You are here:

Students’ Perception of Quality across Course Development Models
PROCEEDING

, Florida Atlantic University, United States ; , University of Miami, United States ; , 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

Full Text

Abstract

: 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.

Citation

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 .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Shapiro, S.S., & Wilk, M.B. (1965). An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
  8. 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).
  9. 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

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections