Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 98–120 | Cite as

A model for assessing distance learning instruction

  • Vicki L. Cohen
Article

Abstract

AS MORE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION offer computer-mediated distance learning instruction, courses must be well-designed and frequently evaluated. This article proposes a model for assessing distance learning instruction based on six constructs: The Process of Teaching and Learning, Developing a Community of Learners, The Instructor, The Student, Implementation of the Course, and Technology Use. This paper examines each construct by reviewing the research in the field and makes recommendations for their design and evaluation. It is proposed that computer-mediated distance learning instruction be grounded in time-tested and research-based theories of learning to ensure that students receive high quality instruction.

Keywords

distance education distance education and assessment distance learning computer-mediated instruction assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, J., & Faris, S. (Winter 2000). Integrating technology in preservice literacy instruction: A survey of elementary education students’ attitudes toward computers.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 149–161.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, J., & McKay, M. (April 2001). Designing and delivering an online course for K-12 educators.T.H.E. Journal, 28(9), 68–75.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, R., Rojo de Rubaleava, B., & St. Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research.Distance Education; An International Journal, 21(2), 290–299.Google Scholar
  4. BlackBoard [Online]. Available: http://www.blackboard.comGoogle Scholar
  5. Butzin, S.M. (2000). Project CHILD: A decade of success for young children.T.H.E. Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2882B.cfmGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, V. (2000). Using the web to enhance field experiences for preservice teachers. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) 2000, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Creed, T. (1996). Extending the classroom walls electronically. Adapted from W. Campbell & K. Smith (Eds.).New Paradigms for College Teaching. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. [Online]. Available: http://www.employees.csbsju.edu/tcreed/ecw.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. Diaz, D. (March/April 2000). Carving a new path for distance education research.The Technology Source. [Online]. Available:http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article+id=648Google Scholar
  9. Draves, W. (2000).Teaching online. River Falls, WI: LERN Books.Google Scholar
  10. Gagne, M., & Sheperd, M. (April 2001). Distance learning in accounting: A comparison between a distance and a traditional graduate accounting class.T.H.E. Journal, 28(9), 58–64.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. (March/April 2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses.The Technology Source. [Online]. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article+id=839Google Scholar
  12. Green, R., & Gentemann, K. (2001). Technology in the curriculum: An assessment of the impact of on-line courses. [Online]. Available: http://assessment.gmu.edu/reports/Eng302Google Scholar
  13. Grossman, C., & Wagner, J. (2000). Assessing learners online.Practitioner File. ERIC/ACVE. [Online]. Available: http://ericacve.org/does/pfile03.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermann, F. (1998). Building on-line communities of practice: An example and implications.Educational Technology, 38(1), 16–23.Google Scholar
  15. Hubbard, L. (2000). Technology-based math curriculums.T.H.E. Journal, 28(3), 80–84.Google Scholar
  16. Illinois Online Network (2000a). Instructional design for online course development. [Online]. Available:http://illinois.online.uillinois.edu/ONresources/instructionalDesign/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. Illinois Online Network (2000b). ION Resources: Synergy in the classroom. [Online]. Available: http://illinois.online.uillinois.edu/resources/conferencing.index.html [March 15, 2001]Google Scholar
  18. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (March 2000).Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education. Washington DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. [Online]. Available: http://www.ihep.com/Publications.php?parm=Pubs/abstract?30Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, S.D., Aragon, D.R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29–49.Google Scholar
  20. Kearsley, G. (2000).Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  21. Lindner, P. (1998). Assessment tools for distance learning: A review of the literature.ERIC document ED426 725.Google Scholar
  22. MacKennon, G. (2000). The dilemma of evaluating electronic discussion groups.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 125–131.Google Scholar
  23. Market Data Retrieval (2002). Distance learning programs.The College Technology Review. [Online]. Available: http://www.schooldata.comGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (Spring 2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 417–431.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED330 321.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, M., & Thompson, M. (1997). The effects of distance learning (ACSDE Research Monograph No.15). University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  27. Morrissey, C.A. (1998). The impact of the internet on management education: What the research shows. [Online]. Available: http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/cases/1998-06.aspGoogle Scholar
  28. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999).Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington DC:The Institute for Higher Education Policy. [Online] Available: http://www.ihep.com/Publications.php?parm=Pubs/Abstract?9Google Scholar
  30. Poole, D. (Winter 2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 152–177.Google Scholar
  31. Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities.Kappan, 87(7), 518–523.Google Scholar
  32. Ryan, R.C. (January, 2000). Student assessment comparison of lecture and online construction equipment and methods classes.T.H.E. Journal, 27(6). [Online]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2596B.cfmGoogle Scholar
  33. Schulman, A.H., & Sims, R.L. (June, 1999). Learning in an online format versus an in-class format: An experimental study.T.H.E. Journal, 26 (11), 54–56. [Online]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/Google Scholar
  34. St. Edward’s University (2000). Instructional design workshop. St. Edward’s University: Center for Teaching Excellence. [Online]. Available: http://stedwards.edu/cte/idesign.htmGoogle Scholar
  35. University of Wisconsin (2001). Online resources for instructors. University of Wisconsin, Madison: Learning Technology and Distance Education. [Online]. Available: http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/ltde/ORFI/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  36. Wade, W. (October, 1999). Assessment in distance learning: What do students know and how do we know that they know it?T.H.E. Journal, 27(3), 94–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationFairleigh Dickinson UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations