You are here:

Structure, Content, Delivery, Service, and Outcomes: Quality e-Learning in higher education
ARTICLE

,

IRRODL Volume 6, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Full Text

Abstract

This paper addresses the need for quality e-Learning experiences. We used the Demand-Driven Learning Model (MacDonald, Stodel, Farres, Breithaupt, and Gabriel, 2001) to evaluate an online Masters in Education course. Multiple data collection methods were used to understand the experiences of stakeholders in this case study: the learners, design team, and facilitators. We found that all five dimensions of the model (structure, content, delivery, service, and outcomes) must work in concert to implement a quality e-Learning course. Key themes include evolving learner needs, the search for connection, becoming an able e-participant, valued interactions, social construction of content, integration of delivery partners, and mindful weighing of benefits and trade-offs. By sharing insights into what is needed to design and deliver an e-Learning experience, our findings add to the growing knowledge of online learning. Using this model to evaluate perceptions of quality by key stakeholders has led to insights and recommendations on the Demand Driven Learning Model itself which may be useful for researchers in this area and strengthen the model. Quality has been defined in terms of the design of the e-Learning experience, the contextualized experience of learners, and evidence of learning outcomes (Carr and Carr, 2000; Jung 2000; Salmon, 2000). Quality and design of e-Learning courses, however, are sometimes compromised in an “ . . . effort to simply get something up and running” in response to pressing consumer demands (Dick, 1996, p. 59). Educators and researchers have voiced concern over the lack of rigorous evaluation studies of e-Learning programs (e.g., Arbaugh, 2000; Howell, Saba, Lindsay, and Williams, 2004; Lockyer, Patterson, and Harper, 1999; Robinson, 2001). McGorry (2003) adds, “although the number of courses being delivered via the Internet is increasing rapidly, our knowledge of what makes these courses effective learning experiences is limited” (p. 160). In an economic environment marked by intensive competition between educational institutions, producing and ensuring quality e-Learning programs will be a competitive advantage to attract learners to post secondary institutions (Daniel, 1996; Duderstadt, 1999). In this study we used a credible model, the Demand-Driven Learning Model (DDLM), (MacDonald, Stodel, Farres, Breithaupt, and Gabriel, 2001) and its companion evaluation tool (MacDonald, Breithaupt, Stodel, Farres, and Gabriel, 2002) to design and evaluate an online course. Several data collection methods were used to understand the experiences of key stakeholders in this case study: learners, design team, and facilitators. In addition to adding to the growing knowledge of online learning, our findings highlight additional elements that could be incorporated into the DDLM to further refine the model.

