The Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning Process in Online Education as Perceived by University Faculty and Instructional Technology Professionals

Main Article Content

Raghu Naath Singh
David Hurley

Abstract

Objective of the study was to assess selected principles of effective online education. Elements of those principles were identified and ranked in terms of their relative importance through Delphi procedures. Research steps included (1) a review of relevant literature critically reporting challenges and credibility of online course delivery experienced in the higher education, (2) developing a list of major principles for online learning (efficacy, student empowerment, and academic integrity) based on the literature, (3) selecting a sample through a chain-referral technique of faculty members and supporting technology staff involved in online teaching at selected university campuses, (4) interviewing respondents in two rounds to rank goals and means of each of the three evaluative principles, and (5) analyzing data and subjecting them for reliability and validity analyses. The study found strong academic support in the matters of efficacy and student empowerment for online teaching; but also found some concerns respondents had about the issues of maintaining adequate integrity of online courses.    

Keywords: online education, teaching-learning process, identifying three effectiveness evaluation principles of efficacy, student empowerment and academic integrity; ranking goals and means for three principles through Delphi method, reliability, validity 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Singh, R. N., & Hurley, D. (2017). The Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning Process in Online Education as Perceived by University Faculty and Instructional Technology Professionals. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 6(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v6.n1.19528
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Raghu Naath Singh, Texas A&M University-Commerce

Professor of Sociology & Criminal Justice

Texas A&M University-Commerce

References

Bartley, S. J. & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167-175.

Bergman, J., & Sams, J. (2012). Flip y our classroom: Reach every student in every c lass every d ay. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis: What everyone needs to know? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, D. W. (1997). Web-teaching: A g uide to designing i nteractive teaching/or the W o r l d W i d e W e b . New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Degago, A. T. & Kaino, L. M. (2015), Towards student-centered conceptions of teaching: The case of four Ethiopian universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(5), 493-505.

Gallant, T. B. (2015). Academic integrity in the 21st century: a teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5), 144.

Heines, J. M. (2005). In G. Kearsley (Ed.) Online learning: Personal reflections on the transformation of education (pp. 144-162). Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Jaggars, S. S. & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a Department of Education meta-analysis. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Mann, B. L. (Ed.) (2000). Perspectives in web course management. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Michaels, T. B. & Williams, M. A. (2013). Student equity: Discouraging cheating in online courses. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, Research. 3(2), 30-41.

Muilenburg, L. Y. & Zane, L. B. (2007). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1) 29-48.

Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building o nline learning c ommunities: e ffective strategies for the v irtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Westwood, D., Matuszewski, J. & Wilson, R. (2001), Take charge for the future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 89-104.

Roberts, C. J. & Hai-Jew, S. (2009). Issues of academic integrity: An online course for students addressing academic dishonesty. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 182196.

Shank, P. & Sitze, A. (2004). Making sense of online learning: A g uide for beginners and truly skeptical. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Singh, R.N. & Webb, B. R. (1979).Use of Delphi methodology to assess goals and social impacts of a watershed project. WaterResources Bulletin, 15, 136-141.

Stevens, R. (2015). Role-play and student engagement: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 20 (5), 481-492.

Sussman, S. & Dutter, L. (2013). Comparing student learning outcomes in face-to-face and online delivery. Online Journal of Distant Learning Administration 13(4), 1-10.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y. & Cooper, S. (2006). Teaching courses online: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research.76(1), 93-135.

Weber, M. (1949). Objectivity in social science and social policy. In E. A. Shills & H. A. Finch (Eds.), The methodology of the social science (pp. 5-12). New York, NY: Free Press.