You are here:

The Impact of Altered Realties: Implications of Online Delivery for Learners’ Interactions, Expectations, and Learning Skills
Article

, , , University of South Dakota, United States

International Journal on E-Learning, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Although research consistently demonstrates that students learn content in online classes as well as their campus based counterparts and are equally satisfied with the quality of their learning, more information is needed that describes how the learning experiences themselves may vary. A traditional group of students was compared with an online group taking the same graduate class in research methods using the same materials and with the same instructor. Data representing learning outcomes, attitudes toward coursework, and beliefs about the nature of their experiences were gathered and compared. Both groups scored equally on the pre and postquantitative measures of learning outcomes and satisfaction, but described decidedly different learning experiences. They valued different kinds of interactions, held different expectations for the courses, and described development of contrasting learning skills and strategies that led toward success in the course. Online learning was revealed as a distinctly different experience than face-to-face learning, offering insight into better understanding the nature of the experience of online learning and suggesting that online course designers focus their attention on particular elements that support the unique experiences of student who select this delivery mode.

Citation

Reisetter, M., LaPointe, L. & Korcuska, J. (2007). The Impact of Altered Realties: Implications of Online Delivery for Learners’ Interactions, Expectations, and Learning Skills. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 55-80. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2023 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.
  2. Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 391-398.
  3. Bickle, M. C., & Carroll, J. C. (2003). Checklist for quality online instruction: Outcomes for learners, the professor, and the institution. College Student Journal, 37(2), 208-215.
  4. Billings, D. M., Connors, H. R., & Skiba, D. J. (2001). Benchmarking best practices in web-based nursing courses. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(3), 41-53.
  5. Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  6. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourses: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
  7. Chappell, C., Rhodes, C., Solomon, N., Tennant, M., & Yates, L (2003). Reconstructing the lifelong learner: Pedagogy and identity in individual, organisational, and social change. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
  8. Chyung, S. Y. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 36-50.
  9. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Cooper, L. W. (2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer applications classes. Technological Horizons in Education, 28(8), 52-58.
  11. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reisetter, LaPointe, and Korcuska
  13. Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guilford Press. Granger, D., & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance: The learner in context. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 169180). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
  15. King, F. B. (2002). A virtual student: Not an ordinary Joe. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 157-166. King, K. P. (2001). Educators revitalize the classroom "bulletin board": A case study of the influence of online dialogue on face to face classes from an adult learning perspective. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 337-354.
  16. Lally, V., & Barrett, E. (1999). Building a learning community online: Towards socio-academic interaction. Research Papers in Education, 14(2), 147-163.
  17. Leasure, A. R., Davis, L., & Thievon, S. L. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a traditional vs. World wide web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 149-154.
  18. Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self concept, and other predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41-40.
  19. Lim, J., & Karol, J. (2002). Student achievement, satisfaction and instructional delivery modes. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research on distance education in South Dakota (pp. 77-85). Pierre, SD: South Dakota Star Schools Project.
  20. Lindner, J. R., Dooley, K. E., & Murphy, T. H. (2001). Differences in competencies between doctoral students on-campus and at a distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 25-40.
  21. Lockyer, L., Patterson, J., & Harper, B. (2001). ICT in higher education: Evaluating outcomes for health education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 275-283.
  22. Lundberg, D. (2000). Integrating online technology into counseling curricula: Emerging humanistic factors. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 38(3), 142-152. Moore, M.G.
  23. Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial: What does research say about the learners using computermediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61-64.
  24. Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
  25. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: A factor-analytic study. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 7-22.
  26. Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15-35.
  27. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
  28. Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  29. Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Zhao, M. A. J. (2002). Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance learning courses. Journal of Education for Business, 77(6), 313-318.
  30. Peters, O. (2003). Learning with new media in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  31. Pintrich, P. (2000).The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  32. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Web based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  33. Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. Quarterly Journal of Distance Education, 54(4), 227-291.
  34. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomena. Chapel Hill: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina.
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Question Psychology, 25(1), 54-57.
  36. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  37. Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.
  38. Smith, P. L., & Dillion, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6-23. Thirunarayanan, M. O., & Peres-Prado, A. (2001-2002, Winter). Comparing web-based and classroom based learning: A quantitative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 131-137.
  39. Whipp, J. L., & Schweizer, H. (2000). Meeting psychological needs in web-based courses for teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1), 26-31.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.