i-manager Publications

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Cited

Volume 10 Issue 2 July - September 2013

Article

Faculty Development On Online Instructional Methods:A Protocol For Counselor Educators

Gina Cicco*

Assistant Professor of Counselor Education, St. John's University, Queens, New York.

Cicco , G.(2013). Faculty Development on Online Instructional Methods: A Protocol for Counselor Educators. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2408

Abstract

This article will address the importance of properly training faculty members to teach online courses within graduate counseling programs. The number of online course offerings among graduate education programs is steadily increasing across colleges and universities. This trend is of particular interest for counselor educators because counseling courses, particularly those that teach and assess counseling skills and techniques, have traditionally been delivered in the face-to-face classroom setting. Converting skills-based courses to the online modality requires appropriate faculty preparation, ongoing and strategic planning, and frequent evaluation exercises (Cicco, 2013; Fish & Wickersham, 2009). This article will present counseling and other education faculty members with a protocol for faculty development on online instructional methods. The protocol consists of five major steps including an introduction to navigating through online courses, learning-styles training, online course simulation experiences, review of tools for relationship-building, and finally the launching of an actual online course under the supervision of a mentor. Faculty members that are assigned to teach online courses should complete a series of training sessions, such as those presented in this sample protocol, prior to the start of their first online course. The protocol is intended to serve as a training model for novice online instructors, who have not previously taught completely online courses, especially those who have a commitment to teaching within the online classroom. Participation in this type of faculty development is encouraged because appropriate training and preparedness typically result in improved levels of faculty and student performance and satisfaction in online courses (Cicco, 2012; Santovec, 2004).

References

[1]. Andrade, H. (2008). Self-assessment through rubrics. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 60-63.

[2]. Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: Learning-style assessment as an advisement tool. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 161-173.

[3]. Cicco, G. (2012). Counseling instruction in the online classroom: A survey of student and faculty perceptions. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 8(2), 1-10.

[4]. Cicco, G. (2013). Strategic lesson planning in online courses: Suggestions for counselor educators. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 8(3), 1-8.

[5]. Cobia, D.C., & Henderson, D.A. (2007). Developing an effective and accountable school counseling program (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

[6]. Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (Eds.). (2003). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning-style model research: Who, what, when, where, and so what? New York: St. John's University.

[7]. Erford, B. (2008). Research and evaluation in counseling. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

[8]. Fearing, A., & Riley, M. (2005). Graduate students' perceptions of online teaching and relationship to preferred learning styles. MEDSURG Nursing, 14(6), 383-389.

[9]. Fish, W.W., & Wickersham, L.E. (2009). Best practices for online instructors: Reminders. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 279-284.

[10]. Haberstroh, S. (2010). College counselors' use of informal language online: Student perceptions of expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Cyber Psychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 13(4), 455-459.

[11]. Ivey, A.E., Ivey, M.B., & Zalaquett, C.P. (2010). Intentional interviewing & counseling: Facilitating client development in a multicultural society (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

[12]. Meyers, S.A. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching, 56(4), 219-224.

[13]. Reiner, C.M., & Arnold, K.E. (2010). Online course evaluation: Student and instructor perspectives and assessment potential. Assessment Update, 22(2), 8-10.

[14]. Rundle, S.M. (2006). An introduction to the Building Excellence Survey. Pittsford, NY: Performance Concepts International.

[15]. Santovec, M.L. (2004). Training the people who train the teachers. Distance Education Report, 8(20), 3-6.

[16]. Scheuermann, M. (2010, January). Engaging students with synchronous methods in online courses. Online Classroom, 1-8.

[17]. Thompson, B. (2007). The syllabus as a communication document: Constructing and presenting the syllabus. Communication Education, 56(1), 54-71.

[18]. Trepal, H., Haberstroh, S., Duffey, T., & Evans, M. (2007). Considerations and strategies for teaching online counseling skills: Establishing relationships in cyberspace. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46(4), 266-279.

[19]. Wright, R. J. (2014). Research methods for counseling: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[20]. Yang, Y.C., & Chou, H. (2008). Beyond critical thinking skills: Investigating the relationship between critical thinking skills and dispositions through different online instructional strategies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 666-684.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Preservice Teachers In Special Education: UsingEdublogs For Transition Collaboration

Janice Seabrooks-Blackmore* , Karen B Patterson**

* Associate Professor, Program Director of Exceptional Student Education

** Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Deaf, Interpreter Education

Seabrooks-Blackmore, J., and Patterson, K. B. (2013). Preservice Teachers In Special Education: Using Edublogs For Transition Collaboration. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2409

Abstract

This was an exploratory study that examined the introduction and use of Edublogs as a collaborative communication tool in an undergraduate preservice special education course. Participants were enrolled in a course that addressed transition and the development of individualized transition education plans for students with disabilities. Pre-and-post surveys were given to determine participants’ knowledge, feelings, and experiences with the use of Edublogs, as well as their attitudes before and after the introduction and use of Edublogs. Inferential and qualitative data analyses were used to analyze results. Using a 7-point Likert scale with multipleitem pairs, results of pre-and post-survey ratings indicated that participants’ attitudes were significantly different in five out of fifteen variable pairs. Post-survey comments on knowledge, thoughts, and experiences revealed overall positive themes about the use of this Web 2.0 technology for collaboration.

References

[1]. Clydesdale, T. (2007). The first year out: Understanding American teen after high school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[2]. Cook, D., Garside, S., Levinson, A., Dupras, D., & Montori, V. (2010). What do we mean by webbased learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Medical Education, 44(8), 765-774.

[3]. Danciu, E., & Grosseck, G. (2011). Social aspects of web 2.0 technologies: Teaching or teachers’ challenges? Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 15(3rd World Conference on Educational Sciences - 2011), 3768-3773.

[4]. EDUCAUSE Learning Intitiative. (2005). 7 things you should know about blogs.

[5]. Garriott, P. P., Wandry, D., & Snyder, L. (2000). Teachers as parents, parents as children: What’s wrong with this picture? Preventing School Failure, 45(1), 37–43.

[6]. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

[7]. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of (2004). 20 U.S.C § 1400 H.R. 1350.

[8]. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87?97.

[9]. Liaw, S. (2002). An internet survey for perceptions of computers and the world wide web: Relationship, prediction, and difference, Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 17-35.

[10]. Pagano, R. (2013). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. (10th ed.). Belomont, CA: Wadsworth.

[11]. Ray, J. (2006). Welcome to blogsphere: The educational use of blogs (aka Edublogs). Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42, 175-177.

[12]. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers' intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171-196.

[13]. Sutton, S. R. (2011). The preservice technology training experiences of novice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 39-47.

[14]. Yell, M., L., Ryan, J. B., Rozalski, M. E., & Katsiyannis, A. (2009). The U.S. Supreme Court and special education: 2005-2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 4I(3), 68.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Examining Teachers' Role In Using Virtual LearningEnvironment To Support ConventionalEducation In Icelandic Schools

Gisli Thorsteinsson*

University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Thorsteinsson, G. (2013). Examining Teachers' Role In Using Virtual Learning Environment To Support Conventional Education In Icelandic Schools. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2410

Abstract

Running Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) classes using Virtual Learning Environments s (VLEs) has become a high priority project for many educational institutions, as it offers opportunities for online education and support for conventional education. However, acquiring and deploying a VLE is a difficult task that concerns teachers' responsibilities and their mindset. The author has run a series of studies to recognize pedagogical issues of applying a Virtual Learning Environment to support educational activities in school education.The main aim of the studies was to identify regarding the teacher'swork that illustrates his mindset and responsibilities during ICT classes in an Icelandic elementary school. The research was based up on the following research questions:
(i) Which issues influence the teachers' role in using ICT to support school education?
(ii) How do these issues affect his mindset and responsibilities during ICT classes?
(iii). How can a teacher effectively manage these issues?
These questions were viewed using a range of explicit techniques in an action research mode. Data was collected from three, triangulated, studies. The data was analysed and used to formulate a new set of research questions and a more advanced exploration using a following series of case studies.The research indicates that teachers are not always able to make full use of ICT because they lack self-confidence, role conflicts, workload and time for preparation and skill to manage the technology inside the classroom.They need to have diverse capabilities, in order to enter the schoolroom with wide-ranging capabilities. The research also indicated that the teacher lacked self-confidence, in terms of knowledge and skill in ICT, but he was capable of solving most problems during the research. The teacher's work was complex and his multiple roles and responsibilities were not pre-defined. Therefore self-criticism became a part of his general mindset that affected his self-confidence and self-efficacy.

References

[1]. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[2]. Blom, J.O. and Monk, A.F. (2003). A theory of personalisation of appearance: why users personalise their PCs and mobile phones. Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 193-228.

[3]. Bradley, G. and Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxieties. Educational Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 267-284.

[4]. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

[5]. Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle. Education Week, Vol. 18. No. 43. Retrieved (28. March, 2013) from http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/43cuban.h18

[6]. Denzin, N.K. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[7]. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

[8]. Fabry, D. and Higgs, J. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education. Journal of Educational Computing, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 385-395.

[9]. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

[10]. Hall, B. (2001). New Technology Definitions. Retrieved (5. April 2013) from www.brandonhall.com/public/ glossary/ index.htm

[11]. Manternach-Wigans, L. (1999). Technology integration in Iowa high schools: perceptions of teachers and students. Iowa State University.

[12]. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors Affecting Teachers' Use of Information and Communications Technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 319-342.

[13]. Ormrod, J.E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (5th ed.), NJ, Merrill: Upper Saddle River.

[14]. Ozdemir, Y. (2007). The Role of Classroom Management Efficacy in Predicting Teacher Burnout. International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 4.

[15]. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[16]. Paulsen, M.F. (2003). Online Education and Learning Management Systems. Oslo: NKI Forlaget.

[17]. Preston, C., Cox, M. and Cox, K. (2000). Teachers as Innovators: an evaluation of teachers' motivation in the use of ICT. MirandaNet London. Accessed (24. January, 2013) from http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/partners/ promethean_ ambassadors.htm

[18]. Russell, R.S. and Meikamp, J. (1994). Creativity training-A practical teaching strategy. In: Montgomery, D. (Ed.), Rural Partnerships: Proceedings of the Annual National Conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, ERIC Document Reproduction Services, No. Ed369621.

[19]. Taylor, R. (1980). The Computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

[20]. The Oxford English Dictionary Online (2013). Retrieved (5. April, 2013) from http://www.oed.com/

[21]. Thorsteinsson, G., T. Page, M. Lehtonen, A. Niculescu (2007). Innovative Technology Education in a Virtual Reality Learning Environment, Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol. 16 (3), Sept. 2007, ISBN 1220-1766, pp. 297-306.

[22]. Vuorikari, R. (2004). Why Europe Needs Free and Open Source Software and Content in Schools. Brussels: European School Net (online). Retrieved (5. April 2013) from www.eun.org.

[23]. Walker, M. (2000). Learning how to learn in a technology course: A case study. Open Learning, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 173-189.

[24]. Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

[25]. Witfelt, C. (2000). Educational multimedia and teachers' needs for new competencies to use educational multimedia. Education Media International, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 235-241.

[26]. Worthington, T. (2008). Blended Learning: Using a Learning Management System Live in the Classroom. The Australian National University. Retrieved (13.May 2013) from http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/labels/ANU.html.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

A Comparison Of Traditional And CooperativeLearning Methods In Online Learning

Lori Kupczynski* , Marie Anne Mundy, Alberto Ruiz*

* Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

* Professor and Dean, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A. and Ruiz , A. (2013). A Comparison Of Traditional And Cooperative Learning Methods In Online Learning. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 21-28 . https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2411

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Community of Inquiry framework through an in-depth examination of learning comprised of teaching, social and cognitive presence in traditional versus cooperative online teaching at a community college. A total of 21 students participated in this study, with approximately 45% having taken online courses previously. Repeated Measures ANOVA were completed for all analyses via the SPSS General Linear Model – Repeated Measures with alpha set at α = .05 across all tests Cooperative learning (Mean = 72.18, SD = 12.31) was significantly higher than traditional learning (Mean = 70.91, SD = 12.70). The effect size of .22 as measured by Partial Eta Squared was quite large, with 22% of the difference in variance explained by overall learning. CL in teaching presence (Mean = 33.62, SD = 5.17) was significantly higher than traditional in teaching presence (Mean = 32.82, SD = 5.74). The effect size of .46 as measured by Partial Eta Squared was very large, with 46% of the difference in variance explained by teaching presence. Social and cognitive were not statistically significant (p>.05). Future studies should examine different designs of teaching presence, such as allowing students to choose their own groups, which may lead to increased social presence and cognitive presence and in turn increased learning.

References

[1]. Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(2): 135–149.

[2]. Arnold, N. & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers' social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology 10(1): 42–66.

[3]. Ashong, C. Y., & Commander, N. E. (2012). Ethnicity, gender and perceptions of online learning in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(2): 98-110.

[4]. Assinder, W. (1991). Peer teaching, peer learning: One model. ELT Journal, 45: 218-229.

[5]. Bliss, C., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? A comparison of small group and whole class discussion board activity in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13: 25-39.

[6]. Ciges, A. (2001). Online learning: New educational environments in order to respect cultural diversity through cooperative strategies. Intercultural Education, 12: 135-147.

[7]. Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 4: 553-565.

[8]. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev. Ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.

[9]. Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,11(1): 61-72.

[10]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3): 87–105.

[11]. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1): 7–23.

[12]. Garrison, D. R. and Archer, W. (2003). A Community of Inquiry Framework for Online Learning. In: M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. New York: Erlbaum.

[13]. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M. and Fung T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2): 61– 74.

[14]. Havard, B., Du, J., &Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19: 37-50.

[15]. Hutchinson, D. (2007). Teaching practices for effective cooperative learning in an online learning environment (OLE). Journal of Information Systems Education, 18: 357-367.

[16]. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction.

[17]. Ku, H., Lohr, L., & Cheng, Y. (2004). Collaborative learning experiences in online instructional design courses. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

[18]. Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A., Goswami, J., & Meling, V. (2012). Cooperative learning in distance learning?: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2): 81–90.

[19]. Kupczynski, L.Mundy, M. A. & Maxwell, G. (2012). Faculty perceptions of cooperative learning and traditional discussion strategies in online courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 95-106.

[20]. Luebeck, J. L. &Bice, L.R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers.Journal of Distance Education 20(2): 21–39.

[21]. McKlin, T., Harmon, S.W., Evans, W. & Jones, M.G. (2002). Cognitive presence in web-based learning: A content analysis of students' online discussions. ITForum Paper #60.

[22]. Meyer, K. A. (2004). Evaluating online discussions: Four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(2): 101–114.

[23]. Murphy, E. (2004). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 30(1): 5–20.

[24]. Paulsen, M. (2008). Cooperative online education. Seminar.Net: Media, Technology & Life-Long Learning, 4: 1-20. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

[25]. Pierce, R. (2012). Transforming Interaction and Social Presence through Course Design: Authentic Implementation of Threaded Discussion Tools. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 770-778).

[26]. Prestera, G.E. & Moller, L. (2001). Exploiting opportunities for knowledge building in asynchronous distance learning environments. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2: 93-104.

[27]. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2007). Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group and task characteristics. Behaviour & Technology, 26(1): 55-71.

[28]. Swan, K. (2003). Developing social presence in online discussions. In: S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices, 147–164. London: Kogan Page.

[29]. Vaughan, N. D. (2005). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inquiry process within a faculty learning community.(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Nr03893).

[30]. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Examining the Effectiveness of Online Learning Within a Community College System: An Instrumental Variable Approach. Community College Research Center. Working Paper 56, 1-30.

[31]. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., &Kyeong-JuSeo, K. (2011). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1): 77–87.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Determining Online Graduate Student Expectations:The Use Of MET Expectations Hypothesis

Claretha Hughes* , Patrice Bax, Marty Brack*, Dennis Beck****

* University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Program Coordinator, Center for Multicultural and Diversity Education, Arkansas.

* Red Leaf Circle, Hoover.

**** Assistant Professor, Educational Technology, University of Arkansas.

Hughes, C., Bax, P.,Brack , M., and Beck, D. (2013). Determining Online Graduate Student Expectations: The Use of MET Expectations Hypothesis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2412

Abstract

This study presents the results of a grounded theory, multi-case, descriptive study. Transcript analysis was conducted of graduate students' responses to questions regarding their expectations of courses in which they were enrolled. Responses were captured within an expectations discussion board forum upon students' entry to the course. The researchers used met expectations hypothesis to help understand and assess graduate students' expectations. Analysis of transcripts revealed that graduate students' expectations were to compare and contrast previous learning to the content of current courses, learn about course topic, achieve degree or course requirement, and gain useful, applicable knowledge. Graduate students wanted to contribute to courses by sharing their personal and/or professional experiences, providing their own, different perspective, contribute to the course environment. Doctoral students wanted to contribute by learning the content. There was not a lot of commonality expressed with regards to expectation changes; the student simply wanted to express that they had made a change. In addition, the researchers developed a stacked matrix in a multi-case format categorized by masters and doctoral students' expectations of course, contribution to course, expectation changes and themes to provide a comparison of groups to triangulate the data. The results of the study illustrate that students do bring their own expectations to a course which may or may not align with course descriptions and/or objectives outlined in a syllabus.

References

[1]. Angelino, L., Williams, F., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4, 1- 14.

[2]. Appleton-Knapp, S & Krentler, K. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 254-264.

[3]. Aslanian, C., & Clinefelter, D. (2012). Online college students 2012: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences.

[4]. Banks, C. H. (2002). A descriptive analysis of the perceived effectiveness of Virginia Tech's faculty development institute. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (08). (UMI No. 3102585)

[5]. Bassi, L., Cheney, S., & Lewis, E. (1998). Trends in workplace learning: Supply and demand in interesting times. Training and Development, 52(11), 51-75.

[6]. Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in postsecondary Web-based learning. Educational Technology, 1, 5-10.

[7]. Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordstrom, K. (2009). First year expectations and experiences: Student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education, 58, 157-173.

[8]. Bruinsma, M. (2004). Motivation, cognitive processing and achievement in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 14, 549-568.

[9]. Caligiuri, P., Phillips, J., Lazarova, M., Tarique, I., &Bürgi, P. (2001). The theory of met expectations applied to expatriate adjustment: The role of cross-cultural training. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 357-372.

[10]. Cheung, L., & Kan, A. (2002). Evaluation of factors related to student performance in a distance-learning business communication course. Journal of Education for Business, 77, 257–263.

[11]. Deden, A. (1998). Computers and systemic change in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 41(1), 58-64.

[12]. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act(2nd ed.).New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

[13]. Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20.

[14]. Eccles, J. S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

[15]. Gibson, J. W., & Herrera, J. M. (1999, January). How to go from classroom based to online delivery in eighteen months or less: A case study in online program development. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 57-60.

[16]. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine/Atherton.

[17]. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C., (2005). Networked learning in higher education: Students' expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50, 473-508.

[18]. Gunawardena, L., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Interaction analysis of a global on-line debate and the development of a constructivist interaction analysis model for computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429.

[19]. Halsne, A., &Gatta, L. (2002). Online versus traditionally-delivered instruction: A descriptive study of learner characteristics in a community college setting. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5.

[20]. Irving, P., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Reexamination of the met-expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 937-949.

[21]. Irving, P. G., & Meyer, J. P. (1995). On using direct measures of met expectations: A methodological note. Journal of Management, 21, 1159-1176.

[22]. Irving, P., & Montes, S. D. (2009). Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 431-451.

[23]. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., &Bracker, J. S. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 97-112.

[24]. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative Methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

[25]. Levin, A., (1993). Student expectations of college, Change,25(5), 4-5.

[26]. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[27]. Mitchell, T. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.

[28]. Moser, K. (2005). Recruitment sources and post-hire outcomes: The mediating role of unmet expectations. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 13(3), 188-197.

[29]. Mupinga, D., Nora, R., & Yaw, D. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54, 185-189.

[30]. Oblender, T. (2002). A hybrid course model: One solution to the high online drop-out rate. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29, 42-46.

[31]. Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Herrington, J. (1998). Investigating implementation strategies for WWW-based learning environments. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 121-136.

[32]. Paechter, M., Maier, B., &Macher, D. (2010). Students' expectations of and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54, 222-229.

[33]. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation, (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

[34]. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.

[35]. Rohner, R. P. (1977). Advantages of the comparative method of anthropology. Behavior Science Research,12, 117-144

[36]. Ryan, S. (2001). Is online learning right for you? American Agent and Broker, 74, 54-58.

[37]. Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D, (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 309-323.

[38]. Schaubroeck, J., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Mitra, A. (2008). An under-met and over-met expectations model of employee reactions to merit raises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 424-434.

[39]. Shank, M., Walker, M. & Hayes, T. J. (1996) Cross cultural differences in student expectations. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7, 17-32.

[40]. Shelly, G., Cashman, T., Gunter, R., & Gunter, G. (2008). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology and digital media in the classroom (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.

[41]. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., &Zvacek, S., (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

[42]. Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29, 379–387.

[43]. Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

[44]. Stevenson, K. & Sander, P. (1998). How do open university students expect to be taught at tutorials? Open Learning, 13, 42-46.

[45]. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. InN., K. Denzin& Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp.273-285). London: Sage Publications.

[46]. Sullivan, P., (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: male and female college students evaluate their experiences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 805–818.

[47]. Sutton, G. & Griffin, M., (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professional. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493-514.

[48]. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M. & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.

[49]. Twale, D., Shannon, D., & Moore, M. (1997). NGTA and IGTA training and experience: Comparisons between self-rating and undergraduate student evaluations, Innovative Higher Education, 22, 61-77.

[50]. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[51]. Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and Motivation. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

[52]. Wanous, J., Poland, T., Premack, S., & Davis, K. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 288-297.

[53]. Wojciechowski, A., &Bierlein-Palmer, L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distant Learning Administration.

[54]. Zhang, P. (1998). A case study on technology use in distance learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30, 398.

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Research Paper

Technology Engineering Online Learner Metrics ToAnalyze Instructional Efficacy

James Edward Osler II* , Mahmud A. Mansaray**

* North Carolina Central University

** North Carolina Central University

Osler , J. E., and Mansaray , M. A. (2013). Technology Engineering Online Learner Metrics To Analyze Instructional Efficacy. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2413

Abstract

The online deployment of Technology Engineered online Student Ratings of Instruction [SRIs] by colleges and universities in the United States has dynamically changed the deployment of course evaluation. This research investigation is the fourth part of a post hoc study that analytically and psychometrically examines the design, reliability, and validity of the items used in the delivery of an SRI instrument online during the 2012 Spring Semester at a United States Historical Black College and University [HBCU]. The sample under analysis consisted of 7,919 distributed Student Ratings Instruments with a Grand Total of 56451 analyzed instrument items. The application of several statistical measures was used to validate the Technologically Engineered SRI instrument used in the study. Results of the study included: a Cronbach's Alpha Test that yielded an extraordinarily high internal consistency of the student rejoinders to the items on the rating scale; and a Tri–Squared Test supported the research findings attributed to the Cronbach's Alpha Test results. This research is the continuation of in–depth investigations into Technology Engineering as discussed in iManager's Journal on School Educational Technology, further explored in iManager's Journal of Educational Technology, and data analyzed with the Tri–Squared statistical measure first introduced in iManager's Journal of Mathematics.

References

[1]. Agbetsiafa, D. (2010). Evaluating effective teaching in college level Economics using student ratings of instruction: A factor analytic approach. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(5), 57–66.

[2]. Anastasiadou, S. D. (2011). Reliability and validity testing of a new scale for measuring attitudes toward learning statistics with technology. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 4(1), 1–10.

[3]. Barry, R. A. (2010). Teaching effectiveness and why it matters. Marylhurst University and the Chalkboard Project.

[4]. Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D., & Frideres, J. (2009). What do students consider useful about student ratings?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 519–527.

[5]. Beran, T., Violato, C., & Kline, D. (2007). What's the "Use" of student ratings of instruction for administrators? One university's experience. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 27–43.

[6]. Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.

[7]. Bland, J., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Cronbach's Alpha . BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition), 314(7080), 572.

[8]. Bo, Z., Johnston, L., & Kilic, G. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self– and peer rating in student group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 329–340.

[9]. Chen, G., & Watkins, D. (2010). Stability and correlates of student evaluations of teaching at a Chinese university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 675–685.

[10]. Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn?. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(1), 16–30.

[11]. Donnon, T., Delver, H., & Beran, T. (2010). Student and teaching characteristics related to ratings of instruction in medical sciences graduate programs. Medical Teacher, 32(4), 327–332.

[12]. El Hassan, K. (2009). Investigating substantive and consequential validity of student ratings of instruction. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 319– 333.

[13]. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

[14]. Gillmore, G. M., Kane, M. T., & Naccarato, R. W. (1978). The generalizability of student ratings of Instruction: Estimation of the teacher and course components. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 1–13.

[15]. Hassel, B. C. (2009). How should state define teacher effectiveness?. Center for American Progress.

[16]. Hogan, T. P. (1973). Similarity of student ratings across instructors, courses, and time, Research in Higher Education, 1, 149–154.

[17]. Hunsaker, S. L., Nielsen, A., & Bartlett, B. (2010). Correlates of teacher practices influencing student outcomes in reading instruction for advanced readers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 273–282.

[18]. Ibrahim, A. (2011). Using generalizability theory to estimate the relative effect of class size and number of items on the dependability of student ratings of instruction. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 252–258.

[19]. Jones, B. (2010). An examination of motivation model components in face–to–face and online instruction. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 915–944.

[20]. Keeley, J., Furr, R., & Buskist, W. (2010). Differentiating psychology students' perceptions of teachers using the teacher behavior checklist. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 16–20.

[21]. Kneipp, L. B., Kelly, K. E., Biscoe, J. D., & Richard, B. (2010). The impact of instructor's personality characteristics on quality of instruction. College Student Journal, 44(4), 901–905.

[22]. Leech, N. A., Barrett, K. C., Morgan, G. A. (2011). IBM: SPSS for intermediate statistics use and interpretation. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

[23]. Marsh, H. W. (1981). The use of path analysis to estimate teacher and course effects in student rating's of instructional effectiveness. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 47–59.

[24]. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and usefulness. In R. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence–based perspective (pp. 319–383). Netherlands: Springer.

[25]. Marsh, H. W., Ginns, P., Morin, A. S., Nagengast, B., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Use of student ratings to benchmark universities: Multilevel modeling of responses to the Australian Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 733–748.

[26]. McKeachie, W. J. (2007). Good teaching makes a difference—And we know what it is. In R. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence–based perspective (pp. 457–474). Netherlands: Springer.

[27]. Osler, J. E., Hollowell, P. G. & Nichols, S. M. (2012). Technology Engineering in Science Education: Where Instructional Challenges Interface Nonconforming Productivity to Increase Retention, Enhance Transfer, and Maximize Student Learning. July–September i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (2), pp. 31–39.

[28]. Osler, J. E., Hollowell, G. P., & Palmer, C. E. (2008). Technology Engineering Science Instruction in the Information Age: Integrating Instructional Technology in K12 Education, June–August, i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 4 (1), pp. 12–17.

[29]. Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of university teacher self concept. Instructional Science, 28(5), 439–468.

[30]. Safavi, S., Bakar, K., Tarmizi, R., & Alwi, N. (2012). The role of student ratings of instruction from perspectives of the higher education administrators. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 233–239.

[31]. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. (2008). Communication Education, 57(2), 180–200.

[32]. Skowronek, J., Friesen, B., & Masonjones, H. (2011). Developing a statistically valid and practically useful student evaluation instrument. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–19.

[33]. Stowell, J. R., Addison, W. E., & Smith, J. L. (2012). Comparison of online and classroom–based student evaluations of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 465–473. D

[34]. Vogt, W. (1984). Developing a teacher evaluation system. Spectrum, 2(1), 41–46.

[35]. Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and university teachers. Higher Education, 70(6), 670–686.

[36]. Zerbini, T., & Abbad, G. (2009). Reação aos procedimentos instrucionais de um curso via internet: Validação de uma escala. Estudos De Psicologia, 26(3), 363–371.

[37]. Zhao, J., & Gallant, D. J. (2012). Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: exploring issues of validity and reliability. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 227–235.

[38]. Zuberi, R. W., Bordage, G., & Norman, G. R. (2007). Validation of the SETOC instrument – student evaluation of teaching in outpatient clinics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12(1), 55–69.

i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology (JET)

Current Issue Vol. 20 Issue 4

Most Read

Most Cited

Volume 10 Issue 2 July - September 2013

Faculty Development On Online Instructional Methods:A Protocol For Counselor Educators

Gina Cicco*

Assistant Professor of Counselor Education, St. John's University, Queens, New York.

Cicco , G.(2013). Faculty Development on Online Instructional Methods: A Protocol for Counselor Educators. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2408

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Preservice Teachers In Special Education: UsingEdublogs For Transition Collaboration

Janice Seabrooks-Blackmore* , Karen B Patterson**

* Associate Professor, Program Director of Exceptional Student Education ** Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Deaf, Interpreter Education

Seabrooks-Blackmore, J., and Patterson, K. B. (2013). Preservice Teachers In Special Education: Using Edublogs For Transition Collaboration. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2409

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Examining Teachers' Role In Using Virtual LearningEnvironment To Support ConventionalEducation In Icelandic Schools

Gisli Thorsteinsson*

University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Thorsteinsson, G. (2013). Examining Teachers' Role In Using Virtual Learning Environment To Support Conventional Education In Icelandic Schools. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2410

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

A Comparison Of Traditional And CooperativeLearning Methods In Online Learning

Lori Kupczynski* , Marie Anne Mundy**, Alberto Ruiz***

* Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville. ** Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville. *** Professor and Dean, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M. A. and Ruiz , A. (2013). A Comparison Of Traditional And Cooperative Learning Methods In Online Learning. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 21-28 . https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2411

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Determining Online Graduate Student Expectations:The Use Of MET Expectations Hypothesis

Claretha Hughes* , Patrice Bax**, Marty Brack***, Dennis Beck****

* University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. ** Program Coordinator, Center for Multicultural and Diversity Education, Arkansas. *** Red Leaf Circle, Hoover. **** Assistant Professor, Educational Technology, University of Arkansas.

Hughes, C., Bax, P.,Brack , M., and Beck, D. (2013). Determining Online Graduate Student Expectations: The Use of MET Expectations Hypothesis. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2412

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

Technology Engineering Online Learner Metrics ToAnalyze Instructional Efficacy

James Edward Osler II* , Mahmud A. Mansaray**

* North Carolina Central University ** North Carolina Central University

Osler , J. E., and Mansaray , M. A. (2013). Technology Engineering Online Learner Metrics To Analyze Instructional Efficacy. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.10.2.2413

Abstract

References

Full Article (HTML)

Pdf

* Associate Professor, Program Director of Exceptional Student Education

** Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Exceptional Deaf, Interpreter Education

Lori Kupczynski* , Marie Anne Mundy, Alberto Ruiz*

* Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Assistant Professor, Educational Leadership and Counseling, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

* Professor and Dean, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Claretha Hughes* , Patrice Bax, Marty Brack*, Dennis Beck****

* University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Program Coordinator, Center for Multicultural and Diversity Education, Arkansas.

* Red Leaf Circle, Hoover.

**** Assistant Professor, Educational Technology, University of Arkansas.

* North Carolina Central University

** North Carolina Central University