You are here:

Assessing Purposeful Online Teaching and Design Quality: A Symposium on Efficacy Assessment
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Western Carolina University, United States ; , University of Warwick, United Kingdom

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Quebec City, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-63-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

This essay introduces a series of papers that support an AACE E-Learn 2007 Symposium. Diverse strategies are presented through which online course designers and teachers may secure an accurate sense of whether their methods are achieving desired goals, substantive and procedural. Relating to the overall theme of the symposium, individual components focus on the following topics: clarity of purpose in online course design and teaching methodology, specific techniques for formative and summative assessment, third-party collaboration for objective data analysis and ethics in online course quality assessment and published research stemming therefrom. This first paper offers an introductory discussion of the issues addressed in greater detail by the three remaining works in this symposium series.

Citation

LeBaron, J., Crow, R., McGinty, D. & Santos, I. (2007). Assessing Purposeful Online Teaching and Design Quality: A Symposium on Efficacy Assessment. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2007--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 330-337). Quebec City, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 20, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Abma, T. (2007). Situated learning in communities of practice. Evaluation, 13(1), 32-47.
  2. Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1998). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd
  3. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  4. Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design framework. Australian Journal 19(2), 139-160.
  5. Crow, R., McGinty, D., Santos, I., & LeBaron, J. (2007). The online small group analysis technique: Formative assessment for teaching and learning. Paper presented to the e-Learn 2007 Conference, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Québec, Canada. October 18, 2007.
  6. Garrison, R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conference in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  7. Garrison, R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
  8. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C.A. & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), pp. 397-431.
  9. Hammond, M. & Wiriyapinit, M. (2005). Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 283-302.
  10. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. & Robins, J. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved December 20, 2003 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornthwaite.html.
  11. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2006). How the teacher ’ s role changes in on-line case study discussions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 141-150.
  12. Henri, F. (1991). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In. Kaye, A.R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najaden papers (pp. 117-136). NY: Springer-Verlag.
  13. Hill, J.R., Han, S., & Raven, A. (2001, November). Build it and they will stay: A research based model for creating community in web based learning environments. In: Proceedings: National Convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology (pp. 192-199). Atlanta, Georgia.
  14. Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from
  15. Kearsley, G. & Schneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved June 6, 2002 from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm.
  16. Koory, M.A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and face-to-face versions of "an introduction to Shakespeare." Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(2), 18-35. Retrieved January 18, 2004 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n2/pdf/v7n2_koory.pdf.
  17. Laurillard, D. (2000). New technologies, students and the curriculum: The impact of communication and information technology on Higher Education. In: Scott, P. (Ed.). Higher education re-formed (pp. 133-153). Falmer
  18. Lock, J.V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395-408.
  19. Lorenzetti, J. (2005). Lessons learned about student issues in online learning. Distance Education Report, 9(6), 3-4.
  20. Naidu, S. & Järvelä, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers& Education, 46(1), 96-103.
  21. Orvis, K.L. & Lassiter, A.R.L. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of the instructor. In S.P. Ferris& S.H. Godar (Eds.), Teaching and learning with virtual teams (pp. 158-179). Hershey, PA: Idea
  22. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R. & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.
  23. Santos, I. & Hammond, M. (2006). What is an online learning community? Paper presented IADIS International Conference e-Society 2006. Dublin, Ireland, 13 – 16 July 2006
  24. Santos, I. & Hammond, M. (2006). Promoting trust in an online learning environment. Paper presented at the BERA Conference, 2006 University of Warwick, 6-9 September
  25. Santos, I. & LeBaron, J. (2006). Ethical constraints in the valid interpretation of transcribed communication in online study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2006), 191-199.
  26. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the
  27. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning Communities in online Courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2(1), 23-49.
  28. Woods, R. And Ebersole, S. (2003). Using non-subject matter specific discussion boards to build connectedness in online learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 99-118.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.