Advertisement

What Makes Good Online Instruction Good?: New Opportunities and Old Barriers

  • J. Michael Spector
Part of the Lifelong Learning Book Series book series (LLLB, volume 12)

This book is about changes in learning and instruction and implications for learners, teachers, designers and policy makers. Many of the relevant changes are related to new technologies and developing views of how, when, where and why people manage to learn different kinds of things more or less effectively. This chapter focuses on distance learning technologies and questions pertaining to the evaluation of a particular kind of distance learning—online instruction. Criteria that appear relevant to assessing effectiveness are presented and discussed. Arguments for and against online instruction being held to different quality standards are presented. The chapter concludes with remarks about the personalities of online learning groups and how these might affect learning outcomes.

Keywords

Online Learning Student Evaluation Online Instruction School Engagement Blended Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrami, R. C., Apollonia, S., & Cohen, P. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boekarts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Boone, W., & Butler Kahle, J. (1998). Student perceptions of instruction, peer interest, and adult support for middle school science: Differences by race and gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 333–340.Google Scholar
  5. Bouwsma, O. K. (1975). Unpublished seminar notes. Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliot, T. S. (1934). The rock. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  8. Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 10, S1–S12.Google Scholar
  9. Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. N. (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college teachercourse evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganesan, R. (2004, July). Perceptions and practices of expert teachers in Technology-based distance and distributed learning environments. Unpublished dissertation. Syracuse, NY: School of Education, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Hadfield, J. (1992). Classroom dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, J. D., Spector, J. M., Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor competencies: Standards for face-to-face, online and blended settings. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Learning Development Institute (2005). Presidential workshop and panel session on learners in a changing learning landscape: Questions formulated by participating members. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from http://www.learndev.org/ibstpi-AECT2005. html#anchor1672398.
  17. Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Student evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. with Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.Google Scholar
  20. Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  21. Schank, R. C., & Fano, A. E. (1995). Memory and expectations in learning, language and visual understanding. Artificial Intelligence Review, 9(4–5), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scriven, M. (1995). Student ratings offer useful input to teacher evaluations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 4(7). Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v = 4&n = 7.
  23. Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effects of student teams and peer tutoring on academic achievement and time on task. Journal of experimental education, 48, 253–257.Google Scholar
  24. Spector, J. M. (2000). Trends and issues in educational technology: How far we have not come. Update Semiannual Bulletin, 21(2). Published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information &Technology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved on April 4, 2006, from http://suedweb.syr.edu/faculty/spector/publications/trends-tech-educ-eric.pdf.
  25. Spector, J. M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 3, 27–37.Google Scholar
  26. Spector, J. M. (2005). Time demands in online instruction. Distance Education, 26(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spector, J. M., & De la Teja, I. (2001, December). Competencies for online teaching. ERIC Digest EDO-IR-2001–09. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Information Technology Clearinghouse. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/.
  28. Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains (Final report to the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  29. Spector, J. M., Doughty, P. L., & Yonai, B. A. (2003). Cost and learning effects of alternative e-collaboration methods in online settings (Final report for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Cost Effective Use of Technology in Teaching Initiative). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  30. Storrings, D. A. (2005). Attrition in distance education: A meta-analysis. Unpublished dissertation. Syracuse, NY: School of Education, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, R. (1998, January). New research casts doubt on value of student evaluations of professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 16, 1998, A12.Google Scholar
  32. Yager, R., & Yager, S. (1985). Changes in perceptions of science for third, seventh, and eleventh grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Michael Spector
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Systems InstituteFlorida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations