You are here:

Student perceptions of quality in online pedagogy: Implications for design
PROCEEDINGS

, Australian Catholic University, Australia

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lugano, Switzerland ISBN 978-1-880094-53-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This paper addresses current definitions of quality in online design and examines student expectations of what constitutes a good online experience. As the dynamics of quality assurance in online distance education continue to evolve, there will remain a need to consider design options for students. This paper presents an overview of current thinking on quality in online learning, and presents a framework for rich online experiences based on evolving student needs and learner-centered, constructivist principles.

Citation

McLoughlin, C. (2004). Student perceptions of quality in online pedagogy: Implications for design. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3663-3669). Lugano, Switzerland: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 7, 2024 from .

© 2004 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alexander, S., & McKenzie, J. (1998). An evaluation of information technology projects for university learning. Canberra: Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development.
  2. American Psychological Association. (1993). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school reform and restructuring. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and the Mid continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
  3. Berge, Z. L., Collins, M., & Dougherty, K. (2000). Design guidelines for Web-based courses. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web -ba sed education (pp. 32- 41). Hershey: idea group Publishing.
  4. Bonk, C.J. & Cummings, J.A. (1998) A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the centre of web-based learning. Educational Media International , 35 (2), 82- 89.
  5. Bracewell, R., Breuleux, A., Laferriere, T., Benoit, J., & Abdous, M. (1998). The emerging contribution of online resources and tools to classroom learning and teaching . Burnaby, BC, Canada: TeleLearning Network Inc.
  6. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in digital world. London: Kogan Page.
  7. Doherty, P.B. (1998). Learner control in asynchronous learning environments. Asynchronous Learning Networks Magazine, 2(2), 1- 11.
  8. Goh, S. C., & Tobin, K. (1999). Student and teacher perspectives in computer-mediated learning environments in teacher education. Learning Environments Research, 2, 169- 190.
  9. Gunawardena, C., & Duphorne, P. L. (2000). Predictors of learner satisfaction in an academic computer conference. Distance Education, 21(1), 101- 117.
  10. Hannafin, M.J., & Land, S.M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environment. Instructional Science, 25, 167- 202.
  11. Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J.R., & Land, S.M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issued, and implication. Contemporary Education , 68 (2), 94- 99.
  12. Innovations in Distance Education (1998). An emerging set of guiding principles for the design and development of distance education . Pennysylvania: Pennsylvania State University. Online at http://www.outreach.psu.edu/de/ide.
  13. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2003). Student's distress with a Web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experience . Bloomington: Indiana University.Online at: http: www.slis.Indian.edu.CSI/WP/wp00- 01B.html
  14. Hong, K. -S., Lai, K.-W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students' satisfaction and perceived learning with a Web-based course. Educational Technology & Society, 6(1), 1- 18.
  15. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. (2002). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. In A. Wiliamson, C. Gunn, A. Young & T. Clear (Eds.), Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning: Proceedings of ASCILITE 2002 (pp. 279 - 286). Auckland: Unitec.
  16. Levin, D., & Ben-Jacob, M.G. (1998). Using collaboration in support of distance learning (Report No. IR019267) . Orlando, FL: Presented at WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceedings. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 427 716).
  17. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching , Second Edition. London: Routledge/Falmer.
  18. Levin, J., & Waugh, M. (1998). Teaching teleapprenticeships: Electronic network-based educational frameworks for improving teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1 -2), 39- 58.
  19. Mason, R. M. W. (2000). Factors affecting students' satisfaction on a Web course. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (2), 173 - 200.
  20. McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities. Canberra: Australian Government publishing service.
  21. McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23 (2), 149- 162.
  22. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). A learner-centered approach to developing team skills through Web -based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 571 -582.
  23. McLoughlin, C. (2000). Beyond the halo effect: Investigating the quality of student learning online. In M. Wallace, A. Ellis& D. Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Moving Online Conference (pp. 141- 154). Lismore: Southern Cross University. Online at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/moconf/MOC1_papers.html.
  24. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1999). Pedagogical roles and dynamics in telematics environments. In M Selinger & J. Pearson (Eds.), Telematics in education: Trends and issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.
  25. McNaught, C., Kennedy, D., & Majoor, J. (2002). Designing online learning sites to cater for learning needs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education: ICCE 3 -6 December (Vol. 1, pp. 535 -539). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
  26. McNaught, C., Whityear, K., & Browning, G. (1999). Systems not projects: Focusing on evaluating the overall student experience, rather than isolated examples. Higher Education, Research and Development, 18 (2), 247- 259.
  27. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Exploring the practice and development of generic skills through Web-based learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(3), 307- 325.
  28. Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Curriculum and learning- resources issues arising from the use of web-bases course support system. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(4), 419- 436.
  29. Sfaard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4 - 13.
  30. Spector, M. (2000). Designing technology enhanced learning environments. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education (pp. 241- 261) . Hershey: Idea group Publishing.
  31. Sims, R., Dobs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding Planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 133- 135.
  32. Sturgill, A., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (1999). Surviving technology: a study of student use of computer-mediated communication to support technology education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 5(3), 239 - 259.
  33. Wagner, E.D., & McCombs, B.L. (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35 (2), 32- 35.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts