You are here:

Faculty Variables that Influence the Effectiveness of Online Classes
PROCEEDINGS

, Middle Tennessee State University, United States ; , Tennessee State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Atlanta, GA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-52-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study investigated critical online faculty variables that affect the quality of online classes as measured by two self-evaluation instruments. These variables were determined by administering a self-evaluation of the courses and a survey of various instructor-related variables. This investigation sought to determine if a relationship exists between course quality and a range of instructor-related variables. The hypotheses for each of the nine variables (training, technical ability, teacher's epistemic tendencies, onground teaching experience, online teaching experience, content area, class size, tenure, and rank) were set at the .05 alpha level. Independent t-tests and one-way ANOVAs were performed where appropriate. The two variables that were found significant were level of technical ability and online teaching experience.

Citation

McDaniel, S. & Dickens, C. (2004). Faculty Variables that Influence the Effectiveness of Online Classes. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 582-587). Atlanta, GA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Achtemeier, S.D. (2003). Considerations for developing evaluations of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (1), 1-13.
  2. Arsham, H. (2002). Impact of the Internet on learning and teaching. Education at a Distance, 16(3).
  3. Becker, H., & Anderson, R. (1999). Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998: A National Survey of Schools and Teachers Describing Their Best Practices, Teaching Philosophies, and Uses of Technology. Retrieved June 20, 2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/questionnaires/teachers_qs.pdf Borland, K., Lockhart, M., S., & Howard, R., D. (2000). Assessing distance teaching and learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4 (3), 4-13.
  4. Cooper, L. (2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer application classes. Technology Horizon in Education, 52.
  5. Finn, J. (1999). Class size reduction: Small classes have large benefits. High School Magazine, 6 (4), 45.
  6. Finn, J. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Research, practice, and politics. Phi Delta Kappan , 83 , 551-560.
  7. Franklin, N., Yoakam, M., & Warren, R. (1996). Distance learning: A guidebook for system planning and implementation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
  8. Gladieux, L., & Swail, W. (1999). The virtual university and educational opportunity: Issues of equity and access for the next generation. Policy Perceptions, 2001.
  9. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Craner, J., Lim, B.R., & Duffy, T. (2000). Teaching in a web based distance learning environment (No. 13-00). Bloomington: Center for Research on Learning Technology.
  10. Gunawardena, C. (1999). The challenge of designing and evaluating "interaction" in web-based distance education. In WebNet 99 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings (pp. 451-456). Charlottesville,
  11. Jackson, B., & Anagnostopoulou, K. (2001). Making the right connections: Improving quality in online learning. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 53-64). London:
  12. Lenzner, R., & Johnson, S. (1997, March 10). Seeing things as they really are. Forbes, 159, 122-128.
  13. Marshall, G. (2000). Models, metaphors and measures: issues in distance learning. Education Media International, 2-8.
  14. Merisotis, J., & Phipps, R. (1999). What's the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning: The institute for higher education policy report.
  15. Movies Beat Books Edison Declares. (1923, May 16). New York Times, P. 21.
  16. Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7-22.
  17. Murphy, D., & Rosenberg, B. (1998). Recent research shows major benefit of small class size. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers: Educational Issues Policy Brief No. 3.
  18. Olson, T.M., & Wisher, R.A. (2002). The effectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (Vol. 3).
  19. Prawat, R.S. (1990). Changing schools by changing teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning. Elementary Subjects Series No. 19. (Eric Document ED322144). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
  20. Reeves, T. (1997). Evaluating what really matters in computer-based education. Retrieved April, 200 3, from http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/reeves.htm
  21. Shepherd, C. (1999). Evaluating online learning. Retrieved April 13, 2003, from http://www.fastrakconsulting.co.uk/tactix/features/evaluate/evaluate.htm
  22. Shoffner, M.B., Marshall, J., & Harmon, S. (2000). Paradigms Restrained: Implications of New and Emerging Technologies for Learning and Cognition, Journal of Electronic Publishing (Vol. 6): Journal of Electronic Publishing.
  23. Sonwalker, N. (2002). A new methodology for evaluation: The pedagogical rating of online courses. Syllabus, Jan.
  24. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (4), 339-362.
  25. Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000–2001 (No. NCES 2003-017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  26. Wentling, T., & Johnson, S. (1999). The design and development of an evaluation system for online instruction. In P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy for Human Resource Development (pp. 548-553). Baton

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