Beyond the Online Course - Leadership Perspectives on eLearning

von: Pina, Anthony A.; Huett, Jason B.

IAP - Information Age Publishing, 2016

ISBN: 9781681235110

Sprache: Englisch

442 Seiten, Download: 29176 KB

Format: PDF, auch als Online-Lesen

geeignet für:

eBook anfordern

▸

Mehr zum Inhalt

Beyond the Online Course - Leadership Perspectives on eLearning

	Front Cover	1
	Beyond the Online Course	2
	Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning	2
	A Volume in Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning	2
	Series Editors:	2
	Charles Schlosser and Michael Simonson, Nova Southeastern University	2
	CONTENTS	6
	Part I: Leading Innovation and Change	6
	1. Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education	6
	2. Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education at the Institutional Level: Considering Faculty Perceptions	6
	3. Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions	6
	4. Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them	6
	5. Bridging the Divide: Reconciling Administrator and Faculty Concerns Regarding Online Education	6
	Part II: Leading Course and Program Design	7
	6. Expert Instructional Designer Voices: Leadership Competencies Critical to Global Practice and Quality Online Learning Designs	7
	7. Three Levels of Planned e-Learning Interactions: A Framework for Grounding Research and the Design of e-Learning Programs	7
	8. Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions: A Holistic Framework	7
	9. Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework	7
	10. Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort	7
	11. Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution: The Case of the University of Botswana	7
	Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students	7
	12. Supporting the Distant Student: The Effect of ARCS-Based Strategies on Confidence and Performance	7
	13. Online Instruction: Student Satisfaction, Kudos, and Pet Peeves	7
	14. Assistive Technology: Enhancing the Life Skills of Students With Learning Disabilities	7
	15. Supervision on Site: A Critical Factor in the Online Facilitated Internship	8
	Part IV: Leading the Development and Support of Online Faculty and Staff	8
	16. Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems	8
	17. Maximizing HR Professionals’ Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness	8
	18. Off-Site Faculty Perspectives on Online Experiences	8
	19. Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses	8
	20. Assessing Online Faculty	8
	21. How University Faculty Members Develop Their Online Teaching Skills	8
	Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues	8
	22. Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education	8
	23. Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property	8
	24. Intellectual Property and Online Courses Policies at Major Research Universities	8
	25. The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning	9
	Perspectives in Instructional Technology and Distance Learning	3
	Beyond the Online Course	4
	Leadership Perspectives on e-Learning	4
	Edited by	4
	Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System	4
	and	4
	Jason B. Huett University of West Georgia	4
	Information Age Publishing, Inc.	4
	Charlotte, North Carolina • www.infoagepub.com	4
	Foreword	10
	Melanie N. Clay	10
	Preface	14
	Jason B. Huett and Anthony A. Piña	14
	Acknowledgments	17
	REFERENCES	17
	Part I	20
	Leading Innovation and Change	20
	Table 1. Institutional Classification of Respondents	26
	CHAPTER 1	22
	Institutionalization of Distance Education in Higher Education	22
	Anthony A. Piña Sullivan University System	22
	From Online Courses to Online Programs	23
	Adoption versus Institutionalization	24
	Institutionalization of a Distance Education Program	24
	Purpose of the Study	25
	Method	26
	Participants	26
	Development of the Instrument	26
	Data Analysis	27
	Results	30
	Institutional Role	30
	Institutional Academic Level	30
	Institutional Locale	32
	Conclusions	32
	Institutional Role	33
	Academic Level	34
	Institutional Locale	35
	Recommendations	35
	References	36
	Table 2. Topic Areas, Institutionalization Factors and Application Items	28
	Table 2. (Continued)	29
	Table 3. Mean Scores for Importance Across Five Topic Areas	30
	Table 4. Mean Scores for Importance for 30 Institutionalization Factors—Faculty and Leaders	31
	CHAPTER 2	40
	Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education At the Institutional Level	40
	Jason Neben Concordia University Irvine	40
	Introduction	40
	Background	41
	Relevance	42
	The Challenge	43
	Diffusion of Innovations Theory	43
	Perceived Attributes of Innovations	44
	The Innovation-Decision Process	46
	Barriers to Distance Education	48
	Institutional Barriers	48
	Technological Barriers	49
	Financial Barriers	50
	Pedagogical Barriers	50
	Summary	50
	References	51
	CHAPTER 3	54
	Barriers to Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions	54
	Baiyun Chen University of Central Florida	54
	Theoretical Framework	55
	Methods	56
	Empirical Data	56
	Measures	57
	Adoption of TMDE	57
	Institutional Characteristics	57
	Barriers to TMDE Adoption	57
	Statistical Procedure	58
	Results	58
	Factor Descriptive	58
	Binary Logistic Regression Analysis	58
	Discussion and Conclusions	60
	References	61
	Table 1. Adoption of TMDE by Type	57
	Table 2. Descriptive on TMDE Adoption Factors	59
	CHAPTER 4	64
	Six Barriers Causing Educators to Resist Teaching Online, and How Institutions Can Break Them	64
	Dana Gutman Campus Management Corp	64
	Introduction	64
	Barrier 1: Salary	65
	Barrier 2: Promotion and Tenure	65
	Barrier 3: Workload	65
	Barrier 4: Training	66
	Barrier 5: Interpersonal Relations	68
	Barrier 6: Quality	69
	Conclusion	70
	References	70
	Table 1. Workshop Participants Training Experience and Needs	67
	Table 1. Intensity of Concern by Academic College	76
	CHAPTER 5	72
	Bridging the Divide	72
	Leah E. Wickersham and Julie A. McElhany Texas A&M University-Commerce	72
	Introduction	73
	Purpose of Study	74
	Methodology	74
	Findings	75
	SoCQ Results by College	75
	Faculty Open-Ended Questionnaire Analysis	77
	Administrator Interview Findings	78
	Administrator Concerns	79
	Barriers	79
	University and Faculty Preparedness	80
	Student Preparedness	80
	Support and Resources for Faculty and Students	81
	Quality	81
	Communication	82
	Institutional Standards of Quality for Online Courses	82
	Faculty Development Related to Online Course Instructional Design	83
	Comparative Analysis of Results	84
	Conclusions and Recommendations	85
	References	87
	PART II	88
	Leading course and program designs	88
	Table 1. Example of Coded Phrases and Development from In-Depth Interviews	99
