You are here:

Sharing eLearning Evaluation and Quality Measurement Resources
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Ottawa, Canada ; , Executive Director, Council for Ontario Universities, Canada

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

There is no doubt that technology is becoming integral to the University teaching-learning process as ongoing advancements continue to offer, and students continue to demand new and flexible avenues for learning. Yet despite the benefits afforded by eLearning (e.g., convenience, flexibility, accessibility) there are still some individuals within academic and professional communities who are resistant to the concept. Detractors of eLearning have voiced concern over the integrity and quality of education being provided online (Carstens & Worsfold, 2000; DeBard & Guidera, 2000; Speck, 2000). It is imperative that universities come to some kind of agreement regarding and procedures and policies for quality standards in eLearning. Such an initiative will benefit the larger educational community by setting a benchmark for quality standards. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to first identify a rationale for quality standards in University eLearning and then present a model as a "first step" in this process of developing eLearning quality standards.

Citation

MacDonald, C. & Donio, J. (2007). Sharing eLearning Evaluation and Quality Measurement Resources. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 882-889). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB: Burbules& Callister, 2000;
  2. Benson, A. (2003). Dimensions of quality in online degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 145-159.
  3. Bichelmeyer, B.A., Misanchuk, M., & Malopinsky, L. (2001). Adapting a master’s degree course to the web: A case analysis. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2 (1), 49-58.
  4. Burge, E.J. & Haughey, M (2001). Using learning technologies: International perspectives on practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
  5. Burbules, N.C., & Callister, T.A. (2000). Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies. Teachers College Record, 102 (2), 271-293.
  6. Canada, M. (2000). Students as seekers in online courses. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom, No. 84 (pp. 35-40). San Francisco, CA:
  7. Carr, C.S., & Carr, A.M. (2000). Instructional design in distance education (IDDE): A web-based performance support system for educators and designers. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1 (4), 317-325.
  8. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.
  9. DeBard, R., & Guidera, S. (2000). Adapting asynchronous communication to meet the seven principles of effective teaching. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(3), 219-230.
  10. Evans, T., & Nation, D. (2000). Changing university teaching: Reflections on creating educational technologies. London, England: Kogan Page.
  11. Farres, L.G., & MacDonald, C.J. (2006). Activity theory and context: An understanding of the development of constructivist instructional design models. In de Figueiredo, A.D., and Afonso, A.P. (eds) Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc., 161-178.
  12. Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in the analysis of transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9 (1), 1-8.
  13. Garrison, D.R., & Anderson, T. (2000). Transforming and enhancing university teaching: Stronger and weaker technological influences. In T. Evans& D. Nation (Eds.), Changing university teaching: Reflections on creating educational technologies (pp. 24-33). London, England: Kogan Page.
  14. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 87-105.
  15. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
  16. Hacker, D.J., & Niederhauser, D.S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom, No. 84 (pp. 53-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  17. Hitlin, P. & Rainie, L. (2005, August). Teens, technology, and school. Data memo.Washington,D.C.: Pew Internet& American Life Project.
  18. Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance education courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151-167.
  19. Kanuka, H. (2002). Guiding principles for facilitating higher levels of web-based distance teaching and learning in post-secondary settings. Distance Education, 23(2), 163-182.
  20. Khan, B.H. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Webbased instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  21. Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D.H. Jonassen& S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  22. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T-L., Muirhead, W., Hinton, C., Carson, B., & Banit, E. (2005). Addressing the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual framework learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, (1), 79-98.
  23. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E., Farres, L.G., Breithaupt, K. & Gabriel, M.A. (2001). The Demand-Driven Learning Model: A framework for web-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 4 (1), 9-30.
  24. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Farres, L.G., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M.A. (2001). The Demand-Driven
  25. MacDonald, C.J., & Gabriel, M.A. (1998). Toward A Partnership Model for Web Based Learning. The Internet and Higher Education: A Quarterly Review of Innovations in Post-Secondary Education, 1 (3), 203-216.
  26. McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 23(1), 73-92.
  27. McGorry, S.Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (2), 159-177.
  28. McLachlan-Smith, C., & Gunn, C. (2001). Promoting innovation and change in a ‘traditional’ university setting. In F. Lockwood, & A. Gooley (Eds.), Innovation in open and distance learning: Successful development of online and web-based learning. (pp. 38-50). London: Kogan Page.
  29. Noble, D.F. (2002). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press.
  30. Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  31. Pawan, F., Paulus, T.M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (3), 119-140.
  32. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (1), 1-16. Retrieved May 17, 2006 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153.
  33. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
  34. Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2002). Teaching on-line versus face-to-face. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(4), 337-364.
  35. Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R., & Koh, M.H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59-70.
  36. Speck, B.W. (2000). The academy, online classes, and the breach in ethics. In R.E. Weiss, D.S. Knowlton, & B.W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of Effective Teaching in the Online Classroom, No. 84 (pp. 73-81). San
  37. Trentin, G. (2001). From formal training to communities of practice via network-based learning. Educational Technology, 41(2), 5-14.
  38. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Thompson, T-L., Muirhead, W., Hinton, C., Carson, B., & Banit, E. (2005). Addressing the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual framework learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, (1), 79-98.
  39. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E., Farres, L.G., Breithaupt, K. & Gabriel, M.A. (2001). The Demand-Driven Learning Model: A framework for web-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 4 (1), 9-30.

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

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts