Evaluating the Effectiveness of Three Different Course Delivery Methods in Online and Distance Education

Barry Cartwright, Sheri Fabian

2017

Abstract

Students who completed at least one of three introductory Criminology courses offered through Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Online and Distance Education (CODE) between May 2013 and April 2014 were invited to participate in an online survey regarding their perceptions of and experiences with these three fully online courses. The three courses varied substantively from each other in their online format and pedagogical approaches. The research indicates that students find interactive exercises, educational video games, online audio-visual instruction (e.g., online lectures or Webcasts) and online quizzes helpful in understanding course content and preparing for examinations. Results regarding participation in online discussion groups were mixed, although students feel these groups give them an opportunity to interact with their peers in the online environment. The survey results have already influenced the format of recently revised and newly designed CODE courses at the university, and are expected to inform the design of future courses.

References

  1. Adams, J. D., and Umbach, P. D. (2012). Nonresponse and online student evaluations of teaching: Understanding the influence of salience, fatigue and academic environments. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 576- 591.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9240-5.
  2. Alammary, A., Sheard, J., and Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 440- 454.https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.693.
  3. Anderson, T., and Kanuka, H. (2003). e-Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  4. Best, S. J., and Krueger, B. S. (2004). Internet Data Collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  5. Bolliger, D. U., and Erichsen, E. A. (2013). Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1-23.
  6. Comer, D. R., and Lenaghan, J. A. (2012). Enhancing Discussions in the Asynchronous Classroom: The Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction Does not Lessen the Lesson. Journal of Management Education, 37(2), 261-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912442384.
  7. Dennen, V. P. (2008). Looking for evidence of learning: Assessment and analysis methods for online discourse. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.010.
  8. Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., and Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver inclass results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology,
  9. 40(4), 312-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12446624.
  10. Evans, R. R., Burnett, D. O., Kendrick, O. W., MacRina, D. M., Synder, S. W., Roy, J. P. L., and Stephens, B. C. (2009). Developing Valid and Reliable Online Survey Instruments Using Commercial Software Programs. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 13(1), 42- 52.https://doi.org/10.1080/15398280802674743.
  11. Gaytan, J., and McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/08923640701341653.
  12. Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., Thompson, D., and Tomes, R. (2011). Using Computer Games for Instruction: The Student Experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387733.
  13. Handelsman, J., Miller, S., and Pfund, C., 2007. Scientific Teaching. Roberts and Company, Englewood, CO.
  14. Huang, H. (2013). E-reader and e-discussion: EFL learners' perceptions of an e-book reading program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 258- 281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.656313.
  15. Joinson, A. N. (2005). Internet Behaviour and the Design of Virtual Methods. In C. Hine (Ed.), Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet (Vols. 1-2, pp. 21-34). Oxford: Berg.
  16. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., and Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1512-1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005.
  17. Kirkwood, A., and Price, L. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is “enhanced” and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404.
  18. Laguilles, J. S., Williams, E. A., and Saunders, D. B. (2011). Can Lottery Incentives Boost Web Survey Response Rates? Findings from Four Experiments. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 537-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1162-010-9203-2.
  19. Leflay., K., and Groves, M. (2013). Using online forums for encouraging higher order thinking and “deep” learning in an undergraduate Sports Sociology module. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 13, 226- 323.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.06.001.
  20. MacKenzie, L., and Ballard, K. (2015). Can Using Individual Online Interactive Activities Enhance Exam Results? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 262-266.
  21. Maloshonok, N., and Terentev, E. (2016). The impact of visual design and response formats on data quality in a web survey of MOOC students. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 506-515.
  22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.025.
  23. Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Effect of instructorpersonalized multimedia in the online classroom. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-19.
  24. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html .
  25. Nguyen, T. (2015). The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.
  26. Nonis, S. A., and Fenner, G. H. (2012). An exploratory study of student motivations for taking online courses and learning outcomes. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 7, 2-13.
  27. Otter, R. R., Seipel, S., Graeff, T., Alexander, B., Boraiko, C., Gray, J., and Sadler, K. (2013). Comparing student and faculty perceptions of online and traditional courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 27- 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001.
  28. Pan, B., Woodside, A. G., and Meng, F. (2013). How Contextual Cues Impact Response and Conversion Rates of Online Surveys. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 58-68.
  29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513484195.
  30. Pastore, R., and Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Motivations for residential students to participate in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 263- 277.
  31. Rademacher, J. D., and Lippke, S. (2007). Dynamic Online Surveys and Experiments with the Free OpenSource Software dynaQuest. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 415-426. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193011.
  32. Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 89- 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940854.
  33. Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., and Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432.
  34. https://doi.org/http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/ 40197313.
  35. Sue, V. M., and Ritter, L. A. (2007). Conducting Online Surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  36. Webber, M., Lynch, S., and Oluku, J. (2013). Enhancing Student Engagement in Student Experience Surveys. Educational Research, 55(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.767026.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Cartwright B. and Fabian S. (2017). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Three Different Course Delivery Methods in Online and Distance Education . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-239-4, pages 268-275. DOI: 10.5220/0006270202680275


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu17,
author={Barry Cartwright and Sheri Fabian},
title={Evaluating the Effectiveness of Three Different Course Delivery Methods in Online and Distance Education},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2017},
pages={268-275},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006270202680275},
isbn={978-989-758-239-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Three Different Course Delivery Methods in Online and Distance Education
SN - 978-989-758-239-4
AU - Cartwright B.
AU - Fabian S.
PY - 2017
SP - 268
EP - 275
DO - 10.5220/0006270202680275