	CHAPTER 6	90
	Expert Instructional Designer Voices	90
	Marcia L. Ashbaugh University of Illinois	90
	INTRODUCTION	90
	BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT	92
	THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK	93
	Leadership Competencies	93
	Strategy	94
	Vision	94
	Personality	94
	Productivity	95
	Leadership Attributes	95
	Emotional/Psychological	95
	Values	95
	METHODOLOGY	96
	Research Design	96
	Data Instrumentation and Collection	97
	ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS	98
	A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP FOR ID	100
	Strategy	101
	Design Process Strategy	102
	Design Structure Strategy	103
	Vision	105
	Personality (Interpersonal Skills)	106
	Productivity	107
	Emotional/Psychological Strength	108
	Values	108
	Duties	109
	DISCUSSION	110
	CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH	111
	APPENDIX A: Profiles of Study Participants	112
	Participant 1 (P1)	112
	Participant 2 (P2)	113
	Participant 3 (P3)	113
	Participant 4 (P4)	114
	Participant 5 (P5)	114
	Participant 6 (P6)	114
	REFERENCES	115
	Table 2. Ranking of Course Designs by a Modified Quality Matters Rubric of Standards	100
	Figure 1. Model of leadership for instructional design.	101
	Figure 2. Components of a well-designed online course structure.	104
	Figure 3. Components of a well-designed online course instructional strategy.	104
	Figure 1. Three levels for planning e-learning interactions.	124
	CHAPTER 7	122
	Three Levels of Planned E-learning Interactions	122
	Atsusi “2c” Hirumi University of Central Florida	122
	Three Levels for Planning eLearning Interactions	125
	Level I: Internal Learner-Self Interactions	126
	Level III: Learner-Instructional Interactions	130
	Level II: Learner-Human and Learner-Nonhuman Interactions	133
	Applications of the Three-Level Framework	135
	Analyzing and Organizing Research	135
	Summary	137
	References	138
	Table 1. Major Classes of Learning Theories and Related Theories and Lines of Research	127
	Table 2. Relating Instructional Strategies, Tools, and Techniques to Basic Instructional Approaches and Theoretical Orientations	132
	Table 3. Six-Step Process for Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions	136
	Figure 1. Macro view of online education components.	146
	CHAPTER 8	144
	Key Interactions for Online Programs Between Faculty, Students, Technologies, and Educational Institutions	144
	Jomon Aliyas Paul and Justin Daniel Cochran Kennesaw State University	144
	INTRODUCTION	145
	CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK	145
	Student ? Faculty	146
	Course Development	147
	Interaction and Feedback	147
	Communicate Expectations	148
	Assessment of Student Learning	148
	Student ? Technology	149
	Student-Centered and Intuitive Systems	149
	Technology Orientation for Students	150
	Student ? Institution	150
	Student Advising and Other Support Services	151
	Career Services Offerings	152
	Institution Engagement and Immersion Offerings	152
	Support Services for Students	153
	Faculty ? Technology	153
	Instructor Training and Technological Know-How	154
	Continuous Technology Improvement	154
	Faculty ? Institution	154
	Administrative and Monetary Support	154
	Pedagogical Support	155
	Mechanisms to Ensure Ethical Learning	155
	Institution ? Technology	156
	The Impact of Cross Pollination	157
	Student ? Student	158
	Faculty ? Faculty	159
	Technology ? Technology	160
	CONCLUSION	161
	references	161
	Figure 2. Cross-pollination of students, technologies, and faculty.	158
	CHAPTER 9	166
	Universal Course Shell Template Design and Implementation to Enhance Student Outcomes in Online Coursework	166
	Arthur J. Borgemenke, William C. Holt, and Wade W. Fish Texas A&M University-Commerce	166
	Introduction	166
	Purpose	167
	Rationale	167
	Literature Review	168
	Course Quality Design Factors	168
	Component Design Efficacy	169
	Instructional Design Process	171
	Universal Course Shell Template Components	171
	Course Content and Assignments	173
	Summary and Implications	174
	References	175
	CHAPTER 10	178
	Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort	178
	Mary E. Engstrom, Susan A. Santo, and Rosanne M. Yost University of South Dakota	178
	Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort	178
	Review of the Literature	179
	1. Tapping students’ personal and professional experiences, motivation, and their learning preferences	181
	2. The nature of the class (survey, core, elective, etc.)	181
	3. Program pacing. “Community building must take into account the ‘collegiality’ of student relationships, not the least of which is their prior experience as classmates and/or project partners, and the likelihood that they will continue to wor...	181
	Methodology	182
	Participants	182
	Cohort Program Design	183
	Research Design	183
	Data Collection	184
	1. What did it mean to be a cohort group working on your master’s degree together?	184
	2. What role did cohort members play in helping you construct knowledge in the master’s program?	184
	3. What role did others play in helping you construct knowledge in the master’s program?	184
	1. Our cohort group drew upon one another's strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program.	184
	2. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning.	185
	3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face-to- face) with other cohort members.	185
	Data Analysis	185
	Collaboration	185
	Learning Community	186
	Course Design	187
	Individual Factors	188
	Discussion and Recommendations	188
	Collaboration	189
	Learning Community	190
	Course Design	191
	Individual Factors	192
	Recommendations	193
	1. Recognize that online cohort members from the same school district are not likely to limit their learning and community involvement to the online environment. This has instructional design implications for the program. One possibility is to create...	193
	2. Provide a program orientation. Explain the cohort online model to learners so that they can make an informed decision about participating in such a group. In addition, discuss philosophical basis of the program in detail. Discuss privacy issues re...	193
	3. Ensure, as a department, consistency across courses in terms of course design and online discussion protocols. This includes a willingness for faculty to share effective discussion facilitation practices with one another. Develop a consistent base...	193
	4. Establish an ongoing relationship with the administrators at the school site to garner their support of the program. Work collaboratively to develop solutions regarding access to needed hardware and software.	193
	5. Select advisors for cohort programs with care. Advisors should be able to establish and maintain a good rapport with students at a distance.	194
	6. For students who indicate a preference for working individually, counsel them to consider other program delivery options.	194
	References	194
	Knowledge Building in an Online Cohort Survey	195
	Part 1: Collaboration	195
	1. I knew the other Chamberlain cohort members, as professional colleagues, before entering this program.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	2. Our cohort group drew upon one another’s strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	3. I frequently participated in informal study group sessions (face- to-face) with other cohort members.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	4. I selected as informal study group partners those Chamberlain cohort colleagues for whom I held professional respect.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	5. I selected my informal study group partners based on convenience (same building, common time schedules, etc.).	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	6. My informal study group drew upon one another’s strengths to support our collective learning throughout the program.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	7. Small group projects/assignments in “content” courses (Learning Principles, Instructional Design, Social & Philosophical Foundations of Ed., etc.) were an important source of knowledge building for me.	195
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	195
	8. Small group projects/assignments in “skills” courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) were an important source of knowledge building for me.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	9. Small group projects/assignments in “content” courses (Learning Principles, Instructional Design, Social & Philosophical Foundations of Ed., etc.) encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	10. Small group projects/assignments in “skills” courses (Multimedia, Web Page Design, etc.) encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	11. Instructors encouraged students to collaborate with one another.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	12. The Internship requirement was an important source of knowledge building for me.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	13. The Internship requirement promoted collaboration with other professionals.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	Part 2: Learning Community	196
	14. The TET cohort model successfully promoted knowledge building among the cohort members.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	15. Cohort members supported and encouraged one another.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	16. Cohort members challenged one another’s ideas and beliefs.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	17. Sometimes I changed my viewpoint on issues based on others’ online discussion contributions.	196
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	196
	18. Sometimes I changed my beliefs about teaching and learning based on others’ online discussion contributions.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	19. Students shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e.: provided web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.)	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	20. The cohort group increased my knowledge of K-12 student learning.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	21. The cohort group added to my knowledge of teaching methods.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	22. The cohort group added to my knowledge of integrating technology to support student learning.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	23. I was committed to the success of all cohort members in the program.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	24. I would choose to be a part of a cohort again.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	25. I would choose to be part of this cohort group again.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	26. If knowledge building is “(our definition goes here),” how would you rate the level of knowledge building in your cohort group?	197
	(need a different response scale for this item)	197
	27. If community is “our definition goes here,” how would you rate the level of community in your cohort group?	197
	(need a different response scale for this item)	197
	Part 3: Course Design	197
	28. Online discussions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.	197
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	197
	29. Online chat sessions in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	30. Student-to-student communication in courses promoted knowledge building.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	31. Instructor facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	32. Student facilitation of discussion promoted my individual knowledge building.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	33. Instructors encouraged students to work in small groups when it was appropriate.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	34. Small group work in courses encouraged a sense of community among the cohort.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	35. Instructors shared outside resources that promoted knowledge building (i.e., provided Web sites, titles of articles, conferences, etc.).	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	36. WebCT was an effective tool for building an online learning community.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	37. The face-to-face course meetings contributed to the development of a learning community.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	38. Sharing food at face-to-face sessions contributed to the development of a learning community.	198
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	198
	Part 4: Interactions With the Instructor	199
	39. Instructor-student communication in courses led to my individual knowledge building.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	40. Interaction with professors during courses was a strong factor in promoting my knowledge building.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	41. Instructor feedback on assignments was effective in helping me build knowledge.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	42. Instructors encouraged students to ask questions about things they didn’t understand.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	43. Group advising sessions with faculty members contributed to my sense of belonging to a professional cohort.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	44. The TET cohort model successfully promoted a learning community among the cohort members.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	Part 5: Individual Factors	199
	45. My comfort level with my Chamberlain colleagues was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	46. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, was a factor in joining the MS TET cohort group.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	47. My respect for other Chamberlain cohort colleagues, as professional educators, grew over the course of the program.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	48. I grew professionally during this cohort experience.	199
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	199
	49. I was actively involved with my cohort group.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	50. I felt responsible for my own knowledge building.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	51. I felt responsible for the knowledge building of everyone in my cohort group.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	52. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically greater than that of other cohort members.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	53. My level of activity/engagement in courses was typically the same that of other cohort members.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	54. I assumed responsibility for contacting instructors when questions or problems arose.	200
	Q SD Q D Q N Q A Q SA Q DNA	200
	55. Now that you have completed the MS TET program as a cohort member, what is your opinion of the cohort model as a way to build both knowledge and a learning community?	200
	56. You can use the space below to provide any additional comments.	200
	Table 1. Enrollment in Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Education in Botswana from 1978 to 1991	204
	Table 2. 2001 Tertiary Institution’s Intake	204
	CHAPTER 11	202
	Converting a Conventional University to a Dual Mode Institution	202
	Ontiretse S. Tau University of Botswana	202
	Background	202
	Education in Botswana	203
	Development of Distance Education in Botswana	204
	Challenges of a Dual Mode Institution	205
	Introducing Distance Education into the University of Botswana	207
	1. Ignorance of the unit’s mandate by the rest of UB, particularly the teaching departments which were expected to work collaboratively with DEU to develop distance education programs	209
	2. Lack of an implementation framework and/or a poorly articulated strategy	209
	3. Lack of an effective organizational structure both within the unit and in relation to the university faculties and teaching departments.	210
	Conclusion	211
	1. Distance education as a subsystem was introduced into a system that was not ready for it.	211
	2. The Distance Education Unit as a subsystem of UB was not aligned with the rest of the UB academic structure.	211
	3. As a result, DEU could not perform the process of providing education at a distance to the optimum level.	211
	1. The university should conduct a front-end analysis to guide all the decisions including that of the distance education model to be adopted.	211
	2. The organizational structure that is devised should ensure that the distance education unit will not be isolated from the academic mainstream	212
	3. An implementation framework should be developed to guide the process.	212
	4. A systems approach must be used to ensure that all the other units and departments of the university that will have a role in the process of distance education provision are fully informed and readied for the endeavor.	212
	References	212
	Table 1. Confidence Tactics (CT)	223
	Table 1 (Continued)	225
	PART III	214
	LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE STUDENTS	214
	CHAPTER 12	216
	Supporting the Distant Student	216
	Jason Bond Huett University of West Georgia	216
	Leslie Moller University of South Dakota	216
	Jon Young University of North Texas	216
	Marty Bray Forsynth County Schools	216
	Kimberly Cleaves Huett University of West Georgia	216
	Introduction	217
	Keller’s ARCS Model and Previous Studies	217
	Confidence	218
	Perceived Competence	219
	Perceived Control	219
	Expectancy for Success	220
	Method	221
	Participants	221
	Variables	222
	Instruments	222
	Research Design	222
	1. The instructor selected SAM Office 2003’s simulation of Microsoft Access to be used for the duration of this experiment and WebCT for the delivery of confidence-enhancing emails (CEE).	226
	2. As outlined in Table 1, the instructor modified SAM Office 2003’s Access simulation by incorporating the interventions and tactics based on the component of confidence in Keller’s ARCS model for the treatment group.	226
	3. The instructor composed supplementary CEEs (see Figure 1) to help disseminate the remaining confidence-enhancing tactics based on Keller’s ARCS model for the treatment group.	227
	4. The instructor presented the materials, with and without modification, to the respective treatment and control groups.	227
	Distance Education Software	227
	Results	228
	Discussion	229
	Performance	231
	Additional Analysis	231
	Conclusion	232
	References	232
	Figure 2. Screen shot from posttest measure (reproduced with permission from Course Technology).	227
	Figure 1. Example of confidence-enhancing e-mail with comments.	226
	Table 2. Results for the Confidence Subsection of the IMMS	228
	Table 3. Results for Posttest Measure	229
	Table 1. Responses to Survey Questions 1-15 Expressed in Percentages	242
	1. Please indicate whether you are:	242
	Female	242
	Male	242
	Total Respondents	242
	(skipped this question)	242
	2. What degree are you obtaining?	242
	Undergraduate	242
	60.9	242
	185	242
	Graduate	242
	39.1	242
	119	242
	Total Respondents	242
	304	242
	(skipped this question)	242
	0	242
	3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	242
	Strongly agree	242
	27.6	242
	84	242
	Agree	242
	61.2	242
	186	242
	Neutral	242
	8.2	242
	25	242
	Disagree	242
	2	242
	6	242
	Strongly disagree	242
	0.7	242
	2	242
	Not applicable	242
	0.3	242
	1	242
	Total Respondents	242
	304	242
	(skipped this question)	242
	0	242
	4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	242
	Strongly agree	242
	30.6	242
	93	242
	Agree	242
	56.6	242
	172	242
	Neutral	242
	9.5	242
	29	242
	Disagree	242
	2.3	242
	7	242
	Strongly disagree	242
	0.7	242
	2	242
	Not applicable	242
	0.3	242
	1	242
	Total Respondents	242
	304	242
	(skipped this question)	242
	0	242
	5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	242
	Strongly agree	242
	25.4	242
	77	242
	Agree	242
	48.5	242
	147	242
	Neutral	242
	16.2	242
	49	242
	Disagree	242
	4.3	242
	13	242
	Strongly disagree	242
	1.7	242
	5	242
	Not applicable	242
	4	242
	12	242
	Total respondents	242
	303	242
	(skipped this question)	242
	1	242
	Table 1 (Continued)	243
	6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning.	243
	Strongly agree	243
	24.5	243
	74	243
	Agree	243
	48.7	243
	147	243
	Neutral	243
	14.9	243
	45	243
	Disagree	243
	5.6	243
	17	243
	Strongly disagree	243
	1	243
	3	243
	Not applicable	243
	5.3	243
	16	243
	Total Respondents	243
	302	243
	(skipped this question)	243
	2	243
	7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses.	243
	Strongly agree	243
	6.9	243
	21	243
	Agree	243
	20.4	243
	62	243
	Neutral	243
	29.9	243
	91	243
	Disagree	243
	8.2	243
	25	243
	Strongly disagree	243
	3	243
	9	243
	Not applicable	243
	31.6	243
	96	243
	Total Respondents	243
	304	243
	(skipped this question)	243
	0	243
	8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days?	243
	1	243
	6.6	243
	20	243
	2	243
	25.5	243
	77	243
	3	243
	29.8	243
	90	243
	4	243
	8.6	243
	26	243
	5	243
	11.6	243
	35	243
	6	243
	0	243
	0	243
	7	243
	14.6	243
	44	243
	8	243
	0	243
	0	243
	9	243
	0	243
	0	243
	10	243
	2	243
	6	243
	Other	243
	1.3	243
	4	243
	Total Respondents	243
	302	243
	(skipped this question)	243
	2	243
	9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days?	243
	1	243
	0.3	243
	1	243
	2	243
	5.6	243
	17	243
	3	243
	13	243
	39	243
	4	243
	11.3	243
	34	243
	5	243
	20.6	243
	62	243
	6	243
	3	243
	9	243
	7	243
	20.9	243
	63	243
	8	243
	4.7	243
	14	243
	9	243
	1	243
	3	243
	10	243
	16.9	243
	51	243
	Other	243
	2.7	243
	8	243
	Total Respondents	243
	301	243
	(skipped this question)	243
	3	243
	Table 1 (Continued)	244
	10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair.	244
	Strongly agree	244
	37.4	244
	113	244
	Agree	244
	52	244
	157	244
	Neutral	244
	8.6	244
	26	244
	Disagree	244
	2	244
	6	244
	Strongly disagree	244
	0	244
	0	244
	Total Respondents	244
	302	244
	(skipped this question)	244
	2	244
	11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective.	244
	Strongly agree	244
	1.7	244
	5	244
	Agree	244
	9.9	244
	30	244
	Neutral	244
	48	244
	145	244
	Disagree	244
	34.1	244
	103	244
	Strongly disagree	244
	6.3	244
	19	244
	Total Respondents	244
	302	244
	(skipped this question)	244
	2	244
	12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation.	244
	Strongly agree	244
	2.4	244
	7	244
	Agree	244
	12.5	244
	37	244
	Neutral	244
	31.3	244
	93	244
	Disagree	244
	40.4	244
	120	244
	Strongly disagree	244
	13.5	244
	40	244
	Total Respondents	244
	297	244
	(skipped this question)	244
	7	244
	13. I found 8-week courses long enough to adequately cover the course material.	244
	Strongly agree	244
	19.7	244
	59	244
	Agree	244
	46.5	244
	139	244
	Neutral	244
	10.7	244
	32	244
	Disagree	244
	7	244
	21	244
	Strongly disagree	244
	3	244
	9	244
	Not applicable	244
	13	244
	39	244
	Total Respondents	244
	299	244
	(skipped this question)	244
	5	244
	14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been.	244
	Very excessive	244
	3	244
	9	244
	Excessive	244
	24	244
	72	244
	About right	244
	73	244
	219	244
	Too little	244
	0	244
	0	244
	Far too little	244
	0	244
	0	244
	Total Respondents	244
	300	244
	(skipped this question)	244
	4	244
	Table 1 (Continued)	245
	15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been.	245
	Very positive	245
	49.8	245
	149	245
	Positive	245
	42.5	245
	127	245
	Neutral	245
	4.7	245
	14	245
	Negative	245
	2.7	245
	8	245
	Very negative	245
	0.3	245
	1	245
	Total Respondents	245
	299	245
	(skipped this question)	245
	5	245
	CHAPTER 13	236
	Online Instruction	236
	C. Eugene Walker and Erika Kelly University of Oklahoma	236
	Introduction	237
	Methods	238
	Analysis	239
	Results	239
	Discussion	241
	ACKNOWLEDGMENT	248
	References	248
	Appendix A: OU College of Liberal Studies Online Course Survey	249
	1. Please indicate whether you are:	249
	Female__ Male __	249
	2. What degree are you obtaining:	249
	Undergraduate__ Graduate __	249
	3. I found the reading assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree __	249
	Not applicable__	249
	4. I found the essay assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	Not applicable__	249
	5. I found the Internet assignments useful in enhancing my learning.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	Not applicable__	249
	6. I found the course spanning final paper assignment useful in enhancing my learning.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	Not applicable__	249
	7. I enjoyed sharing my work with and getting comments from other students in courses.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	Not applicable__	249
	8. In an online course, the professor should provide prompt feedback on completed assignments. Ideally feedback should be received within how many days?	249
	1__	249
	2__	249
	3__	249
	4__	249
	5__	249
	6__	249
	7__	249
	8__	249
	9__	249
	10__	249
	Other__	249
	9. Realistically, feedback should never be later than how many days?	249
	1__	249
	2__	249
	3__	249
	4__	249
	5__	249
	6__	249
	7__	249
	8__	249
	9__	249
	10__	249
	Other__	249
	10. Overall the instructor grading in the courses I have taken online has been fair.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	11. Evaluation in the online courses I have taken has been too subjective.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	12. I would prefer an objective test in addition to the more subjective forms of evaluation.	249
	Strongly agree__	249
	Agree__	249
	Neutral__	249
	Disagree__	249
	Strongly disagree__	249
	13. If you were in an 8 weeks course, was it long enough to adequately cover the course material.	250
	Strongly agree__	250
	Agree__	250
	Neutral__	250
	Disagree__	250
	Strongly disagree__	250
	Not applicable__	250
	14. The amount of work required for the online courses I have taken has been.	250
	Very excessive__	250
	Excessive__	250
	About right__	250
	Too little__	250
	Far too little__	250
	15. Overall my experience with online courses at OU has been.	250
	Very positive__	250
	Positive__	250
	Neutral__	250
	Negative__	250
	Very negative__	250
	16. The best thing (kudos) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3):	250
	17. The worst thing (pet peeves) about OU online courses is (list 2 or 3).	250
	Thank you very much for your participation. College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma.	250
	Figure 1. Kudos or best feature of online courses reported in frequencies.	245
	Figure 2. Pet peeves or worst features of online courses reported in frequencies.	246
	Table 1. Assistive Technology Devices for Specific Learning Disabilities	254
	CHAPTER 14	252
	Assistive Technology	252
	Aries Cobb Baldwin-Wallace College	252
	Introduction	252
	Assistive Technology	253
	Assistive Technology Used by Applied Behavior Analysts	253
	Special Instructional Interventions: Regular Classroom	254
	Literature Review	255
	Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Managed Instruction	255
	Computer Multimedia and Learning Disabilities	256
	Technology Productive Tools: Augmentative Technology	256
	Education and Students With Learning Disabilities	256
	Learning Centers	257
	Hearing Impaired Learners and Visually Impaired Learners	258
	EDU-AT-TECH Clients	258
	Conclusions	262
	References	264
	Table 2. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Gender	258
	Table 3. EDU-AT-TECH Clients by Age and Gender	258
	Table 6. Reference Resources	260
	Table 4. Parent/Guardian Consent for Study Participation in Invest in Children	259
	Table 5. Number and Reason for Continuing or Discontinuing the EDU-AT-TECH Program	259
	Table 7. Paired Sample Statistics	261
	Table 8. Paired Sample Correlation	262
	Table 9. Paired Samples Test	263
	Table 10. Group Statistics	263
	Figure 1. PRECEDE-PROCEED model.	273
	CHAPTER 15	268
	Supervision on Site	268
	Kaye B. Dotson and Hui Bian East Carolina University	268
	INTRODUCTION	268
	Technology in Library Science Internships	270
	THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK	270
	Situated Cognition	270
	PRECEDE-PROCEED Model	272
	PURPOSE OF THE STUDY	272
	RESEARCH QUESTIONS	274
	1. What were site supervisors’ perceptions regarding predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing domains for the online facilitated internship program?	274
	2. Were there significant relationships between the three domains and the success of the internship program?	274
	3. What did qualitative data clarify for us regarding the site experience?	274
	METHOD	274
	Participants	274
	Design and Procedure	274
	Measures	275
	Predisposing Domain	275
	Enabling Domain	275
	Reinforcing Domain	276
	Open-Ended Questions	276
	Outcome	276
	ANALYSIS	276
	RESULTS	276
	DISCUSSION	279
	CONCLUSIONS	281
	REFERENCES	282
	Table 1. Associations Between PRECEDE Model Domains and Success of Internship	277
	Table 2. Themes Generated from Qualitative Data	278
	Table 1. Effects of Training and Staff Development on Content Knowledge	293
	PART IV	284
	LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT OF ONLINE FACULTY AND STAFF	284
	CHAPTER 16	286
	Effects of Staff Training and Development on Professional Abilities of University Teachers in Distance Learning Systems	286
	Shahinshah Babar Khan Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Model College	286
	Saeed-ul-Hasan Chishti International Islamic University, Pakistan	286
	INTRODUCTION	287
	LITERATURE	288
	Quality Education	289
	Quality Higher Education and Higher Education Institutions	289
	Staff Training and Development	290
	Quality Education and ICTs in Staff Training and Development	290
	Staff Training and Development in Distance Education	291
	AIOU’s Faculty Development Programs	291
	Objectives of the Study	292
	1. To find the opinion of AIOU faculty members about the learning of ICTs in staff training and development programs and its impact on research work.	292
	2. To find the opinion of teachers about the effects of staff training and development on their content knowledge, teaching methods, material development, and research work.	292
	THE STUDY	292
	Sample	292
	Instrument	292
	Validation of the Questionnaire	295
	Final Version of the Questionnaire and Distribution	295
	Data Analysis and Results	295
	DISCUSSION	295
	FINDINGS	296
	REFERENCES	296
	Table 1. e-Learning Opportunities for HR Professionals	302
	CHAPTER 17	300
	Maximizing HR Professionals’ Leadership Role in e-Learning for Organizational Effectiveness	300
	Jane Waweru Nova Southeastern University	300
	Introduction	300
	Perceptions of Innovation Attributes	301
	Implications of Limited e-Learning	301
	Focus Group Qualitative Data	303
	Reasons for Use or Nonuse of e-Learning	304
	1. Professional/personal development. Most HR professionals stated they participated in e-learning for their own professional or personal development. On professional development, participants indicated they utilized e-learning resources to recertify...	304
	2. Convenience. Participants generally perceived that e-learning provides easy access to learning. Consequently, distance from a training site or even time of day was not an obstacle when training was done through e-learning. One participant stated s...	304
	3. Compliance. Participants stated they were able to educate employees on mandated courses such as code of ethics and harassment policies among others through e-learning.	304
	4. Facilitate/instruct/intervention. Several participants indicated they had been exposed to e-learning as facilitators or instructors or utilized e-learning as an intervention.	304
	5. Customized training. Participants stated that e-learning provided the ability to provide customized training to employees with special needs. A HR professional stated that “different learners require unique needs which may not be met through e-l...	304
	Potential Barriers	304
	1. Lack of face-to-face interaction. Participants stated that a lack of face-to-face interaction or engagement does create a barrier to e- learning. A participant was of the view that online interaction “can be strange.” The participant added by ...	305
	2. Accessibility and usability. Some participants were of the view that technical challenges can create a barrier to e-learning. Participants stated that, sometimes, e-learning may not be easy to use because of “terrible technology.” An HR profes...	305
	3. Cost. Participants stated that cost of e-learning can be a barrier to e- learning because finances are needed to support the software, people, developers, and designers of the innovation. Some believed that due to hard economic challenges, complia...	305
	4. Effectiveness. Participants believed that the inability to measure the effectiveness of e-learning was a barrier to learning.	305
	5. Lack of time. HR professionals stated they were sometimes busy and may not have had time for e-learning on the job. One participant stated that not having enough time at work made e-learning “a bother at work.” Others felt that interruptions o...	305
	Interpretation of the Focus Group Results on the Use or Nonuse of e-Learning	305
	Interpretation of Results for the Barriers of e-Learning	306
	Implications for Practice	307
	Publication of the Research	307
	Offering Workshops	307
	Offering Technical Support	308
	Enhancing Organizational Synergy	309
	Enhancing Communication Within the Organization	309
	Implications for Future Research	310
	Conducting Studies in Specific Companies	310
	Research on Specific HR Management Functions	310
	Summary	311
	References	311
	CHAPTER 18	314
	Off-Site Faculty	314
	Barbara L. Stewart, Carole Goodson, and Susan L. Miertschin University of Houston	314
	Introduction	314
	Abbreviated Summary of Review of Literature	315
	Methodology	315
	Findings	316
	Administration	316
	Curriculum and Instruction	317
	Faculty Characteristics	318
	Reflection	318
	References	319
	Table 1. The Nonsequential Chapter Exam Method to Reduce Academic Dishonesty by Web Students	330
	CHAPTER 19	322
	Pragmatic Methods to Reduce Dishonesty in Web-Based Courses	322
	Newell Chiesl Indiana State University	322
	INTRODUCTION	322
	Academic Dishonesty	323
	Cheating Rationale	324
	Reducing Classroom Dishonesty	324
	Reducing Distance Learning Dishonesty	325
	SUGGESTED PRAGMATIC APPROACHES TO REDUCE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY	325
	Disseminate Information to Distant Students	326
	Change the Process Used by Students to Turn in Written Assignments	326
	Change the Process by Which Exams Are Administered	327
	1. Select the tightest time frame possible for students to complete each exam. Most professors have suggested to me, depending on the nature of the questions and the difficulty of the subject material, 40 questions in 40 minutes. I disagree. I sugges...	327
	2. Select the option “show one question at a time to the student.” This will discourage students from conducting a “copy and paste” into a document and then printing out the entire exam. Copying and pasting one question at a time will be very...	327
	3. Select “no backtracking” on the part of the student. Once a student has selected an answer, do not allow him or her go back and see the prior questions.	328
	4. Select “randomizing” the exam from a pool of questions.	328
	5. Select allow the exam to be taken for an entire week. This reduces the time pressure to cheat.	328
	6. Create a large number of exams to be taken during the semester— for example, 10 exams. Yes, perhaps a student will persuade a sibling or friend to take an exam and cheat for him or her once. But, will the sibling or friend agree to take 10 exams?	328
	7. Set a low point value for each exam	328
	8. Finally, select “allow multiple attempts” by students to take the exam. Students are allowed to take each exam as many times as they wish during an entire week, but each time they retake the exam, a new set of randomized questions appear. An a...	328
	Create a Nonsequential Chapter Assortment of Questions	328
	FEEDBACK	329
	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	331
	REFERENCES	332
	Table 2. Importance of Taking Multiple Exam Attempts	331
	Table 3. Student Learning	331
	Table 4. Cheating in This Web Class Compared to Classroom Courses	331
	Table 5. Cheating in this Web Class Compared to Other Web Courses	331
	Table 1. Assessment Measures Used By Institutions	341
	CHAPTER 20	336
	Assessing Online Faculty	336
	Anthony A. Piña and Larry Bohn Sullivan University System	336
	INTRODUCTION	336
	Online Course Quality	337
	Limitations of Quality Rubrics	338
	Class Observation/Indicators of Online Quality	339
	METHOD	339
	Participants	339
	Instrumentation	339
	Data Analysis	340
	RESULTS	341
	Assessment Methods Used by Institutions	341
	Importance of Indicators for Assessing Instructor Quality	342
	Minimum Standards for Assessing Instructor Quality	343
	CONCLUSION	345
	Where Do We Go From Here?	346
	REFERENCES	346
	Table 2. Assessment Rubrics Used By Institutions	342
	Table 3. Indicators for Assessing Online Instructor Quality	343
	Table 4. Minimum Standards for Instructor Activity	344
	Frequency of Instructor Login	344
	Daily	344
	4 times per week	344
	3 times per week	344
	2 times per week	344
	Frequency of Course Announcements	344
	Multiple times per week	344
	Weekly	344
	Every 2 weeks	344
	Less than every 2 weeks	344
	Conciseness of Course Announcements	344
	No word limit	344
	300 word limit	344
	200 word limit	344
	100 word limit	344
	Response to Student Inquiries	344
	1 day	344
	2 days	344
	3 days	344
	4 days	344
	Completeness of Instructor Biography	344
	Full descriptive bio with vita	344
	Full descriptive bio	344
	Single paragraph brief bio	344
	Contact info only	344
	Minimum Instructor Discussion Posts	344
	Post more than 4 times	344
	Post 3-4 times	344
	Post 2-3 times	344
	No requirement to post	344
	CHAPTER 21	350
	How University Faculty Members Developed Their Online Teaching Skills	350
	Steven W. Schmidt, Elizabeth M. Hodge, and Christina M. Tschida East Carolina University	350
	INTRODUCTION	350
	1. How did university professors begin teaching online? What were the experiences associated with that initial online teaching experience?	352
	2. What have these professors learned about teaching online as a result of their online teaching experiences?	352
	3. How have these professors evolved as online instructors?	352
	REVIEW OF LITERATURE	352
	METHOD	354
	FINDINGS	355
	Initial Experiences	355
	Learning From Early Experiences	357
	The Evolution of the Online Instructor	359
	LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH	360
	DISCUSSION	361
	IMPLICATIONS	361
	REFERENCES	362
	PART V	364
	LEGAL AND ACCREDITATION ISSUES	364
	CHAPTER 22	366
	Standards, Accreditation, Benchmarks, and Guidelines in Distance Education	366
	Soonhwa Seok D’youville College	366
	Introduction	366
	Standards	367
	Accreditation	368
	1. Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools	370
	2. Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, New England Association of Schools and Colleges	370
	3. Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools	370
	4. Commission on Colleges, The Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges	370
	5. Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools	370
	6. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges	370
	7. Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges.	370
	Benchmarks and Guidelines	370
	Conclusion	376
	References	377
	Appendix A	379
	Quality on the Line	379
	Appendix B	381
	ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Teaching and Learning	381
	Appendix C	382
	ADEC Guiding Principles for Distance Learning updated, July 24, 2002	382
	Table 1. The Authors, the Publishing Dates, the Names, and the URLs of the Guidelines	376
	CHAPTER 23	384
	Who Owns Online Course Intellectual Property?	384
	Douglas A. Kranch North Central State College	384
	Introduction	384
	Ownership and Control in the Distance Learning Age	385
	Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Rights	386
	1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment	387
	2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2003, p. 7).	387
