Assessing Quality Dimensions and Elements of Online Learning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Six questions focused this study: 1. What do university students report about the quality of online courses? 2. What do university students report about the frequency with which certain quality elements are used in online courses? 3. Is there a difference in university students’ rating of overall online course quality by academic unit, academic load, and academic status? 4. Is there a difference in university students’ rating of overall quality in each dimension (instructor-learner, learner-learner, learner-content, learner instructional strategies, learner-interface, and social presence) by academic division, academic load, and academic status? 5. Which quality dimensions contribute to university students’ perceptions of overall online course quality? 6. Which quality elements contribute to university students’ overall perceptions of quality for instructor-learner interactions, learner-learner interactions, learner- content interactions, learner-interface interactions, learner-instructional strategies interactions, and social presence? Data were analyzed descriptively and statistically. Students’ reports about the quality of online courses and the frequency with which quality elements were used were analyzed descriptively. Several hypotheses were formulated and analyzed using ANOVAs and t-tests to determine if differences in students’ overall ratings of course quality and dimension quality existed. Multivariable regression analyses were used to
determine which dimensions contributed to overall online course quality ratings and which quality elements contributed to overall dimension quality ratings. Data analyses showed that overall online course quality at the University was highly rated by students. Differences existed between the academic divisions for overall course quality rating, for learner-learner interactions, and for social presence. Several commonalities and distinctions were identified between academic divisions regarding overall course quality, dimension quality, and the frequency with which elements of quality were used in online courses. A difference also existed between undergraduates and graduates for overall quality of social presence ratings. Learner-content, learner- instructional strategies, and learner-interface interactions were identified as contributors to students’ perceptions of overall online course quality. Several design elements were identified as contributors to overall quality for instructor-learner interactions, learner- content interactions, learner-instructional strategies interactions, learner-interface interactions, and social presence. There were no learner-learner elements identified as contributors to overall quality of learner-learner interactions. Findings from this study provided the basis for several recommendations regarding the design of online learning environments and further research. In addition, a portrait of online learning at the University was crafted from the findings on students’ perceptions of overall course quality, overall quality pertaining to each dimension of interaction, and the frequency elements were used in the design of online courses.
Page 1 and 2: Assessing Quality Dimensions and El
Page 3 and 4: DEDICATION To my husband, Mark B. H
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tabl
Page 7 and 8: Frequency of Quality Elements Used
Page 9 and 10: 4.19. Regression Analysis for QE Co
Page 11: ABSTRACT ASSESSING QUALITY DIMENSIO
Page 15 and 16: of the institution, and even to pro
Page 17 and 18: Online Learning in Higher Education
Page 19 and 20: 6. Internet and/or Web-based techno
Page 21 and 22: learning is realized through carefu
Page 23 and 24: Quality Defining quality of learnin
Page 25 and 26: of online discussion, quality and t
Page 27 and 28: increasing concern. Students are no
Page 29 and 30: Therefore, this study is framed by
Page 31 and 32: Significance of the Study The study
Page 33 and 34: (1993) stated, “The practitioner
Page 35 and 36: was available in an electronic form
Page 37 and 38: when learners and instructor are se
Page 39 and 40: 2. Review of Literature Introductio
Page 41 and 42: Trends Online Learning in Higher Ed
Page 43 and 44: and well-known (Schiffman et al., 2
Page 45 and 46: advantages of online instruction: (
Page 47 and 48: esearch indicates that teacher-cent
Page 49 and 50: terms frequently used in the litera
Page 51 and 52: 1. Globalization and learning as a
Page 53 and 54: Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Page 55 and 56: Commercial CMSs were developed to m
Page 57 and 58: online environment which allowed th
Page 59 and 60: definitive research regarding the p
Page 61 and 62: through a “strong content validat
Page 63 and 64:
Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Rovai, 2003;
Page 65 and 66:
face to face courses. The researche
Page 67 and 68:
environments, online instructors mu
Page 69 and 70:
Students who received personalized
Page 71 and 72:
Runnels (2004) developed a rubric t
Page 73 and 74:
Learner-learner interactions also s
Page 75 and 76:
participate in order to meet course
Page 77 and 78:
interaction with content is possibl
Page 79 and 80:
(2000) found that requiring student
Page 81 and 82:
Learner-Interface Elements of Desig
Page 83 and 84:
identifies strategies grounded in c
Page 85 and 86:
1. Authentic activities have real-w
Page 87 and 88:
elation to readings and to structur
Page 89 and 90:
Workman and Stenard (as cited by Ro
Page 91 and 92:
123). Some learning groups choose t
Page 93 and 94:
Encouraging students to share their
Page 95 and 96:
applied disciplines preferred onlin
Page 97 and 98:
for the best deal” (Howell, et al
Page 99 and 100:
frustrated by inconsistent course d
Page 101 and 102:
grounded theory research. Data coll
Page 103 and 104:
3. Methodology Research Questions T
Page 105 and 106:
5. Which quality dimensions contrib
Page 107 and 108:
comparable to at least two dozen un
Page 109 and 110:
Institute for Advanced Study. The I
Page 111 and 112:
courses and hybrid courses. The gen
Page 113 and 114:
Table 3.1 Tenure Status of Instruct
Page 115 and 116:
Table 3.3 Number of Courses Publish
Page 117 and 118:
Instrumentation Quilter and Weber (
Page 119 and 120:
Quality elements were identified an
Page 121 and 122:
The response options for students
Page 123 and 124:
Inventory. Although the University
Page 125 and 126:
A total of 187 forms were completed
Page 127 and 128:
Table 3.9 CHSS FOCI Report Rank N W
Page 129 and 130:
Table 3.13 CVPA FOCI Report Rank N
Page 131 and 132:
Table 3.16 Summary of Online Learni
Page 133 and 134:
The researcher provided contact inf
Page 135 and 136:
use when differences between all gr
Page 137 and 138:
Finally, Web-only courses were not
Page 139 and 140:
4. Results Introduction Over the la
Page 141 and 142:
Course identification number was us
Page 143 and 144:
ated highly by the majority of stud
Page 145 and 146:
Table 4.2 Means of Overall Quality
Page 147 and 148:
online courses. Interestingly, “o
Page 149 and 150:
The frequency of learner-learner qu
Page 151 and 152:
Quality elements of learner-content
Page 153 and 154:
The data collected on the frequency
Page 155 and 156:
The data on frequency of use of lea
Page 157 and 158:
Elements of quality for social pres
Page 159 and 160:
RQ 3: Is there a difference in univ
Page 161 and 162:
etween full time and part time stud
Page 163 and 164:
Table 4.11 ANOVA: Overall Dimension
Page 165 and 166:
The third hypothesis of RQ4 stated,
Page 167 and 168:
Table 4.14 Regression Analysis for
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
166 Table 4.20 Summary of Quality E
Page 181 and 182:
each dimensions were used in online
Page 183 and 184:
5. Discussion and Recommendations S
Page 185 and 186:
commonalities and distinctions were
Page 187 and 188:
Enrollment in Online Courses The ma
Page 189 and 190:
such as online quizzes and tests an
Page 191 and 192:
technologies, and instructional str
Page 193 and 194:
Based on the findings, a variety of
Page 195 and 196:
Other researchers have addressed th
Page 197 and 198:
the analyses conducted in this stud
Page 199 and 200:
Recommendations As a result of the
Page 201 and 202:
Finally, separating Web-only from h
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix A SCHEV peer institutions
Page 205 and 206:
Instructor-Learner Interactions (IL
Page 207 and 208:
11. Conversational tone from the in
Page 209 and 210:
27. Relevant and meaningful online
Page 211 and 212:
41. Freedom to explore and inquire
Page 213 and 214:
57. Working hyperlinks Dimension Ob
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix D 202
Page 217 and 218:
204
Page 219 and 220:
206
Page 221 and 222:
208
Page 223 and 224:
210
Page 225 and 226:
212
Page 227 and 228:
Appendix E 214
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix F Email to faculty request
Page 231 and 232:
Dear George Mason student, Appendix
Page 233 and 234:
REFERENCES 220
Page 235 and 236:
American Distance Education Consort
Page 237 and 238:
Campbell, T. (2006). Evolution and
Page 239 and 240:
Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the r
Page 241 and 242:
Georgina, D. A., & Olson, M. R. (20
Page 243 and 244:
Hughes, S., Wickersham, L., Ryan-Jo
Page 245 and 246:
Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt
Page 247 and 248:
McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. B. (2004
Page 249 and 250:
Perold, J. J., & Maree, D. F. (2003
Page 251 and 252:
Russo, T. C., & Campbell, S. W. (20
Page 253 and 254:
Stewart, I., Hong, E.,& Strudler, N
Page 255 and 256:
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of
Page 257:
CURRICULUM VITAE Dawn M. Hathaway g
show all

Assessing Quality Dimensions and Elements of Online Learning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?