Quarterly Review of Distance Education

Name: Quarterly Review of Distance Education | Volume 23 #3
Brand: IAP - Information Age Publishing
Price: 80.6 EUR
Availability: OnlineOnly

Volume 23 #3

Michael Simonson Anymir Orellana(Editor)

IAP - Information Age Publishing

1st Edition

Published on 1. December 2022

157 pages

E-Book

PDF with Adobe-DRM

System requirements

979-8-88730-258-4 (ISBN)

€80.60incl. 7% vat

System requirements

for PDF with Adobe-DRM

E-Book Single Licence

Available for download

Description

More details

Other editions

Content

Front Cover
Statement of Purpose
Quarterly Review of Distance Education
"Research That Guides Practice"
Volume 23, Number 3, 2022
ARTICLES
BOOK REVIEW
COLUMN
Quarterly Review of Distance Education Editors and Editorial Board
Anymir Orellana Editor
Vanaja Nethi Assistant Editor
Department Editors
Chris Luchs and Kae Novak
Farah Bennani and Kae Novak
International and Cultural Perspective
Farah Bennani and Kae Novak
Editorial Board
Teaching Presence in Online Higher Education Mathematics Courses
Deltrye Eagle Holt
Augusta University
This article is drawn from a dissertation (Holt, 2020) that describes, based on the teaching presence component of the community of inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework, the lived experiences of mathematics instructors while establishing teaching pres...
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Phenomenon of Interest
Background and Justification
Deficiencies in the Evidence
Definitions of Terms
Literature Review
The Community of Inquiry Framework
Teaching and Learning Mathematics Online
Description of Mathematics
Contemporary Teaching Practices
Assessment and Feedback
Student Perception, Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning
Course Syllabus
Description and Function
An Online Course Syllabus
A Learning-Centered Syllabus
Methodology
Participants
Setting
Types of Data
1. How do you deliver course content in online courses?
2. How do you ask and answer questions in online courses?
3. How do you establish a dialogue between students in online courses?
4. How do you assess student learning in online courses?
5. How do you encourage students to meet deadlines in online courses? (Holt, 2020)
Data Collection Tools
Procedures
Data Analysis
Trustworthiness
Limitations
Potential Research Bias
Findings
Results From the Checklist of Common Items on Online Course Syllabi
Results From the Rubric for Analyzing Interview and Syllabi Data
Conclusion
Interpretation of Findings
Table 1
Measures of Teaching Presence Met by at least 90% of Participants Based on the Rubric for Analyzing Interview Data for Online Courses and Syllabi Data for Online Courses
Implications of Findings
Limitations of Findings
Recommendations for Future Research
References
Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Learning During a Pandemic
Anthony Piña
Illinois State University
Online education led to the survival of many colleges and universities devastated by Hurricane Katrina. However, despite the subsequent recommendations of scholars to institutionalize distance education, many institutions found themselves ill-prepare...
Introduction
Online as a Contingency for Campus Closures
Higher Education Institutions Not Well-Prepared for a Pandemic
Emergency Remote Teaching
One University's Response
Lesson Learned From Past Crises
A. Create the delivery framework
B. Triage priorities and ledgering
C. Staffing and support
D. Cooperate, collaborate, communicate!
Asynchronous Online Instructor Engagement
1. Post a brief biography to let students know the instructor better. While text- based announcements are still dominant, faculty are increasingly taking advantage of introductory videos that bring students into their offices, homes, or hobbies. This...
2. Posting course announcements at least weekly. Gaudet (2016) suggested that instructors can use course announcements to maximize their presence by allowing themselves to be creative and personal- while still being professional-by using anecdote...
3. Logging into and monitoring the online course daily allows instructors to monitor student progress, check for student questions and messages, and quickly identify technical issues with the course. It is also a tangible indicator of instructor pres...
4. Piña and Bohn (2016) found that responding to student inquiries was considered the most important indicator of online instructor quality and engagement (tied with instructor feedback below). Having an instructor respond within 1 day of the inquir...
5. Providing helpful feedback to student assignments was also a critical indicator of quality and engagement. Feedback is most helpful when it is timely and includes constructive guidance and explicit expectations (Getzlaf et al., 2009). Kelly (2014)...
6. Moderating and participating in discussion boards. Many instructors mistakenly believe that online discussion boards are to be used exclusively for student-to-student interaction. Instructors' active participation in online class discussions is ...
7. Grading assignments in a timely manner. Grading and feedback are the most time- consuming tasks for the online instructor
however, students often require feedback from prior assignments to improve and prepare for future assignments properly. The ...
Synchronous Online Instructor Engagement
1. Prerecord lectures, demonstrations, and presentations. Instructors can best utilize their live synchronous videoconference time for activities that require students' active participation, such as question-and- answer sessions, one-on-one feedbac...
2. Create a detailed agenda and share it with students. An agenda helps to keep instructors and students on task, reduces wasted or irrelevant time, and helps to ensure that all intended topics are addressed.
3. Make transitions explicit. In the absence of physical transitions of moving into groups or coming back together, instructors can provide transitional pauses between different learning activities or discussion topics, allowing students to process t...
4. Just as with on-campus classes, synchronous instructional sessions should include taking regular breaks (e.g., 5 minutes for every 30 minutes of instruction) to allow students to get up, stretch, or use the restroom. Breaks will help reduce studen...
5. Provide active learning opportunities. In addition to instruct-to-student interaction, synchronous class sessions should be when students engage in peer-to-peer interaction. These activities may include peer-taught class segments, minicase studies...
6. Be more flexible on attendance requirements. If students have connectivity issues or other circumstances that cause them to miss a synchronous session, plan for a research assignment or another alternative to the live assignment. Sessions can also...
Resources for Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Teaching
A. Communicating with students
B. Delivering Content online
C. Ensuring accessibility
D. Meaningful discussions
E. Online tests and assessments
Conclusion
References
Application and Feasibility of Various Teaching Tools Used in Online Classes During COVID-19 in Tertiary Education
Sumie Chan
The University of Hong Kong
The study compares the effectiveness, popularity, and ease of applicability of different learning tools in virtual classrooms among university teachers and students concerning the users' technological literacy and training, as well as equipment sup...
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Table 1
Academic Background of Student Respondents in Questionnaires
Year 1
27.5
Year 2
37.7
Year 3
26.1
Years 1 to 2
8.7
Table 2
Proportion of Student and Teacher Respondents
90.7%
9.3%
Results and Findings
Learners' Perception and Attitude Toward Gamification Among Universities and Colleges in Hong Kong
Students' Recount of University Teachers' Experience in Using Game- Based Platforms and Other Innovative Digital Tools in Online Classrooms and Face-to-Face Classrooms for English Language Subjects
Kahoot Is Favored as the Most Popular Game-Based Platform in Digital Learning Among University Students and Teachers in Hong Kong
University Students' Comparison of the Effectiveness Of Gamification in Online Classrooms During the Pandemic Versus Face-to-Face Classrooms Before the Pandemic
Implications
The Necessity and Need for Gamification in Online University Classrooms During the Pandemic and the Possibility of Transformation From Traditional Teaching Practice to Game-Based Learning
Students' Preference of Various Gaming Tools and Perception of Why English Language Teachers Do Not Adopt the Gamification Approach
University Students' Perception and Attitude Towards Gamification in General In English Language Teaching Classrooms in Hong Kong
University Teachers' Perception and Attitude Toward Gamification in Virtual English Language Teaching Classrooms in Hong Kong During the Pandemic
University Teachers' Comparison of the Effectiveness of Gamification in Online Classrooms During the Pandemic Versus Face-to-face Classrooms Before the Pandemic
Limitations of Gamification in Remote and Face-To-Face Classrooms
The Gap Between University Teachers' Acknowledgment of The Vitality of Gamification in Classrooms and the Frequency of Its Usage in Practicality
Effectiveness and Practicality of Incorporating Games in Online Classrooms Versus Face-To-Face Classrooms
Conclusion and Limitations
References
Multilingual Communities Engaging in Distance Learning
What Lessons Can Be Learned?
Keri-Anne Croce and Judith Cruzado-Guerrero
Towson University, Elementary Education Department
While distance education technology combines individual locations virtually, distance education communities are shaped by how participants share resources. Distance education communities are established over time through overlapping spheres of influe...
Introduction
Study Context
Table 1
Demographic Information Related to the Distance Learning After-School Program
Table 2
Data Collection
Table 3
Preservice Teacher Interview Questions
Table 4
Family Interview Questions
Table 5
Data Analysis Pathway
Data Analysis
Theoretical Frameworks
Ecosystems and Boundary Spanners
Language Negotiation and Translanguaging
Findings
Distance Learning and Ecosystems
Family Members as Boundary Spanners
Multilingual Elementary Students as Boundary Spanners
University Supervisors as Boundary Spanners
Preservice Teachers as Boundary Spanners
Conclusions and Suggestions
Limitations and Suggestions for Potential Studies
NOTE
References
COVID-19
A Longitudinal Perspective on Sustained Remote Teaching From the Republic of Korea
William H. Stewart Patrick R. Lowenthal and Youngkyun Baek
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Boise State University
In the Republic of Korea, the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with the start of the 2020 academic year and saw emergency remote teaching (ERT) emerge as a way of maintaining educational continuity for millions of students. While ERT was new and unplanned...
Keywords: emergency remote teaching, exchange students, online learning, distance education, international education, remote learning
Introduction
RELATED LITERATURE
International Students and Remote Teaching
Ambiguous Performance
Sustained Remote Teaching Issues
Performance Improvement Theory
Context of Study
Key Research Objectives
1. Have exchange students' perceptions of teaching and learning processes, student support, and course structure change when participating in SRT?
2. Do SRT teaching and learning processes, student support, and course structure improve over time?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Table 1
Respondent Demographics and Exchange Characteristics
62.83%
37.17%
65.6%
34.4%
69.5%
30.5%
69.2%
30.8%
13.6%
86.4%
16.1%
83.9%
18.3%
81.7%
13.3%
86.7%
72.2%
16.4%
11.4%
81.1%
13.5%
5.4%
78.6%
17.6%
3.8%
79.7%
11.9%
8.4%
47.1%
11.4%
32.1%
9.4%
41.4%
7.2%
40.5%
10.8%
54.4%
13.0%
22.1%
11.5%
53.8%
7.7%
28.7%
9.8%
90%
10%
95.5%
4.5%
87%
13%
83.9%
16.1%
17%
83%
82%
18%
68%
32%
79.7%
20.3%
Table 2
Emergency/Sustained Remote Course Characteristics
26.42%
60.71%
12.84%
35.48%
49.46%
15.05%
27.5%
56.5%
16.0%
33.3%
49.0%
17.6%
39.5%
44.3%
15.7%
0.5%
36.6%
41.9%
17.2%
4.3%
33.6%
43.5%
19.9%
3.1%
35.0%
29.4%
35.0%
0.6%
8.6%
28.6%
62.9%
9.7%
31.2%
59.1%
4.6%
46.6%
48.9%
2.0%
51.6%
46.4%
10.7%
12.9%
19.7%
9.2%
27.9%
19.7%
7.2%
16.6%
18.9%
7.2%
29.1%
21.1%
7.3%
14.9%
18.3%
7.0%
28.5%
24.0%
7.1%
17.0%
18.4%
9.0%
28.5%
20.0%
66%
14.5%
13%
4.4%
2.1%
62.5%
26.9%
7.6%
3%
0%
55.2%
29.8%
7.8%
5.5%
1.7%
61.5%
25.2%
6.3%
5.6%
1.4%
Results
Course Characteristics
iHEP Dimensions
Teaching and Learning Processes
Student Support
Course Structure
Inferential Analyses
Semester 1 ERT Versus Semester 2 SRT
Table 3
Independent-Samples Analysis of Differences Between Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 (Semester 1 to 2)
.847
.884
3.27
3.47
.646
.662
102.69
121.30
4.51900
1
.034
2.81
3.16
1.156
1.146
102.84
121.07
4.58646
1
.032
2.63
3.15
1.062
1.00
98.38
127.97
12.2323
1
& .001
.754
.690
3.49
3.73
.754
.534
102.48
121.62
4.82568
1
.028
3.34
3.69
1.10
.815
102.98
120.85
4.61844
1
.032
3.30
3.58
.977
.789
103.38
120.24
4.21368
1
.040
Semester 2 SRT Versus Semester 3 SRT
Table 4
Independent-Samples Analysis of Differences Between Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 (Semester 2 to 3)
3.67
3.85
.822
.975
95.23
110.91
3.9202
1
.048
Table 5
Independent-Samples Analysis of Differences Between Spring 2021 and Fall 2021 (Semester 3 to 4)
3.46
3.79
.781
.882
118.84
139.21
5.3302
1
.021
3.46
3.85
1.06
.806
120.26
137.91
4.1192
1
.042
Semester 3 SRT Versus Semester 4 SRT
Semester 1 ERT Versus Semester 4 SRT
Table 6
Independent-Samples Analysis of Differences Between Spring 2020 and Spring 2021 (Semester 1 to 4)
.839
.876
3.29
3.54
.624
.617
126.19
157.48
10.3744
1
.001
3.64
3.10
.983
.803
152.25
131.53
4.8242
1
.028
3.56
3.85
.815
.813
133.04
150.78
3.8833
1
.049
3.47
3.87
.917
.816
128.95
154.78
8.3774
1
.004
2.82
3.32
1.05
.939
128.46
155.25
8.2851
1
.004
2.66
3.14
1.05
1.00
123.28
160.33
15.6144
1
&.001
3.09
3.32
.925
.893
131.66
152.13
5.0021
1
.025
.746
.805
3.50
3.77
.656
.633
124.68
158.96
12.5990
1
&.001
3.86
4.06
.721
.789
130.11
153.64
7.19684
1
.007
3.46
3.64
.932
.891
132.02
151.77
4.62519
1
.032
3.35
3.72
.936
.851
125.40
158.26
13.0170
1
&.001
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Appendix A
Table A1
iHEP Dimensions Scores by Semester
.839
.877
.908
.876
3.294
3.46
3.40
3.54
.624
.644
.775
.617
.728
.814
.764
.810
3.270
3.24
3.30
3.34
.841
.706
.702
.664
.746
.678
.711
.805
3.508
3.72
3.69
3.77
.656
.525
.606
.633
Appendix B
Table B1
Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Processes
3
(2.1%)
19
(13.6%)
27
(19.3%)
68
(48.6%)
23
(16.4%)
3.64
.983
5
(5.4%)
5
(5.45)
27
(29.0%)
37
(39.8%)
19
(20.4%)
3.65
1.04
6
(4.6%)
5
(3.8%)
44
(33.6%)
63
(48.1%)
13
(9.9%)
3.55
.896
2
(1.4%)
6
(4.2%)
47
(32.9%)
70
(49.0%)
18
(12.6%)
3.67
.803
4
(2.9%)
13
(9.3%)
34
(24.3%)
68
(48.6%)
21 (15.0%)
3.64
.946
3
(3.25)
6
(6.5%)
21
(22.6%)
50
(53.8%)
13
(14.0%)
3.69
.909
14
(10.7%)
35
(26.7%)
29
(22.1%)
42
(32.1%)
11
(8.4%)
3.01
1.167
12
(8.4%)
31
(21.7%)
43
(30.1%)
44
(30.8%)
13
(9.1%)
3.10
1.105
4
(2.9%)
11
(7.9%)
39
(27.9%)
72
(51.4%)
14
(10.0%)
3.58
.882
1
(1.1%)
4
(4.3%)
30
(32.3%)
45
(48.4%)
13
(14.0%)
3.81
.770
8
(6.1%)
16
(12.2%)
35
(26.7%)
51
(38.9%)
21
(16.0%)
3.47
1.091
2
(1.4%)
7
(4.9%)
37
(25.9%)
67
(46.9%)
30
(21.0%)
3.81
.872
2
(1.4%)
11
(7.9%)
45
(32.1%)
70
(50%)
12
(8.6%)
3.56
.815
1
(1.1%)
3
(3.2%)
23
(24.7%)
52
(55.9%)
14
(15.1%)
3.61
.860
6
(4.6%)
14
(10.7%)
31
(23.7%)
57
(43.5%)
23
(17.6%)
3.59
1.044
1
(.07%)
7
(4.9%)
32
(22.4%)
75
(52.4%)
28
(19.6%)
3.85
.813
5
(3.6%)
13
(9.3%)
46
(32.9%)
63
(45%)
13
(9.3%)
3.47
.917
1
(1.1%)
4
(4.3%)
37
(39.8%)
44
(47.3%)
7
(7.5%)
3.56
.744
5
(3.85)
4
(3.1%)
21
(16.0%)
78
(59.5%)
23
(17.6%)
3.84
.884
2
(1.4%)
4
(2.8%)
34
(23.8%)
74
(51.7%)
29
(20.3%)
3.87
.816
Table B1
6
(4.3%)
11
(7.9%)
48
(34.3%)
62
(44.3%)
13
(9.3%)
3.46
.924
1
(1.1%)
8
(8.6%)
29
(31.2%)
43
(46.2%)
12
(12.9%)
3.61
.860
4
(3.1%)
13
(9.9%)
31
(23.7%)
64
(48.9%)
19
(14.5%)
3.62
.956
2
(1.4%)
10
(7.0%)
42
(29.4%)
73
(51.0%)
16
(11.2%)
3.64
.827
7
(5.0%)
32
(22.9%)
41
(29.3%)
53
(37.9%)
7
(5.0%)
3.15
.996
5
(5.4%)
12
(12.9%)
33
(35.5%)
36
(38.7%)
7
(7.5%)
3.30
.976
6
(4.6%)
8
(6.1%)
41
(31.3%)
57
(43.5%)
19
(14.5%)
3.57
.969
1
(0.7%)
13
(9.1%)
48
(33.6%)
62
(43.4%)
19
(13.3%)
3.59
.858
11
(7.9%)
41
(29.3%)
34
(24.3%)
50
(35.7%)
4
(2.9%)
2.96
1.04
6
(6.5%)
20
(21.5%)
38
(40.9%)
22
(23.7%)
7
(7.5%)
3.04
1.01
9
(6.9%)
29
(22.1%)
35
(26.7%)
44
(33.6%)
14
(10.7%)
3.19
1.110
2
(1.4%)
24
(16.8%)
48
(33.6%)
58
(40.6%)
11
(7.7%)
3.36
.900
21
(15.0%)
37
(26.4%)
37
(26.4%)
36
(25.7%)
9
(6.4%)
2.82
1.05
7
(7.5%)
21
(22.6%)
26
(28.0%)
28
(30.1%)
11
(11.8%)
3.61
1.14
13
(9.9%)
25
(19.1%)
34
(26.0%)
47
(35.9%)
12
(9.2%)
3.15
1.140
1
(0.7%)
31
(21.7%)
45
(31.5%)
53
(37.1%)
13
(9.1%)
3.32
.939
20
(14.3%)
46
(32.9%)
39
(27.9%)
32
(22.9%)
3
(2.1%)
2.66
1.05
5
(5.4%)
18
(19.4%)
35
(37.6%)
29
(31.2%)
6
(6.5%)
3.14
.985
18
(13.7%)
27
(20.6%)
35
(26.7%)
42
(32.1%)
9
(6.9%)
2.98
1.167
6
(4.2%)
35
(24.5%)
45
(31.5%)
47
(32.9%)
10
(7.0%)
3.14
1.004
Table C1
Student Perceptions of Student Support
2
(1.4%)
12
(8.6%)
29
(20.7%)
79
(56.4%)
18
(12.9%)
3.71
.852
1
(1.1%)
4
(4.3%)
30
(32.3%)
45
(48.4%)
13
(14.0%)
3.70
.805
5
(3.8%)
12
(9.2%)
54
(41.2%)
46
(35.1%)
14
(10.7%)
3.40
.934
2
(1.4%)
14
(9.8%)
66
(46.2%)
50
(35.0%)
11
(7.7%)
3.38
.821
4
(2.9%)
18
(12.9%)
42
(30.0%)
69
(49.3%)
7
(5.0%)
3.41
.881
2
(2.2%)
14
(15.1%)
33
(35.5%)
37
(39.8%)
7
(7.5%)
3.35
.905
13
(9.9%)
31
(23.7%)
44
(33.6%)
34
(26.0%)
9
(6.9%)
2.96
1.084
8
(5.6%)
35
(24.5%)
53
(37.1%)
41
(28.7%)
6
(4.2%)
3.01
.964
5
(3.6%)
29
(20.7%)
48
(34.3%)
53
(37.9%)
5
(3.6%)
3.17
.921
7
(7.5%)
14
(15.1%)
38
(40.9%)
28
(30.1%)
6
(6.5%)
3.13
1.00
4
(3.1%)
8
(6.2%)
27
(20.6%)
62
(47.3%)
30
(22.9%)
3.81
.962
2
(1.4%)
10
(7.0%)
30
(21.0%)
76
(53.1%)
25
(17.5%)
3.78
.865
6
(4.3%)
29
(20.7%)
59
(42.1%)
39
(27.9%)
7
(5.0%)
3.09
.925
7
(7.5%)
10
(10.8%)
44
(47.3%)
29
(31.2%)
3
(3.2%)
3.12
.919
5
(3.8%)
16
(12.2%)
58
(44.3%)
40
(30.5%)
12
(9.2%)
3.29
.932
5
(3.5%)
14
(9.8%)
66
(46.2%)
46
(32.2%)
12
(8.4%)
3.32
.893
14
(10.0%)
33
(23.6%)
40
(28.6%)
48
(34.3%)
5
(3.6%)
2.98
1.06
9
(9.7%)
24
(25.8%)
28
(30.1%)
31
(33.3%)
1
(1.1%)
2.90
1.01
10
(7.6%)
22
(16.8%)
55
(42.0%)
38
(29.0%)
6
(4.6%)
3.06
.975
4
(2.8%)
22
(15.4%)
62
(43.4%)
49
(34.3%)
6
(4.2%)
3.22
.857
Appendix D
Table D1
Student Perceptions of Course Structure
1
(0.7%)
3
(2.1%)
32
(22.9%)
82
(58.6%)
22
(15.7%)
3.86
.721
0
(0%)
2
(2.2%)
16
(17.2%)
56
(60.2%)
19
(20.4%)
3.99
.684
2
(1.5%)
5
(3.8%)
13
(9.9%)
73
(55.7%)
38
(29.0%)
4.07
.825
2
(1.4%)
2
(1.4%)
22
(15.4%)
76
(53.1%)
41
(28.7%)
4.06
.789
5
(3.6%)
13
(9.3%)
37
(26.4%)
71
(50.7%)
14
(10.0%)
3.54
.924
0
(0%)
10
(10.8%)
23
(24.7%)
48
(51.6%)
12
(12.9%)
3.67
.838
3
(2.3%)
10
(7.6%)
38
(29.0%)
66
(50.4%)
14
(10.7%)
3.60
.866
3
(2.1%)
6
(4.2%)
43
(30.1%)
70
(49.0%)
21
(14.7%)
3.70
.848
2
(1.4%)
25
(17.9%)
31
(22.1%)
70
(50%)
12
(8.6%)
3.46
.932
1
(1.1%)
7
(7.5%)
27
(29.0%)
44
(47.3%)
14
(15.1%)
3.68
.862
7
(5.3%)
15
(11.5%)
39
(29.8%)
54
(41.2%)
16
(12.2%)
3.44
1.024
3
(2.1%)
11
(7.7%)
40
(28.0%)
69
(48.3%)
20
(14.0%)
3.64
.891
5
(3.6%)
20
(14.3%)
46
(32.9%)
59
(42.1%)
10
(7.1%)
3.35
.936
0
(0%)
10
(10.8%)
27
(29.0%)
50
(53.8%)
6
(6.5%)
3.56
.773
2
(1.5%)
10
(7.6%)
34
(26.0%)
69
(52.7%)
16
(12.2%)
3.66
.847
3
(2.1%)
6
(4.2%)
41
(28.7%)
71
(49.7%)
22
(15.4%)
3.72
.851
9
(6.4%)
25
(17.9%)
35
(25.0%)
54
(38.6%)
17
(12.1%)
3.32
1.10
0
(0%)
7
(7.5%)
27
(29.0%)
46
(49.5%)
13
(14.0%)
3.70
.805
3
(2.3%)
8
(6.1%)
32
(24.4%)
69
(52.7%)
19
(14.5%)
3.71
.873
1
(0.7%)
11
(7.7%)
34
(23.8%)
74
(51.7%)
23
(16.1%)
3.75
.843
Graduate Student's Perceptions of Academic Coaches in Accelerated Online Courses
Rosalinda Hernandez and Alejandro Garcia,
The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
This study aimed to investigate the graduate student's perceptions of the effectiveness of academic coaches in asynchronous accelerated online instruction in a master's educational leadership program. A mixed-method research design was used to ex...
Introduction
Literature Review
Online Learning
Accelerated Online Programs
History of Academic Coaching
Methodology
Research Design
Population Sample
Data Collection and Analysis
Online Questionnaire and Interview
Data Collection Procedures
Data Analysis
Results
Credentials
Experience
Training
Positive Experiences
Communicating With Students
Student Advocate
Additional Support
Negative Experiences
Availability
Communication
Lack of Collaboration Between the Professor and the Academic Coach
Feedback and Clarification
Table 1
Overall Satisfaction With the Accelerated Online Course (n = 61)
55.74
34
34.43
21
6.56
4
3.28
2
0.00
0
Table 2
Level of Satisfaction With the Professor (n = 61)
52.46
32
39.34
24
3.28
2
4.92
3
0.00
0
Table 3
Level of Satisfaction With the Academic Coach (n = 61)
38.33
23
15.00
9
36.67
22
6.67
4
3.33
2
Discussion/Conclusions
Collaboration
Feedback
Limitations
Recommendations
References
What We Wish We Knew Before Going Online
Lessons Learned From Implementing an Online MBA
Nicole B. Koppel, Ross Malaga, and Jonida Dervishi
Montclair State University
Montclair State University (MSU) is New Jersey's second-largest public institution. As online education continues its rapid-paced growth, MBA programs have been some of the most common online degrees. In 2016, Montclair's Feliciano School of Busi...
Introduction
Theoretical Background
Method
Institutional Setting
Lesson One-Take Your Time
Lesson Two- Focus on Course Design
Lesson Three- Define Your Model Early
LESSON FOUR-INVOLVE YOUR TECHNICAL TEAM FROM THE BEGINNING
Lesson Five-Coordination Between the SME and Instructional Design Team is Crucial
Lesson Six-Evaluate Institutional Readiness and Implement New Policies and Procedures
LESSON SEVEN- PLAN FOR SUCCESS
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Deepening Discussion in Online Learning Through High-Impact Practices
Amy Winger
University of Phoenix
A central component of online learning, asynchronous discussions have the potential to impact distance learners in myriad ways positively. For a discussion to be most impactful, best practices associated with online discussion should be implemented, ...
Background
Deepening Discussion Through Bloom's Taxonomy
Deepening Discussion Through Case-Based Discussions
Deepening Discussion Through Text-Based Answers
Deepening Discussion Through Unique Perspectives
Deepening Discussion Through Small Groups
Challenges
Conclusion
References
Flexibility and Pedagogy in Higher Education: Delivering Flexibility in Learning Through Online Learning Communities, by Chris Dennis, Stuart Abbott, Ruth Matheson and Sue Tangney (Eds., 2020), 216 pp., Brill
Shelly Wyatt
University of Central Florida
Flexibility and Pedagogy in Higher Education: Delivering Flexibility in Learning Through Online Learning Communities (2020) is a collection of essays exploring the application of pedagogical flexibility as it shapes online learning communities. Contr...
Creating Effective Student Online Feedback- It Must Engage and Motivate, Not Merely Sit
Errol Craig Sull
Purdue Global University
Be Proactive: Explain Feedback Before Giving It
Always Connect Assignment Comments to the "Real World"
Be Sure to Address Students by Their Names
Employing a Bank of Comments Is Fine . But Do Personalize Them
Use Feedback That Is a Triptych
Always Include at Least One or Two Positive Comments About the Feedback-And Start With a Nice Motivator
Have at Least One Personal Connection Comment
Use Badges When Giving Feedback
Have Students Give Feedback
Create a Feedback Edit Sheet
References
Conference Calendar
ICBL 2023: International Conference on Blended Learning, March 6-7, 2023, Rome, Italy (Digital)
EAET 2023: 2023 4th European Advanced Educational Technology Conference, March 17-19, 2023, in Oxford, UK
CoSN2023 Conference, March 20-23, 2023, in Austin, Texas
OLC Innovate 2023, April 4-6, 2023 (Virtual), April 18-21, 2023, in Nashville, Tennessee
eLmL 2023 The Fifteenth International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line Learning, April 24-28, 2023, Venice, Italy
Conference EdTech World Forum 2023, May 17-18, 2023, in London, UK
ICETTL 2023: International Conference on Educational Technologies in Teaching and Learning, May 22-23, 2023, in Tokyo, Japan
EMOOCs 2023: The European MOOCs Stakeholder Summit, June 14-16, 2023, in Potsdam, Germany
The Learning Ideas Conference 2023, 16th Annual Conference, June 14-16, 2023, in New York and online
ISTE 2023: International Society for Technology in Education Conference & Expo, June 25-28, 2023, in Philadelphia PA
Author Biographical Data
Back Cover

System requirements

Save as PDF Copy link into clipboard

Schweitzer Fachinformationen

Quarterly Review of Distance Education

Description

More details

Other editions

Additional editions

Content

System requirements