	The Administration View	388
	The Faculty View	389
	Copyright Ownership or Rights and Remuneration	390
	A Negotiated Alternative	391
	Conclusion	393
	References	393
	Table 1. Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics of Public and Private Research Universities	405
	Table 1. (Continued)	406
	CHAPTER 24	396
	Intellectual Property and Online Courses	396
	Kathryn Ann Loggie Marathon (Florida) High School	396
	Ann E. Barron, Elizabeth Gulitz, Tina N. Hohlfeld, and Jeffrey D. Kromrey University of South Florida	396
	Phyllis Sweeney Nova Southeastern University	396
	Overview and Introduction	397
	Background	397
	Copyright law	399
	Work Made for Hire	399
	Faculty Exception	400
	Previous Research on Intellectual Property Policy	401
	Digital course materials	402
	Method	403
	Results	404
	Public Versus Private Research Universities	404
	Policy Changes Across Time	404
	Typical Policy at a Research University in 2005	409
	Discussion and Conclusions	412
	References	414
	Appendix A: Web Sources for Intellectual Property Policies	416
	Appendix B: Policy Coding Framework	418
	Figure 1. Significant differences between public and private universities.	406
	Table 2. Changes in Intellectual Property Policy Characteristics Between 1992 and 2005	407
	Table 2. (Continued)	408
	CHAPTER 25	420
	The Legal Environment of Accessible Postsecondary Online Learning	420
	Kevin L. Crow Harper College	420
	Overview: Federal Disability Legislation and Online Postsecondary Learning	421
	Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973	421
	Section 504 and Postsecondary Online Learning	422
	The Americans With Disabilities Act	422
	ADA Titles	423
	The ADA and Postsecondary Online Learning	423
	Auxiliary Aids and Services	424
	U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights	425
	Three Additional Acts	425
	Section 508	426
	The Telecommunications Act of 1966	427
	Assistive Technology Act of 1998	427
	Why Be Concerned?	428
	First Steps Toward Accessible Online Content	428
	Policies	428
	Universal Design	429
	Summary	430
	Further Reading and Additional Resources	431
	References	431
	APPENDIX A	432
	APPENDIX B: Additional Resources	434
	ABOUT THE EDITORS	436
	Original Publications	438
	Part I: Leading Innovation and Change	438
	1. Piña, A. A. (2008). Factors influencing the institutionalization of distance learning in higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4).	438
	2. Neben, J. (2014). Attributes and barriers impacting diffusion of online education at the institutional level: Considering faculty perceptions. Distance Learning, 11(1).	438
	3. Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4).	438
	4. Gutman, D. (2012). Six barriers causing educators to resist teaching online, and how institutions can break them. Distance Learning, 9(3).	438
	5. Wickersham, L. E., & McElhany, J. A. (2010). Bridging the divide: Reconciling administrator and faculty concerns regarding online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1).	438
	Part II: Leading Course and Program Design	438
	6. Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical to global practice and quality online learning designs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(2).	438
	7. Hirumi, A. (2013). Three levels of planned e-learning interactions: A framework for grounding research and the design of e-learning programs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1).	438
	8. Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and universities: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1).	439
	9. Borgemenke, A. J., Holt, W. C., & Fish, W. W. (2013). Universal course shell template design and implementation to enhance student outcomes in online coursework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1).	439
	10. Engstrom, M. E., Santo, S. A., & Yost, R. M. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2).	439
	11. Tau, O. S. (2008). Converting a conventional university to a dual mode institution: The case of the University of Botswana. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2).	439
	Part III: Leading the Development and Support of Online Students	439
	12. Huett, J., Moller, L., Young, J., Bray, M., & Huett, K. (2008). Supporting the distant student: The effect of ARCS-based strategies on confidence and performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2).	439
	13. Walker C. E., & Kelly, E. (2007). Online instruction: Student satisfaction, kudos, and pet peeves. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4).	439
	14. Cobb, A. (2011). Assistive technology: Enhancing the life skills of students with learning disabilities. Distance Learning, 8(4).	439
	15. Dotson, K. & Bian, H. (2013). Supervision on site: A critical factor in the online facilitated internship. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(2).	439
	Part Iv: Leading The Development And Support Of Online Faculty And Staff	439
	16. Khan, S. B., & Chishti, S. (2012). Effects of staff training and development on teachers in a distance learning program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2).	439
	17. Waweru, J. (2013). Maximizing HR professionals’ leadership role in e-learning for organizational effectiveness. Distance Learning, 10(4).	439
	18. Stewart, B. L., Goodson, C., & Miertschin, S. L. (2010). Off-site faculty: Perspectives on online experiences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(3).	440
	19. Chiesl, N. (2007). Pragmatic methods to reduce dishonesty in web- based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3).	440
	20. Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2014). Assessing online faculty: More than student surveys and design rubrics. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3).	440
	21. Schmidt, S., Hodge, E., & Tschida, C. (2013). How university faculty members develop their online teaching skills. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3).	440
	Part V: Legal and Accreditation Issues	440
	22. Seok, S. (2007). Standards, accreditation, benchmarks, and guidelines in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4).	440
	23. Kranch, D. A. (2008). Who owns online course intellectual property? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4).	440
	24. Loggie, K., Barron, A., Gulitz, E., Hohlfeld, T., Kromrey, J., Venable, M., & Sweeney, P. (2007). Intellectual property and online courses: Policies at major research universities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(2).	440
	25. Crow, K. L. (2008). The legal environment of accessible postsecondary online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9(2).	440
	Back Cover	442

Service

Info/Kontakt

Kontakt