You are here:

How can we design online courses that are effective for student learning? (Roundtable)
PROCEEDING

, Colorado State University-Global Campus, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Online education tends to be an arena where the assumption is that students can join the course with very little help from the instructor. But this is not true. In designing an online course, you have to consider the learning styles of each of your students. Often times, online courses are designed in a one-size-fits-all format. When instructor intentionally design courses based on students' needs, they will be able to see more student satisfaction in the online course. Proponents of distance learning stress that properly designed online courses can better accommodate different learning styles and provide more individualized instruction to each student than can the traditional classroom (Navarro & Shoemaker, 1999; Sosin, 1997). In this presentation, there will be a discussion of ways to design your course in order to improve the teaching and learning in your course.

Citation

Davis, A.M. (2019). How can we design online courses that are effective for student learning? (Roundtable). In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 420-430). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 26, 2021 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ahmad, F., & Aziz, J. (2009). Students’ perception of the teachers’ teaching of literature communicating and understanding through the eyes of the audience. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 17-26.
  2. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019 distance education to traditional classroom in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.
  3. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: online education in the United States, 2009. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.aln.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010.
  4. Anstine, J., & Skidmore, M. (2005). A small sample study of traditional and online courses with sample selection adjustment. The Journal of Economic Education, 36(2), 107-127.
  5. Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133136.
  6. Artz, P. (2006). Improving student satisfaction in online adult education. In C.M. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, D.A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 233-238). Chesapeake, VA:
  7. Biner, P.M., Bink, M.L., Huffman, M.L., & Dean, R.S. (1995). Personality characteristics differentiating and predicting the achievement of televised-course students and traditional-course students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 46-60.
  8. Biner, P.M., Welsh, K.D., Barone, N.M., Summers, M., & Dean, R.S. (1997). The impact of remote-site group size on student satisfaction and relative performance in interactive telecourses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 23-33.
  9. Brown, B.W., & Liedholm, C.E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American Economic Review, 92(2), 1-12.
  10. Brown, S.W., & Kulikowich, J.M. (2004). Teaching statistics from a distance: what have we International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 19-35.
  11. Butner, B.K., Smith, A.B., & Murray, J. (1999). Distance technology: A national study of SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019 graduate higher education programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall23/butner23.html
  12. Carnevale, D. (2000). Study assesses what participants look for in high-quality online courses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(9), A46. Carnevale, D. (2003a, February). Congress may end distance-education limit. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(22), A43-A45. Carnevale, D. (2003b, January). The virtual lab experiment. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(21), A30.
  13. Carr, S. (2000, October). A university moves to require distance courses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(6), A48.
  14. Cartwright, H.M., & Valentine, K. (2002). A spectometer in the bedroom: The development and potential of Internet-based experiments. Computers and Education, 38, 53-64.
  15. Cheung, L., & Kan, A. (2002). Evaluation of factors related to student performance in a distancelearning business communication course. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 257–263.
  16. Corredor, J. (2006). General and domain-specific influence of prior knowledge on setting of goals and content use in museum websites. Computers and Education, 47(2), 207-221.
  17. Crowley, K., Leinhardt, G., & Chang, C. (2001). Emerging research communities and the worldwide web: Analysis of a web-based resource for the field of museum learning. Computers and Education, 36, 1-14.
  18. Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217-226.
  19. Davies, C.H.J. (2002). Student engagement with simulations: A case study. Computers and Education, 39, 271-282.
  20. Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asychronos Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20.
  21. Elliott, K.M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: an alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
  22. Fjortoff, N.F. (1995, October). Predicting persistence in distance learning programs. SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019 Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Meeting, Chicago, IL.
  23. Fortune, M., Shifflett, B., & Sibley, R. (2006). A comparison of online (high tech) and traditional (high touch) learning in business communication courses in Silicon Valley. Journal of Education for Business, 81(4), 210-214.
  24. Garland, M.R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional, and epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198.
  25. Giannousi, M., Vernadakis, N., Derri, V., Michalopoulos, M., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2009). Students’ satisfaction from blended learning instruction. Proceedings of the Annual TCC Worldwide Online Conference, USA, 2009, 61-68.
  26. Hanson, D., Maushak, N.J., Schlosser, C.A., Anderson, M.L., Sorensen, C., & Simonson, M. (1997). Distance education: Review of the literature (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
  27. Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–59.
  28. Hmelo, C., & Day, R. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers and Education, 32, 151-164.
  29. Howell, S., Williams, P., & Lindsay, N. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
  30. Hughes, S.C., Ryan-Jones, D.A., Smith, S., & Wickersham, L. (2002). Overcoming social and psychological barriers to effective on-line collaboration. Educational Technology& Society, 5(1), 86-92.
  31. Jolliffe, A., Ritter, J., & Stevens, D. (2001). The online learning handbook: Developing and using Web-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
  32. Kane, D., & Williams, J. (2009). Assessment and feedback: Institutional experiences of student feedback, 1996 to 2007. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 264-286.
  33. Klesius, J.P., Homan, S., & Thompson, T. (1997). Distance education compared to traditional education: the students’ view. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(1), 207-222.
  34. Ko, S., & Rosen, S. (2008). Teaching online: A practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge. SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019
  35. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Leinhardt, G., & Corredor, J. (2005). Six online courses: examination and review. The American Statistician, 59(3), 240-251.
  36. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.
  37. Laube, M.R. (1992). Academic and social integration variables and secondary student persistence in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(1), 2-5.
  38. Light, P., Colbourn, C., & Light, V. (1997). Computer-mediated tutorial support for conventional university courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 228-235.
  39. Lim, J., Kim, M., Chen, S., & Ryder, C. (2008). An empirical investigation of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environments. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 113-119.
  40. Lovett, M., & Greenhouse, J. (2000). Applying cognitive theory to statistics instruction. The American Statistician, 54(3), 196-206.
  41. Lovett, M. (2001). A collaborative convergence on studying reasoning processes: A case study in statistics. In S. Carver& D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 347-384).
  42. Mayadas, F. (2001). Testimony to the Kerry Commission on web-based education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 134-138.
  43. McBrien, J., Jones, P., & Cheng, R. (2009). Virtual spaces: employing asynchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-17.
  44. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019
  45. Ponzurick, T., France, K., & Logar, C. (2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 180-187.
  46. Pugliese, R.R. (1994). Tele-course persistence and psychological variables. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 22-39.
  47. Rodriguez-Robles, F.M. (2006). Learner characteristic, interaction, and support service variables as predictors of satisfaction in web-based distance education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(7). (UMI No. 3224964)
  48. Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  49. Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1-8.
  50. Scheines, R., & Sieg, W. (1994). Computer environments for proof construction. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(2), 159-169.
  51. Scheines, R., Leinhardt, G., Smith, J., & Cho, K. (2003). Replacing lecture with web-based course materials. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(1), 1-26.
  52. Settle, A., & Settle, C. (2005). Graduate Student Satisfaction with an Online Discrete Mathematics Course. Proceedings of the Consortium for Computing Sciences in College: Midwest Region Conference, USA, 79-87.
  53. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
  54. So, H-J., & Brush, T.A. (2008) Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers& Education, 51(1), 318–336.
  55. Stansfield, M., McLellan, E., & Connolly, T. (2004). Enhancing student performance in online learning and traditional face-to-face class delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 173188.
  56. Stone, T.E. (1992). A new look at the role of locus of control in completion rates in distance education. Research in Distance Education, 4(2), 6-9.
  57. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
  58. Tu, C., & McIssac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
  59. Ury, G., McDonald, M., McDonald, G., & Dorn, B. (2005). Statistical performance online vs. Onground: A statistical analysis of IS courses. Information Systems Education Journal, 4, 98.
  60. Vrasidas, C., & Stock-McIssac, M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-35.
  61. White, E.R., Goetz, J.J., Hunter, M.S., & Barefoot, B.O. (1995). Creating successful transitions through academic advising. In M.L. Upcraft & G.L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 25–34). Columbia, SC: University of South
  62. Woolfolk, A.E. (1998) Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  63. Yaron, D., Freeland, R., Lange, D., & Milton, J. (2000, May). Using simulations to transform the nature of chemistry homework. Paper presented at the online conference CONFCHEM (CONferences on CHEMistry), Online Conference.
  64. Yaron, D., Freeland, R., Lange, D., Karabinos, M., Milton, J., & Belford, R. (2001, November). Uses of a flexible virtual laboratory simulation in introductory chemistry courses. Paper presented at the online conference CONFCHEM (CONFerences on CHEMistry), Online Conference.
  65. Young, J.R. (2002, March). Harvard reviews rule for on-campus courses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Harvard-Reviews-Rule-for/27832/
  66. Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online SITE 2019-Las Vegas, NV, United States, March 18-22, 2019 collaborative learning. Educational Technology& Society, 15(1), 127–136.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections