SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

BALANCING RESOURCES AND VALUE IN DISTANCE EDUCATION COURSE REVIEWS: A CASE STUDY AT A MID-SIZED PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

William SWANN
M. Kathleen CRIPE
Journal
IOJET
Pages
753–766
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on qualitative and quantitative feedback, strengths and weaknesses of the process are discussed along with recommendations for institutions developing or refining a DE course review process.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the development and implementation of a distance education course review process at a mid-sized public university.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Four primary goals were set for the process: to provide substantive feedback, to cultivate engagement between DE faculty and staff, to provide support to course developers and reviewers, and to establish an effective balance between faculty resources and the value of feedback generated through the process.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on qualitative and quantitative feedback, strengths and weaknesses of the process are discussed along with recommendations for institutions developing or refining a DE course review process.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examines the development and implementation of a distance education course review process at a mid-sized public university. Four primary goals were set for the process: to provide substantive feedback, to cultivate engagement between DE faculty and staff, to provide support to course developers and reviewers, and to establish an effective balance between faculty resources and the value of feedback generated through the process. Feedback was collected through a survey of participating developers and reviewers (n=52). Responses broadly supported achievement of the four primary goals. Those who participated in multiple roles gave stronger ratings on all survey questions than those who participated through a single role. Based on qualitative and quantitative feedback, strengths and weaknesses of the process are discussed along with recommendations for institutions developing or refining a DE course review process.

🔖

Cite This Article

SWANN, W., CRIPE, M. K. (2022). BALANCING RESOURCES AND VALUE IN DISTANCE EDUCATION COURSE REVIEWS: A CASE STUDY AT A MID-SIZED PUBLIC UNIVERSITY. IOJET, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 753–766. https://ajindex.com/articles/542368

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986).
  2. Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In David A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262).
  4. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 3, 181-190.
  5. Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals (Vol. 1). N.p.: David McKay. Blumberg, P. (2009). Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge. Innovative Higher Education. 34(2), 93-103. DOI: 10.1007/s10755-009-9095-2
  6. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. New York, NY: Wiley. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  7. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The Systematic Design of Instruction. N.p.: Pearson Higher Ed. Dresner, M., De Rivera, C., Fuccillo, K. K., & Heejun, C. (2014). Improving higher-order thinking and knowledge retention in environmental science teaching. Bioscience. 64(1), 40-48. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bit005 Guidelines for the evaluation of distance education (on-line learning). (2009). Retrieved from Higher Learning Commission http://download.hlcommission.org/CRAC_Distance_Ed_Guidelines_7_31_2009pdf
  8. Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology. 33(1), 27-37.
  9. Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology. 23(1), 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
  10. Kuo, Y., Walker, A., Belland, B., & Schroder, K. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 14(1), 16-39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
  11. Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global standards for enhancing quality in online learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 18(2), 1-10.
  12. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist. 63(8), 760-769.
  13. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interacti