Citation

MacDonald, C. & Thompson, T. (2005). Structure, Content, Delivery, Service, and Outcomes: Quality e-Learning in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved July 5, 2022 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Education+ Training, 43(4/5), 240 – 248.
  2. Arbaugh, J.B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internetbased MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32 – 54.
  3. Barab, S.A., and Duffy, T.M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D.H. Jonassen and S.M. Land (Eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (2554). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  4. Benson, A. (2003). Dimensions of quality in online degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 145 – 159.
  5. Bichelmeyer, B.A., Misanchuk, M., and Malopinsky, L. (2001). Adapting a Master’s Degree Course to the Web: A case analysis. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 49 – 58.
  6. Breithaupt, K., and MacDonald, C.J. (2003). Quality Standards for e-Learning: Cross validation study of the Demand Driven Learning Model (DDLM), Testing International, 13(1), 8 – 12.
  7. Carr, C.S., and Carr, A.M. (2000). Instructional Design in Distance Education (IDDE): A webbased performance support system for educators and designers. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 317 – 325.
  8. Carstens, R.W., and Worsfold, V.L. (2000). Epilogue: A cautionary note about online classrooms. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, and B.W. Speck (Eds.) Principles of Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom, No. 84 (83-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  9. Conrad, D.L. (2002). Engagement, Excitement, Anxiety, and Fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205 – 226.
  10. Daniel, J.S. (1996). Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology strategies for higher education. London: Kogan Page.
  11. Daugherty, M., and Funke, B.L. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 21 – 39.
  12. DeBard, R., and Guidera, S. (2000). Adapting asynchronous communication to meet the seven principles of effective teaching. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(3), 219 – 230.
  13. Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  14. Dewey, J. (1970). Experience and Education. New York: Collier-MacMillan Canada. (Original work published in 1938).
  15. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey Model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55 – 63.
  16. Duderstadt, J.J. (1999). Can colleges and universities survive in the information age? In R.N. Katz (Ed.) Dancing with the devil: Information technology and the new competition in higher education (1-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  17. Fenwick, T.J. (2000). Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A review of the five contemporary perspectives on cognition. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(4), 243 – 272.
  18. Furnell, S., Evans, M., and Bailey, P. (2000). The Promise of Online Distance Learning: Addressing academic and institutional concerns. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 281 – 291.
  19. Hammond, M. (2000). Communication Within Online Forums: The opportunities, the constraints and the value of a communicative approach. Computers and Education, 35(4), 251 – 262.
  20. Howell, S.L., Saba, F., Lindsay, N.K., and Williams, P.B. (2004). Seven Strategies for Enabling Faculty Success in Distance Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 33 – 49.
  21. Hung, D.W.L., and Chen, D.T. (2001). Situated Cognition, Vygotskian Thought and Learning from the Communities of Practice Perspective: Implications for the design of Web-based e-learning. Education Media International, 38(1), 3 – 12.
  22. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5 – 14.
  23. Jung, I. (2000). Technology Innovations and the Development of Distance Education: Korean experience. Open Learning, 15(3), 217 – 231.
  24. Khan, B.H. (1997). Web-based Instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B.H. Khan (Ed.) Web-based Instruction (5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  25. Khan, B.H. (2001). A Framework for Web-based Learning. In B.H. Khan (Ed.) Web-based Training (75-98). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  26. Levy, P. (2003). A Methodological Framework for Practice-based Research in Networked Learning. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 87 – 109.
  27. Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., and Harper, B. (1999). Measuring Effectiveness of Health Education in a Web-based Learning Environment: A preliminary report. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), 233 – 246.
  28. MacDonald, C.J., Breithaupt, K., Stodel, E., Farres, L., and Gabriel, M.A. (2002). Evaluation of Web-based Educational Programs: A pilot study of the Demand-Driven Learning Model. International Journal of Testing, 2(1), 35 – 61.
  29. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E., Farres, L., Breithaupt, K., and Gabriel, M.A. (2001). The Demand Driven Learning Model: A framework for Web-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 1(4), 9 – 30.
  30. Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing Online Collaborative Learning: Process and product. Computers and Education, 40(4), 377 – 391.
  31. Mann, S.J. (2003). A personal Inquiry into an experience of adult learning online. Instructional Science, 31(1-2), 111 – 125.
  32. Marquardt, M.J., and Kearsley, G. (1998). Technology-Based Learning. Boca Raton, FL.: St. Lucie Press.
  33. McElhinney, J.H., and Nasseh, B. (1999). Technical and pedagogical challenges faced by faculty and students in computer-based distance education in higher education in Indiana. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(4), 349 – 359.
  34. McGorry, S.Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159 – 177.
  35. McLachlan-Smith, C., and Gunn, C. (2001). Promoting innovation and change in a ‘traditional’ university setting. In F. Lockwood, and A. Gooley (Eds.) Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Successful development of online and Web-based learning (38-50). London: Kogan Page.
  36. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  37. Noble, D.F. (2002). Digital Diploma Mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  38. O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the “efficacy of social constructivism”? Review of Research in Education, 23, 25 – 71.
  39. Palloff, R.M., and Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  40. Phillips, D.C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5 – 12.
  41. Reeves, T.C., and Reeves, P.M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the WorldWide Web. In B.H. Khan (Ed.) Web-based Instruction (59-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Educational Technology Publications.
  42. Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
  43. Robinson, B. (2001). Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Some lessons from experience and research. In F. Lockwood, and A. Gooley (Eds.) Innovation in Open and Distance Learning: Successful development of online and Web-based learning. (15-26). London: Kogan Page.
  44. Rovai, A.P. (2003). A practical framework for evaluating online distance education programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 109 – 124.
  45. Salmon, G. (2000). E-Moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
  46. Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three Epistemological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  47. Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R., and Koh, M.H. (2004). Improving Online Learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59 – 70.
  48. Speck, B.W. (2000). The Academy, Online Classes, and the Breach in Ethics. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, and B.W. Speck (Eds.) Principles of Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom, No. 84 (73-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  49. Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage. Structure, Content, Delivery, Service, and Outcomes: Quality e-Learning in higher education Macdonald& Thompson 25
  50. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
  51. Thomas, A.M. (1993). The New World of Continuing Education. In T. Barer-Stein, and J.A Draper (Eds.) The Craft of Teaching Adults, (21-38). Toronto: Culture Concepts.
  52. Thompson, T.L. (2003). Even a Virtual Synchronous Classroom has Walls: There’s more to collective meaning making than the technology. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Ottawa, Canada.
  53. Vogel, L.J. (2000). Reckoning with the Spiritual Lives of Adult Educators. In L.M. English and M.A. Gillen (Eds.) Addressing the Spiritual Dimensions of Adult Learning: What educators can do, No. 85 (17-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  54. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An Examination of Asynchronous Communication Experiences and Perspectives of Students in an Online Course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77 – 90.
  55. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V.J. Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.) Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
  56. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Willis, J. (2000). The Maturing of Constructivist Instructional Design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5 – 16.
  58. Wolcott, H.F. (1990). Writing up Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.
  59. Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links

Also Read

Related Collections