We read with interest the recent opinion article, “Online learning isn’t as inclusive as you may think,” published by University Affairs in early May. We feel the authors provided a limited perspective regarding online education and online learners. We disagree with several of the
authors’ contentions and generalizations, which we outline below. We also direct the authors and readers to sources that may help to address some of the issues the authors raise.
First, the authors suggest online learning provides opportunities to those who might otherwise have been “excluded from or marginalized in higher education.” This is a generalization for which we feel perhaps the wrong words were chosen. At Athabasca University (AU), where we
teach, we see no indication that our students come here due to feelings of exclusion or marginalization.
With the rise in online and hybrid courses at the post-secondary level, many institutions are offering various online learning readiness assessments to students who are considering these instructional formats. Following a discussion of the haracteristics often attributed to successful online learners, as well as a review of a sample of the publicly available online readiness surveys, an application of one representative tool is described. Specifically, the Distance Education Aptitude and Readiness Scale was administered in both hybrid and face-to-face sections of beginning post-secondary French across a two-year span. Differences in scores between groups, as well as the relationship between scores and
grades are examined.
With the rise in online and hybrid courses at the post-secondary level, many institutions are offering various online learning readiness assessments to students who are considering these instructional formats. Following a discussion of the characteristics often attributed to successful online learners, as well as a review of a sample of the publicly available online readiness surveys, an application of one representative tool is described. Specifically, the Distance Education Aptitude and Readiness Scale was administered in both hybrid and face-to-face sections of beginning post-secondary French across a two-year span. Differences in scores between groups, as well as the relationship between scores and grades are examined.
When building an online program, there are certain big questions that need to be answered. Among them are: What kind of program you want it to be – high tech or low tech? Professor intensive or adjunct driven? Blended learning or fully online? What kind of technology will be used to deliver course content? What about opportunities for collaboration? Indeed, even though distance learning is no longer in its infancy, and there are a whole discipline- full of best practices learned by those who blazed the trail before you, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the questions and the possibilities of what you want your program to look
like today and five years from now.
We created this special report to suggest some responses to the big questions about distance education: About pedagogy, technology, philosophy and administration of distance learning programs. In this report, you will find concise, informative articles on distance education administration and policy that have appeared in Distance Education Report. Titles include:
• Seeing Where the Distance Education Opportunities Lie
• Dumb is Smart: Learning from Our Worst Practices
• Building a Distance Education Program: Key Questions to Answer
• Eight Steps to On-Campus/Online Parity
• Creating a Business Continuity Plan for Your Distance Education Program
• Integrating Distance Education Programs into the Institution
• Solving the Problems of Faculty Ownership with Online Courses
The mass of program and policy issues confronting distance education administrators grows
every day. We hope this special report will help you conceptualize, manage and grow the
distance education program at your school.
Christopher Hill
Editor
Distance Education Report
When building an online program, there are certain big questions that need to be answered. Among them are: What kind of program you want it to be – high tech or low tech? Professor intensive or adjunct driven? Blended learning or fully online? What kind of technology will be used to deliver course content? What about opportunities for collaboration?
The ability to reach a variety of audiences in diverse environments has made distance learning a major form of education
and training in the 21st century. Though traditionally encountered in the educational and business communities, distance learning has proven an important resource for a variety of other constituencies. Terrorist groups have exploited the digital domain as a means of recruitment, propaganda and training, and other related activities, including the use of distance learning as a strategic resource and force multiplier. The distance learning strategies and tactics of jihadists are reviewed as we explore the dark side of distance learning.
When building an online program, there are certain big questions that need to be answered. Among them are: What kind of program you want it to be – high tech or low tech? Professor intensive or adjunct driven? Blended learning or fully online? What kind of technology will be used to deliver course content? What about opportunities for collaboration? Indeed, even though distance learning is no longer in its infancy, and there are a whole discipline-full of best practices learned by those who blazed the trail before you, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the questions and the possibilities of what you want your program to look like today and five years from now. We created this special report to suggest some responses to the big questions about distance education: About pedagogy, technology, philosophy and administration of distance learning programs. In this report, you will find concise, informative articles on distance education administration and policy that have appeared in Distance Education Report. Titles include:
• Seeing Where the Distance Education Opportunities Lie
• Dumb is Smart: Learning from Our Worst Practices
• Building a Distance Education Program: Key Questions to Answer
• Eight Steps to On-Campus/Online Parity
• Creating a Business Continuity Plan for Your Distance Education Program
• Integrating Distance Education Programs into the Institution
• Solving the Problems of Faculty Ownership with Online Courses
The mass of program and policy issues confronting distance education administrators grows every day. We hope this special report will help you conceptualize, manage and grow the distance education program at your school.
In the mid-1980s as a further education lecturer I was mocked by some more traditional colleagues for using “lantern slides”, their term for the then newfangled technology of the overhead projector, or OHP. These Luddites strutted the corridors with coffee-tinted sheaves of notes stuffed untidily under their arms. They would sweep into the classroom, fling their pencil-written papyri on the lectern and, without so much as a glance at their students, commence reading out loud.
Administrators at many colleges and universities have had online courses at their institutions for many years, now. One of the hidden challenges about online courses is that they tend to be observed and evaluated far less frequently than their face-to-face course counterparts. This is party due to the fact that many of us administrators today never taught online courses ourselves when we were teaching. This article provides six "secrets" to performing meaningful observations and evaluations of online teaching, including how to use data analytics, avoid biases, and produce useful results even if observers have never taught online themselves.
Administrators at many colleges and universities have had online courses at their institutions for many years, now. One of the hidden challenges about online courses is that they tend to be observed and evaluated far less frequently than their face-to-face course counterparts. This is party due to the fact that many of us administrators today never taught online courses ourselves when we were teaching. This article provides six "secrets" to performing meaningful observations and evaluations of online teaching,
including how to use data analytics, avoid biases, and produce useful results even if observers have never taught online themselves.
Online learning and digital interaction is pervasive in today’s educational environment.
Where rich multimedia content once was an exception, it's increasingly the rule in K-12 and college classrooms. Blended or hybrid courses that mix elements of traditional classroom learning with online education are the norm in many school districts and universities. And completely online courses — not to mention entirely virtual colleges and school districts —
are emerging with growing frequency. But educational institutions aren’t just delivering learning content differently; they’re interacting digitally with the diverse stakeholders that make up the education community.
For instance, students access grades and transcripts online. Parents monitor student attendance electronically and e-mail teachers with their concerns. Students and teachers collaborate via social networks. School staff members conduct common employee transactions — choosing benefits, booking vacation time, etc. — through district Web portals. And the list goes on.
Yet, the vast potential of online learning and digital interaction comes with significant technology challenges. Broadening learning opportunities through multimedia tools, offering remote access to educational content, and letting users remotely tap into school data and systems demands that schools manage new levels of IT complexity and adopt more sophisticated approaches to IT security. This guidebook is designed to help educational institutions deal with these issues.
We’ll examine significant trends in online learning to gain an understanding of what colleges and school districts need to prepare for. It’s clear that technology is changing teaching models — both inside and outside of the traditional classroom. Funding reductions for public universities are forcing higher education institutions to reconsider the delivery model for college courses. Governors and mayors pressure school districts to improve student performance — especially in critical subjects like science and math. Educators and administrators search for effective and affordable approaches for keeping at-risk students in school and helping special-needs students succeed. Online learning and new forms of digital interaction play a growing and evolving role in all these issues. But if technology is going to answer these challenges, the IT environment must be simplified. Therefore, we’ll present strategies for managing growing technological complexity. Students, parents, teachers and administrators expect 24/7 access to course material, grades, attendance, admissions and more. What's more, they want to access that information from a dizzying array of devices, from traditional desktops and laptops, to smartphones and slick new tablets. Some of those devices may be owned and managed by the educational institution — but a growing number of them are not. How do you respond to all of this without deploying hundreds of conflicting applications and hiring an army of expensive IT professionals to keep it all straight? We’ll show you some solutions through powerful technologies like endpoint virtualization.
This paper analyzes recent developments in e-learning technologies with a particular focus on the Canadian post-secondary education system. Using OUSA‟s four pillars of affordability, accessibility, accountability, and quality, e-learning technologies are analyzed for the potential benefit they may bring to the Canadian post-secondary education system as well as the effects existing technologies have already had. While a number of serious concerns persist, the conclusion is drawn that e-learning technologies, with the proper implementation, can provide great benefits to learners, institutions, and society at large. A number of e-learning enhancement strategies for institutions follow this analysis.
Students' performance in online learniong environments is associated with their readiness to adopt a digital learning approach. Traditional concept of readiness for online learning is connected with students' competencies of using technology for learning purposes. We in this research, however, investigated psychometric aspects of students' preparedness for online learning.
A continued need exists for community college administrators to develop and implement strategies to ensure sufficient staffing to meet demand for online courses and promote student success. The problem this study addressed was threefold. First, online instructors in the local setting are overextended and are consequently unable to implement best practices. Because overextended online instructors cannot offer the presence and feedback needed to promote success, online student performance as measured by final course grades suffers. Another problem was that the current institutional system encourages overload teaching assignments. Finally, increased teaching loads can have negative ramifications on online instructor attentiveness, student performance, and academic rigor. The purpose of this descriptive quantitative study was to collect relevant data to examine the relationships among (a) online instructor employment status, (b) online instructor teaching load, and (c) online student performance at a community college. The study used both comparative and correlational research designs to address the research questions using ex post facto data. No statistically significant correlations were found between student success and employment status. However, a negative correlation was discovered between course overload and
student success as measured by final course grades and completion rates. Recommendations for future
research include an examination of seniority and tenure status of faculty and a wider geographic and
institutional type study to ensure generalizability of the results.
Encouraging benchmarking in e-learning supported the dissemination of e-learning benchmarks developed by the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and ELearning (ACODE). Dissemination activities, including provision of web-based
information and of training, were required to enhance the accessibility to the sector of the benchmarks and the guidelines for their use.
The purpose of this descriptive quantitative study was to examine the quality elements of online learning in a regional doctoral
program. Utilizing the six quality dimensions of Hathaway’s (2009) theory of online learning quality as a framework, the study
investigated instructor-learner, learner-learner, learner-content, learner-interface, learner-instructional strategies, and social
presence in order to explore the frequency and importance of these elements. A likert-style survey administered through Qualtrics was used to report self-perceptions of the doctoral students and faculty members. Descriptive statistics for the survey and subscales indicated alignment with the review of literature. Course design, instructor’s facilitation, and student interaction were factors impacting learning outcomes (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006). Faculty participation was also found to dramatically improve the performance and satisfaction of students (Arbaugh & Rau, 2007; Hrastinski, 2009). Resultantly, five conclusions emerged from
the study. First doctoral students and faculty valued the frequency of corporate interaction, clear prompt feedback, and multiple
opportunities to learn and demonstrate learning. Secondly, instructor to learner interaction has to be an intentional practice. Third, the inclusion of learning technologies is necessary for building relationships, making connections and giving credibility to the learning environment. The fourth conclusion revealed that students were more concerned with the quality of assignments than faculty; and finally, faculty responses to students’ discussions is an area for improvement in the online program.
This study seeks to identify common factors that leaders in online instruction consider most critical to successful teaching and learning at a distance. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the teaching philosophy narratives of the nominees for the University System of Georgia Regents’ Teaching Excellence Award for Online Teaching was conducted. The total number of times a concept was mentioned and the percentage of nominees who cited each concept were computed. The results indicate the relative importance of each concept to these leading practitioners in the field. Rapport, design, engagement, feedback, research, and course improvement emerged as some of the most commonly cited themes, and these correspond with the literature review of best practices for online instruction. However, these instructors also emphasized course content as a significant element, even though this concept is less prevalent in the literature. The emphasis on content by these nominees underscores the importance of this theme and suggests that content is a factor that should be carefully considered in online instruction.
Dalhousie University’s Centre for Learning and Teaching offers a Certificate in University Teaching and Learning, which includes a 12-week course entitled Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. This course provides the certificate’s theory component and has evolved to reflect the changing needs of future educators. One significant change is the development of a blended course model that incorporates graded online facilitation, prompted by the recognition that teaching assistants and faculty are increasingly required to teach online or blended (i.e., combining face-to-face and online) courses. This study invited graduate students enrolled in the course to participate in pre- and post-facilitation questionnaires that assessed their awareness, competence, confidence, and attitudes towards online and blended learning. Students recognized the value of the online component for future teaching expertise and experienced increased awareness, competence, and confidence regarding teaching online. However, preference for face-to-face teaching and student learning did not change.
Faculty members play a central role in the development, implementation, and long-term sustainability of online and blended education programs. Therefore, faculty recruitment and retention strategies for these programs must align with the needs of the faculty. This article highlights the results of an institutional study conducted at a public comprehensive university in 2012 that examined factors influencing faculty participation and retention in online and blended education. This article also provides a comparative overview of the results of a similar institutional study conducted at The George Washington University (GWU) in 1997 that examined factors influencing faculty participation in distance education. The original surveys from the 1997 GWU study were updated for the 2012 Armstrong study. The results revealed that while technology and learning platforms have continued to evolve over the past 15 years, many of the needs and concerns of faculty are relatively similar. The results also revealed that faculty involvement is quintessential in the development and expansion of online and blended programs as well as in the design of faculty development initiatives.
• As part of the Open Ontario Plan outlined in the 2010 Speech from the Throne and the 2010 Budget, the government announced the intention to establish an Ontario Online Institute (OOI).
• While Ontario has a strong foundation to build on including existing elearning initiatives such as Contact North/Contact Nord, elearnnetwork/ reseauelearning and OntarioLearn, it was recognized that these initiatives do not capture the full scope of elearning activity taking place at our institutions. As a result, a survey of colleges and universities was done in spring 2010.
As a result, a survey of colleges and universities was done in spring 2010.