You are here:

Comparing Two Online Learning Environments: A Classroom of One or Many?
PROCEEDINGS

, , George Mason University, United States

AACE Award

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Abstract: Online learning is rapidly becoming a permanent feature of higher education. Although it offers many benefits to the adult learner, it commonly uses traditional instructional frameworks including structuring learning around a class of many with shared timelines, assignments, and dependence on group discussion. However, alternative strategies for the design of online learning environments are emerging one of which promotes a classroom of one (Norton, 2003). This study compared learner perceptions of two courses - one using the more traditional approach designed with Blackboard and one using the COPLS model. Results revealed that both environments were perceived as providing a high quality learning experience. In addition, results point to the importance of self-regulation, the role of the instructor/facilitator/mentor, and the role of the group as factors influencing learners' perception of the quality of their learning experience, positive aspects of their learning experience, and challenges that influenced their learning experience.

Citation

Norton, P. & Hathaway, D. (2007). Comparing Two Online Learning Environments: A Classroom of One or Many?. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2064-2071). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 17, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References