Simonson / Michael / Schlosser Quarterly Review of Distance Education Journal Issue

Volume 16 #4
1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-1-68123-491-5
Verlag: IAP - Information Age Publishing
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 117 Seiten

The Quarterly Review of Distance Education is a rigorously refereed journal publishing articles, research briefs, reviews, and editorials dealing with the theories, research, and practices of distance education. The Quarterly Review publishes articles that utilize various methodologies that permit generalizable results which help guide the practice of the field of distance education in the public and private sectors. The Quarterly Review publishes fulllength manuscripts as well as research briefs, editorials, reviews of programs and scholarly works, and columns. The Quarterly Review defines distance education as institutionallybased formal education in which the learning group is separated and interactive technologies are used to unite the learning group.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Simonson,

Michael,

Schlosser,

Charles,

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Statement of Purpose;6
2.1;Quarterly Review of Distance Education;4
2.2;“Research That Guides Practice”;4
2.2.1;Volume 16 Number 4, 2015;4
2.2.1.1;ARTICLES;4
2.2.1.2;Book Reviews;4
2.3;Quarterly Review of Distance Education Editors and Editorial Board;3
2.3.1;Editors;3
2.3.2;Assistant Editor;3
2.3.3;Editorial Assistant;3
2.3.4;Department Editors;3
2.3.5;International;3
2.3.6;Lya Visser, Learning Development Institute;3
2.3.7;Lucy Green, Georgia Southern University;3
2.3.8;Editorial Board;3
3;Online Module to Assure Success as Prelicensure Nursing Students Transition to Professional Practice;8
3.1;Diana-Lyn Baptiste and Sarah J. M. Shaefer;8
3.1.1;Johns Hopkins University;8
3.1.1.1;Prelicensure nursing students have a final capstone, practicum, or clinical course as they transition to the professional nurse role. Generally, the student role requires increased independent practice and this can be a challenge. To maximize learnin...;8
3.1.1.1.1;BACKGROUND;8
3.1.1.1.2;DESCRIPTION OF ONLINE MODULE;9
3.1.1.1.3;1. distinguish role of the nursing student, preceptor, and faculty mentor;;9
3.1.1.1.4;2. examine potential challenges in meeting learning objectives during clinical practicum; and;9
3.1.1.1.4.1;3. explore tools for maximizing student learning from preceptors and faculty mentors.;9
3.1.1.1.4.2;INTERACTIVE STRATEGIES;10
3.1.1.1.4.3;CONCLUSION;10
3.1.1.1.4.4;REFERENCES;11
3.1.1.1.4.4.1;Figure 1;11
4;Analysis of Student Perceptions of the Psychosocial Learning Environment in Online and Face-to-Face Career and Technical Education Courses;14
4.1;Diane L. Carver Michael F. Kosloski, Jr.;14
4.1.1;Bethel School District Old Dominion University;14
4.1.1.1;This study analyzed student perceptions of the psychosocial learning environment in online and face-to-face career and technical education courses, and used survey data from a school district in Washington state. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to mea...;14
4.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;14
4.1.1.1.2;Purpose Statement;15
4.1.1.1.3;Research Questions;15
4.1.1.1.4;Theoretical Framework;16
4.1.1.1.5;Significance;16
4.1.1.1.6;REVIEW OF LITERATURE;16
4.1.1.1.7;Online and Distance Learning;16
4.1.1.1.8;Career and Technical Education Online;16
4.1.1.1.9;Psychosocial Learning Environment;17
4.1.1.1.10;Student Perceptions;18
4.1.1.1.11;METHODS AND PROCEDURES;18
4.1.1.1.12;Population and Sample;19
4.1.1.1.13;Instrument Used;19
4.1.1.1.14;Research Variables;20
4.1.1.1.15;Data Analysis;20
4.1.1.1.16;FINDINGS;20
4.1.1.1.17;Response Rate;20
4.1.1.1.18;Statistical Analyses: Research Questions 1 and 2;20
4.1.1.1.18.1;Scale Results: Face to Face;22
4.1.1.1.19;Statistical Analyses: Research Question 3;23
4.1.1.1.20;CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION;24
4.1.1.1.21;RECOMMENDATIONS;25
4.1.1.1.22;REFERENCES;26
4.1.1.1.22.1;Table 1;19
4.1.1.1.23;CTE Courses Offered in Washington School District During Current Semester;19
4.1.1.1.23.1;Table 2;21
4.1.1.1.24;Modified Items in Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES);21
4.1.1.1.24.1;Table 3;22
4.1.1.1.25;Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha) for Survey Scales;22
4.1.1.1.26;8;22
4.1.1.1.27;0.90;22
4.1.1.1.28;6;22
4.1.1.1.29;0.91;22
4.1.1.1.30;7;22
4.1.1.1.31;0.90;22
4.1.1.1.32;5;22
4.1.1.1.33;0.86;22
4.1.1.1.34;3;22
4.1.1.1.35;0.76;22
4.1.1.1.36;5;22
4.1.1.1.37;0.82;22
4.1.1.1.38;8;22
4.1.1.1.39;0.93;22
5;Do E-learning Tools Make a Difference?;30
5.1;Results From a Case Study;30
5.1.1;David Desplaces, Carrie A. Blair, and Trent Salvaggio;30
5.1.1.1;College of Charleston;30
5.1.1.1.1;Even as academics continue to debate whether distance education techniques are successful, the market demands increased distance education programs and a growing number of corporations are using e-learning to train their employees. We propose and exa...;30
5.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;30
5.1.1.1.1.2;LEARNER THEORY and E-LEARNING;31
5.1.1.1.1.3;E-TOOLS AND THEIR IMPACT ON LEARNING;31
5.1.1.1.1.4;METHODS;33
5.1.1.1.1.5;Participants;33
5.1.1.1.1.6;Measures;34
5.1.1.1.1.7;RESULTS;35
5.1.1.1.1.8;Descriptive Statistics;35
5.1.1.1.1.9;Group Variance Evaluation;35
5.1.1.1.1.10;Predicting Moderated Model Evaluation;35
5.1.1.1.1.11;DISCUSSION;36
5.1.1.1.1.12;PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS;38
5.1.1.1.1.13;LIMITATIONS;38
5.1.1.1.1.14;FURTHER RESEARCH;38
5.1.1.1.1.15;SUMMARY;39
5.1.1.1.1.16;REFERENCES;39
5.1.1.1.1.16.1;Figure 1;33
5.1.1.1.1.16.2;Table 1;36
5.1.1.1.1.17;Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficients ? and Intercorrelations;36
5.1.1.1.1.18;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.19;83;36
5.1.1.1.1.20;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.21;0.827;36
5.1.1.1.1.22;41;36
5.1.1.1.1.23;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.24;0.848;36
5.1.1.1.1.25;90;36
5.1.1.1.1.26;.166;36
5.1.1.1.1.27;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.28;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.29;90;36
5.1.1.1.1.30;.256;36
5.1.1.1.1.31;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.32;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.33;90;36
5.1.1.1.1.34;.050;36
5.1.1.1.1.35;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.36;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.37;90;36
5.1.1.1.1.38;.064;36
5.1.1.1.1.39;.142;36
5.1.1.1.1.40;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.41;0.615;36
5.1.1.1.1.42;90;36
5.1.1.1.1.43;.157;36
5.1.1.1.1.44;.006;36
5.1.1.1.1.45;.312**;36
5.1.1.1.1.46;—;36
5.1.1.1.1.46.1;Table 2;36
5.1.1.1.1.47;Analysis of Variance;36
5.1.1.1.1.48;1;36
5.1.1.1.1.49;.216;36
5.1.1.1.1.50;.604;36
5.1.1.1.1.51;.439;36
5.1.1.1.1.52;88;36
5.1.1.1.1.53;.357;36
5.1.1.1.1.54;89;36
5.1.1.1.1.55;1;36
5.1.1.1.1.56;.224;36
5.1.1.1.1.57;.638;36
5.1.1.1.1.58;.427;36
5.1.1.1.1.59;88;36
5.1.1.1.1.60;.351;36
5.1.1.1.1.61;89;36
5.1.1.1.1.62;1;36
5.1.1.1.1.63;.074;36
5.1.1.1.1.64;.200;36
5.1.1.1.1.65;.656;36
5.1.1.1.1.66;88;36
5.1.1.1.1.67;.370;36
5.1.1.1.1.68;89;36
5.1.1.1.1.69;1;36
5.1.1.1.1.70;.815;36
5.1.1.1.1.71;2.346;36
5.1.1.1.1.72;.129;36
5.1.1.1.1.73;88;36
5.1.1.1.1.74;.347;36
5.1.1.1.1.75;89;36
5.1.1.1.1.76;1;36
5.1.1.1.1.77;3.898;36
5.1.1.1.1.78;.205;36
5.1.1.1.1.79;.652;36
5.1.1.1.1.80;88;36
5.1.1.1.1.81;19.060;36
5.1.1.1.1.82;89;36
5.1.1.1.1.82.1;Table 3;37
5.1.1.1.1.83;Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Moderating Effect;37
5.1.1.1.1.84;14.79;37
5.1.1.1.1.85;83;37
5.1.1.1.1.86;—;37
5.1.1.1.1.87;68.95;37
5.1.1.1.1.88;41;37
5.1.1.1.1.89;.277;37
5.1.1.1.1.90;—;37
5.1.1.1.1.91;71.96;37
5.1.1.1.1.92;41;37
5.1.1.1.1.93;.244;37
5.1.1.1.1.94;.810**;37
5.1.1.1.1.95;—;37
5.1.1.1.1.96;75.11;37
5.1.1.1.1.97;41;37
5.1.1.1.1.98;.346*;37
5.1.1.1.1.99;.785**;37
5.1.1.1.1.100;.739**;37
5.1.1.1.1.101;—;37
5.1.1.1.1.102;67.23;37
5.1.1.1.1.103;41;37
5.1.1.1.1.104;.320*;37
5.1.1.1.1.105;.691**;37
5.1.1.1.1.106;.693**;37
5.1.1.1.1.107;.625**;37
5.1.1.1.1.108;—;37
5.1.1.1.1.109;506.83;37
5.1.1.1.1.110;41;37
5.1.1.1.1.111;.367*;37
5.1.1.1.1.112;.624**;37
5.1.1.1.1.113;.614**;37
5.1.1.1.1.114;.586**;37
5.1.1.1.1.115;.635**;37
5.1.1.1.1.116;—;37
6;Assessing Faculty Experiences With and Perceptions of an Internal Quality Assurance Process for Undergraduate Distributed Learning Courses;42
6.1;A Pilot Study;42
6.1.1;Ryan Rucker Karen Edwards and Lydia R. Frass;42
6.1.1.1;Midlands Technical College University of South Carolina;42
6.1.1.1.1;To ensure that online courses match traditional classes’ quality, some institutions are implementing internal standards for online course design and quality review. The University of South Carolina created the Distributed Learning Quality Review pr...;42
6.1.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;42
6.1.1.1.1.2;Online Course Quality;42
6.1.1.1.1.3;Quality Review at USC;43
6.1.1.1.1.4;LITERATURE REVIEW;44
6.1.1.1.1.5;Instructional Designers;44
6.1.1.1.1.6;Learning Management Systems;45
6.1.1.1.1.7;Quality Course Design;45
6.1.1.1.1.8;Motivation for Adopting Change;45
6.1.1.1.1.9;THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;46
6.1.1.1.1.10;METHODOLOGY;46
6.1.1.1.1.11;Sample;47
6.1.1.1.1.12;RESULTS;47
6.1.1.1.1.13;Discussion;49
6.1.1.1.1.14;REFERENCES;50
6.1.1.1.1.14.1;Table 1;47
6.1.1.1.1.15;Demographic Information of Sample;47
6.1.1.1.1.16;0-1;47
6.1.1.1.1.17;2-4;47
6.1.1.1.1.18;5-8;47
6.1.1.1.1.19;9-12;47
6.1.1.1.1.20;0-1;47
6.1.1.1.1.21;1-3;47
6.1.1.1.1.22;4-5;47
6.1.1.1.1.23;5+;47
6.1.1.1.1.24;2;47
6.1.1.1.1.25;1;47
6.1.1.1.1.26;2;47
6.1.1.1.1.27;1;47
6.1.1.1.1.28;1;47
6.1.1.1.1.29;2;47
6.1.1.1.1.30;3;47
6.1.1.1.1.31;3;47
6.1.1.1.1.32;3;47
6.1.1.1.1.33;2;47
6.1.1.1.1.34;4;47
7;Intersubjectivity in Theoretical and Practical Online Courses;52
7.1;Janine Lim Barbara M. Hall;52
7.1.1;Andrews University Ashford University;52
7.1.1.1;Rigorous interaction between peers has been an elusive goal in online asynchronous discussions. Intersubjectivity, the goal of peer-to-peer interaction, is a representation of a higher quality of synthesis. It is the representation of knowledge const...;52
7.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;52
7.1.1.1.2;INTERSUBJECTIVITY IN SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST ONLINE DISCUSSIONS;53
7.1.1.1.3;Social Constructivism in Online Discussion;53
7.1.1.1.4;Interventions to Improve Quality of Online Discussions;53
7.1.1.1.5;Intersubjectivity in Online Discussions;55
7.1.1.1.6;Theoretical Versus Practical Course Content;55
7.1.1.1.7;PURPOSE OF THE STUDY;55
7.1.1.1.8;METHODS;56
7.1.1.1.9;Research Context;56
7.1.1.1.10;Participants;57
7.1.1.1.11;Research Design;57
7.1.1.1.12;Measures;57
7.1.1.1.13;Procedures;58
7.1.1.1.14;RESULTS;59
7.1.1.1.15;Peer Responses Descriptive Statistics;59
7.1.1.1.16;Intersubjectivity of Peer Responses;60
7.1.1.1.17;DISCUSSION;61
7.1.1.1.18;CONCLUSION;62
7.1.1.1.19;REFERENCES;63
7.1.1.1.19.1;Table 1;59
7.1.1.1.20;Peer Response Descriptives for Each Course;59
7.1.1.1.21;352;59
7.1.1.1.22;506;59
7.1.1.1.23;351;59
7.1.1.1.24;352;59
7.1.1.1.25;506;59
7.1.1.1.26;351;59
7.1.1.1.27;2;59
7.1.1.1.28;4;59
7.1.1.1.29;3;59
7.1.1.1.30;0;59
7.1.1.1.31;0;59
7.1.1.1.32;0;59
7.1.1.1.33;572;59
7.1.1.1.34;533;59
7.1.1.1.35;982;59
7.1.1.1.36;1;59
7.1.1.1.37;0;59
7.1.1.1.38;5;59
7.1.1.1.39;70.97;59
7.1.1.1.40;91.62;59
7.1.1.1.41;204.84;59
7.1.1.1.42;.01;59
7.1.1.1.43;.00;59
7.1.1.1.44;.71;59
7.1.1.1.45;71.738;59
7.1.1.1.46;63.122;59
7.1.1.1.47;156.520;59
7.1.1.1.48;.092;59
7.1.1.1.49;.000;59
7.1.1.1.50;.879;59
7.1.1.1.50.1;Table 2;60
7.1.1.1.51;Interaction Analysis Model Phases;60
7.1.1.1.52;98%;60
7.1.1.1.53;100%;60
7.1.1.1.54;70.4%;60
7.1.1.1.55;2%;60
7.1.1.1.56;18.2%;60
7.1.1.1.57;9.1%;60
7.1.1.1.58;0.6%;60
7.1.1.1.59;1.7%;60
7.1.1.1.59.1;Table 3;60
7.1.1.1.60;Discussion Expectations Effect on Peer Responses;60
7.1.1.1.61;2;60
7.1.1.1.62;2;60
7.1.1.1.63;combined with peer;60
7.1.1.1.64;3;60
7.1.1.1.65;8;60
7.1.1.1.66;3–4 total posts;60
7.1.1.1.67;No;60
7.1.1.1.68;Yes;60
7.1.1.1.69;Yes;60
7.1.1.1.70;None;60
7.1.1.1.71;None;60
7.1.1.1.72;None;60
7.1.1.1.73;1.02;60
7.1.1.1.74;1.00;60
7.1.1.1.75;1.45;60
7.1.1.1.76;70.97;60
7.1.1.1.77;91.62;60
7.1.1.1.78;204.84;60
7.1.1.1.78.1;Table 4;61
7.1.1.1.79;Intersubjectivity of Peer Responses;61
7.1.1.1.80;858;61
7.1.1.1.81;351;61
7.1.1.1.82;554.27;61
7.1.1.1.83;729.01;61
7.1.1.1.84;194106.5;61
7.1.1.1.85;15.776;61
7.1.1.1.86;.001;61
8;Triangulating Assessment of Online Collaborative Learning;68
8.1;Jennifer Lock and Carol Johnson;68
8.1.1;University of Calgary;68
8.1.1.1;Collaboration plays an integral role in the construction of knowledge in online learning environments. A supportive foundation for learning can be created through the intentional design of formative and summative assessments that embrace self-, peer-...;68
8.1.1.1.1;INTRODUCTION;68
8.1.1.1.2;COLLABORATION;69
8.1.1.1.3;1. Participation: Requires approximately equal participation among the members.;70
8.1.1.1.4;2. Interaction: Requires members to actively respond to each other as part of the discussion dynamic.;70
8.1.1.1.4.1;3. Synthesis: The product developed by the members is representative of the synthesis of ideas and a result of input from all members.;70
8.1.1.1.4.2;ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING;70
8.1.1.1.4.3;COCONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH COLLABORATION;70
8.1.1.1.4.4;ASSESSING ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING;71
8.1.1.1.4.5;Assessment of Competence;71
8.1.1.1.4.6;Assessment Through Self, Peer, and Instructor Feedback;72
8.1.1.1.4.7;Role of Technology in Assessment;73
8.1.1.1.4.8;ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ASSESSMENT MODEL;73
8.1.1.1.4.9;Assessment Design;73
8.1.1.1.4.10;Assessment Transaction;75
8.1.1.1.4.11;Assessment of Knowledge Construction;75
8.1.1.1.4.12;CONCLUSION;75
8.1.1.1.4.13;REFERENCES;76
8.1.1.1.4.13.1;Figure 1;74
9;Student Evaluation Response Rates of Teacher Performance in Higher Education Online Classes;78
9.1;Kelli R. Paquette, Frank Corbett, Jr., and Melissa Casses;78
9.1.1;Indiana University of Pennsylvania;78
9.1.1.1;The number of students taking at least 1 online course has surpassed 7.1 million and represents 33% (21.3 million) of all higher education students (Allen & Seaman, 2013). With the growing number of online courses, credibility may be questioned. Are ...;78
9.1.1.1.1;PURPOSE;79
9.1.1.1.2;HYPOTHESES;79
9.1.1.1.3;Research Questions;79
9.1.1.1.4;1. In what communication processes in the presentation and delivery of online student evaluations do faculty engage to encourage the completion of these evaluations?;79
9.1.1.1.4.1;2. How do students perceive and respond to communication regarding the completion and importance of online evaluations?;79
9.1.1.1.4.2;SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY;79
9.1.1.1.4.3;LITERATURE REVIEW;79
9.1.1.1.4.4;THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;81
9.1.1.1.4.5;METHOD;81
9.1.1.1.4.6;Participants;81
9.1.1.1.4.7;Materials;81
9.1.1.1.4.8;Procedures;81
9.1.1.1.4.9;ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS;81
9.1.1.1.4.10;RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH;83
9.1.1.1.4.11;LIMITATIONS;84
9.1.1.1.4.12;CONCLUSION;84
9.1.1.1.4.13;REFERENCES;84
9.1.1.1.4.14;Appendix A—Qualtrics Survey for Faculty;86
9.1.1.1.5;1. When was the end of the semester course evaluation first announced to students (choose all that apply)?;86
9.1.1.1.5.1;(a) A week before the last day of the semester;86
9.1.1.1.5.2;(b) 2 weeks before the last day of the semester;86
9.1.1.1.5.3;(c) 3 weeks before the last day of the semester;86
9.1.1.1.5.4;(d) More than 3 weeks before the last day of the semester;86
9.1.1.1.5.5;(e) Other (please specify);86
9.1.1.1.6;2. How was the end of semester course evaluation first announced to the students (choose all that apply)?;86
9.1.1.1.6.1;(a) E-mail announcement;86
9.1.1.1.6.2;(b) Posted to class website;86
9.1.1.1.6.3;(c) Posted to class assignments;86
9.1.1.1.6.4;(d) Posted to a class discussion board;86
9.1.1.1.6.5;(e) Other (Please specify);86
9.1.1.1.7;3. Did you discuss the value of end of semester course evaluations with your students?;87
9.1.1.1.7.1;(a) Yes;87
9.1.1.1.7.2;(b) No;87
9.1.1.1.8;4. Did you use any reminder strategies to encourage students to respond to the evaluation (choose all that apply)?;87
9.1.1.1.8.1;(a) E-mail reminder;87
9.1.1.1.8.2;(b) Posted reminder to class website;87
9.1.1.1.8.3;(c) Posted to class discussion board;87
9.1.1.1.8.4;(d) No reminder strategy used;87
9.1.1.1.8.5;(e) Other (please specify);87
9.1.1.1.9;5. Did you offer students credit (participation points, extra points, etc.) for completing the evaluation?;87
9.1.1.1.9.1;(a) Yes;87
9.1.1.1.9.2;(b) No;87
9.1.1.1.10;6. Did you require students to complete the evaluation (e.g. in order to access the last assignment)?;87
9.1.1.1.11;7. Please comment on any additional strategies used for encouraging student responses to online course evaluations and please add any other insights into this issue.;87
9.1.1.1.11.1;APPENDIX B—Qualtrics Survey for Students;88
9.1.1.1.12;1. When was the end of the semester course evaluation first announced to you (choose all that apply)?;88
9.1.1.1.12.1;(a) A week before the last day of the semester;88
9.1.1.1.12.2;(b) 2 weeks before the last day of the semester;88
9.1.1.1.12.3;(c) 3 weeks before the last day of the semester;88
9.1.1.1.12.4;(d) More than 3 weeks before the last day of the semester;88
9.1.1.1.12.5;(e) Other (please specify);88
9.1.1.1.13;2. How was the end of semester course evaluation first announced to you (choose all that apply)?;88
9.1.1.1.13.1;(a) E-mail announcement;88
9.1.1.1.13.2;(b) Posted to class website;88
9.1.1.1.13.3;(c) Posted to class assignments;88
9.1.1.1.13.4;(d) Posted to a class discussion board;88
9.1.1.1.13.5;(e) Other (Please specify);88
9.1.1.1.14;3. Did the instructor discuss the value of end-of-semester course evaluations with you?;89
9.1.1.1.14.1;(a) Yes;89
9.1.1.1.14.2;(b) No;89
9.1.1.1.15;4. Did the instructor use any reminder strategies to encourage you to respond to the evaluation (choose all that apply)?;89
9.1.1.1.15.1;(a) E-mail reminder;89
9.1.1.1.15.2;(b) Posted reminder to class website;89
9.1.1.1.15.3;(c) Posted to class discussion board;89
9.1.1.1.15.4;(d) No reminder strategy used;89
9.1.1.1.15.5;(e) Other (please specify);89
9.1.1.1.16;5. Did the instructor offer you credit (participation points, extra points, etc.) for completing the evaluation?;89
9.1.1.1.16.1;(a) Yes;89
9.1.1.1.16.2;(b) No;89
9.1.1.1.17;6. Did the instructor require you to complete the evaluation (e.g. in order to access the last assignment)?;89
9.1.1.1.18;7. Please comment on any additional strategies used by the instructor to encourage you to respond to online course evaluations and please add any other insights into this issue (What would it take for you to complete the online student evaluation, if...;89
10;Using ADDIE and Systems Thinking as the Framework for Developing a MOOC;90
10.1;A Case Study;90
10.1.1;Rebecca A. Croxton and Anthony S. Chow;90
10.1.1.1;The University of North Carolina at Greensboro;90
10.1.1.1.1;This article presents a case study of how systems thinking and the instructional systems design ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and assessment) model were used to design and develop one of the first MOOCs at a mid-sized universi...;90
10.1.1.1.1.1;LITERATURE REVIEW;91
10.1.1.1.1.2;Brief History of MOOCs;91
10.1.1.1.1.3;Contemporary Issues Surrounding MOOCs;92
10.1.1.1.1.4;Need for a User-Centered Design Approach;92
10.1.1.1.1.5;METHOD;94
10.1.1.1.1.6;RESULTS;94
10.1.1.1.1.7;Research Question 1: What Is the Process for Designing and Developing a MOOC?;94
10.1.1.1.1.8;Analysis Phase;94
10.1.1.1.1.9;Design Phase;95
10.1.1.1.1.10;Development Phase;95
10.1.1.1.1.11;Implementation Phase;97
10.1.1.1.1.12;Evaluation Phase;99
10.1.1.1.1.13;Research Question 2: What Impact Did Using the ADDIE Model Have on MOOC Design?;99
10.1.1.1.1.14;Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship Between Instructional Design and MOOCs?;100
10.1.1.1.1.15;IMPLICATIONS;101
10.1.1.1.1.16;REFERENCES;102
10.1.1.1.1.16.1;Figure 1;93
10.1.1.1.1.16.2;Table 2;96
10.1.1.1.1.17;Outcomes Map Refined Using Google Drive by the Design Team;96
10.1.1.1.1.17.1;Figure 3;98
10.1.1.1.1.17.2;Figure 4;98
10.1.1.1.1.17.3;Figure 5;100
10.1.2;Book Review;104
10.1.2.1;Lucy Green, Book Review Editor;104
10.2;Conquering the Content: A Blueprint for Online Course Design and Development (2nd ed.), by Robin M. Smith;104
10.2.1;Michelle Rogers-Estable;104
10.2.1.1;SUNY Delhi ;104
10.2.2;Book Review;106
10.2.2.1;Lucy Green, Book Review Editor;106
10.3;Teaching in a Digital Age, by A. W. (Tony) Bates;106
10.3.1;Tonia A. Dousay;106
10.3.1.1;University of Wyoming;106
10.3.1.1.1;SUMMARY;106
10.3.1.1.2;DISCLAIMERS AND ASSUMPTIONS;108
11;Conference Calendar;110
11.1;Charles Schlosser;110
11.1.1;Nova Southeastern University;110
11.1.1.1;United States Distance Learning Association Annual Conference, May 10-12, St. Louis, MO;110
11.1.1.2;EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, June 27-30, Vancouver, BC, Canada;110
11.1.1.3;ISTE, June 26-29, Denver, CO;110
11.1.1.4;Distance Teaching and Learning Conference, August 9-11, Madison, WI;111
11.1.1.5;AECT International Convention, October 17-21, Las Vegas, NV;111
11.1.1.6;E-Learn 2016: World Conference on E-Learning, November 14-16, Washington, DC;111
11.1.1.7;OLC Accelerate, November 16-18, Orlando, FL;111
12;AUTHOR BIOGRAPHICAL DATA;112
13;Back Cover;116