Students’ Perception of Quality across Course Development Models
Victoria Brown, Florida Atlantic University, United States ; David Lewis, University of Miami, United States ; Mario Toussaint, Florida Atlantic University, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
: Distance learning courses were taught online and grouped based upon the course development model. Students’ perception of course quality was compared given four course development models: 1) by faculty using a training course, 2) instructional designer supported, 3) a QM training course, and; 4) no training or support used. Students from randomly selected courses received a survey based on the QM criteria asking their perception of the course elements and their opinion of the quality of the course. Significant results were found across the 8 QM general standards for the instructional designer supported (DS) courses as compared to courses designed with the other course design models.
Brown, V., Lewis, D. & Toussaint, M. (2016). Students’ Perception of Quality across Course Development Models. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 166-171). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 7, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/171668/.
© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
ReferencesView References & Citations Map
- Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf.
- Chao, I.T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 22(3). 106-126.
- Cho, M., & Rathbun, G. (2013). Implementing teacher-centered online teacher professional development (oTPD) programme in higher education: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 144-156.
- González-Sanmamed, M., Muñoz-Carril, P., & Sangrà, A. (2014). Level of proficiency and professional development needs in peripheral online teaching roles. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 162-187.
- Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 102-107.
- Razali, N.M., & Wah, Y.B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
- Shapiro, S.S., & Wilk, M.B. (1965). An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
- Shattuck, K. (2012). What we’re learning from Quality Matters-focused Research: Research, practice, continuous improvement. Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/researchgrants-fy13 Terantino, J.M., & Agbehonou, E. (2012). Comparing faculty perceptions of an online development course: Addressing faculty needs for online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(11).
- Triola, M.F. (2004). Elementary statistics using excel (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.Suggest Corrections to References
- presentation_3071_49041.pptx (Access with Subscription)