 406]
4.33 - CHAPTER 24 [Seite 396]
4.33.1 - Intellectual Property and Online Courses [Seite 396]
4.33.1.1 - Kathryn Ann Loggie Marathon (Florida) High School [Seite 396]
4.33.1.2 - Ann E. Barron, Elizabeth Gulitz, Tina N. Hohlfeld, and Jeffrey D. Kromrey University of South Florida [Seite 396]
4.33.1.3 - Phyllis Sweeney Nova Southeastern University [Seite 396]
4.33.1.4 - Overview and Introduction [Seite 397]
4.33.1.5 - Background [Seite 397]
4.33.1.6 - Copyright law [Seite 399]
4.33.1.6.1 - Work Made for Hire [Seite 399]
4.33.1.6.2 - Faculty Exception [Seite 400]
4.33.1.7 - Previous Research on Intellectual Property Policy [Seite 401]
4.33.1.8 - Digital course materials [Seite 402]
4.33.1.9 - Method [Seite 403]
4.33.1.10 - Results [Seite 404]
4.33.1.10.1 - Public Versus Private Research Universities [Seite 404]
4.33.1.10.2 - Policy Changes Across Time [Seite 404]
4.33.1.10.3 - Typical Policy at a Research University in 2005 [Seite 409]
4.33.1.11 - Discussion and Conclusions [Seite 412]
4.33.1.12 - References [Seite 414]
4.33.1.13 - Appendix A: Web Sources for Intellectual Property Policies [Seite 416]
4.33.1.14 - Appendix B: Policy Coding Framework [Seite 418]
4.33.1.14.1 - Figure 1. Significant differences between public and private universities. [Seite 406]
4.33.2 - Table 2. Changes in Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics Between 1992 and 2005 [Seite 407]
4.33.3 - Table 2. (Continued) [Seite 408]
4.34 - CHAPTER 25 [Seite 420]
4.34.1 - The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning [Seite 420]
4.34.1.1 - Kevin L. Crow Harper College [Seite 420]
4.34.1.2 - Overview: Federal Disability Legislation and Online Postsecondary Learning [Seite 421]
4.34.1.2.1 - Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [Seite 421]
4.34.1.2.2 - Section 504 and Postsecondary Online Learning [Seite 422]
4.34.1.2.3 - The Americans With Disabilities Act [Seite 422]
4.34.1.2.4 - ADA Titles [Seite 423]
4.34.1.2.5 - The ADA and Postsecondary Online Learning [Seite 423]
4.34.1.2.6 - Auxiliary Aids and Services [Seite 424]
4.34.1.2.6.1 - U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [Seite 425]
4.34.1.2.6.2 - Three Additional Acts [Seite 425]
4.34.1.2.7 - Section 508 [Seite 426]
4.34.1.2.8 - The Telecommunications Act of 1966 [Seite 427]
4.34.1.2.9 - Assistive Technology Act of 1998 [Seite 427]
4.34.1.2.9.1 - Why Be Concerned? [Seite 428]
4.34.1.2.9.2 - First Steps Toward Accessible Online Content [Seite 428]
4.34.1.2.10 - Policies [Seite 428]
4.34.1.2.11 - Universal Design [Seite 429]
4.34.1.3 - Summary [Seite 430]
4.34.1.4 - Further Reading and Additional Resources [Seite 431]
4.34.1.5 - References [Seite 431]
4.34.1.6 - APPENDIX A [Seite 432]
4.34.1.7 - APPENDIX B: Additional Resources [Seite 434]
4.34.2 - ABOUT THE EDITORS [Seite 436]
4.34.3 - Original Publications [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1 - Part I: Leading Innovation and Change [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1.1 - 1. Piña, A. A. (2008). Factors influencing the institutionalization of distance learning in higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1.2 - 2. Neben, J. (2014). Attributes and barriers impacting diffusion of online education at the institutional level: Considering faculty perceptions. Distance Learning, 11(1). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1.3 - 3. Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1.4 - 4. Gutman, D. (2012). Six barriers causing educators to resist teaching online, and how institutions can break them. Distance Learning, 9(3). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.1.5 - 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). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.2 - Part II: Leading Course and Program Design [Seite 438]
4.34.3.2.1 - 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). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.2.2 - 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). [Seite 438]
4.34.3.2.3 - 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). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.2.4 - 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). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.2.5 - 10. Engstrom, M. E., Santo, S. A., & Yost, R. M. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.2.6 - 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). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.3 - Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students [Seite 439]
4.34.3.3.1 - 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). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.3.2 - 13. Walker C. E., & Kelly, E. (2007). Online instruction: Student satisfaction, kudos, and pet peeves. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.3.3 - 14. Cobb, A. (2011). Assistive technology: Enhancing the life skills of students with learning disabilities. Distance Learning, 8(4). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.3.4 - 15. Dotson, K. & Bian, H. (2013). Supervision on site: A critical factor in the online facilitated internship. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(2). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.4 - Part Iv: Leading The Development And Support Of Online Faculty And Staff [Seite 439]
4.34.3.4.1 - 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). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.4.2 - 17. Waweru, J. (2013). Maximizing HR professionals' leadership role in e-learning for organizational effectiveness. Distance Learning, 10(4). [Seite 439]
4.34.3.4.3 - 18. Stewart, B. L., Goodson, C., & Miertschin, S. L. (2010). Off-site faculty: Perspectives on online experiences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.4.4 - 19. Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web- based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.4.5 - 20. Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2014). Assessing online faculty: More than student surveys and design rubrics. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.4.6 - 21. Schmidt, S., Hodge, E., & Tschida, C. (2013). How university faculty members develop their online teaching skills. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.5 - Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues [Seite 440]
4.34.3.5.1 - 22. Seok, S. (2007). Standards, accreditation, benchmarks, and guidelines in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.5.2 - 23. Kranch, D. A. (2008). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.5.3 - 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). [Seite 440]
4.34.3.5.4 - 25. Crow, K. L. (2008). The legal environment of accessible postsecondary online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9(2). [Seite 440]
5 - Back Cover [Seite 442]