Online learning modes can provide convenience and flexibility to students. But communicating the value of online education in technical and professional communication should not end there. Program directors should rearticulate the narrative about the value of online graduate education beyond flexibility and convenience by reevaluating the ways that program assessment is designed and implemented. This pilot study suggests that a community of inquiry framework can help to communicate the value of the online learning environment to a variety of stakeholders, including prospective and current students, administrators, instructors, and potential employers.
AkyolZ.GarrisonD. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3–22.
2.
AlexanderM. W.PerreaultH.ZhaoJ. J.WaldmanL. (2009). Comparing AACSB faculty and student online learning experiences: Changes between 2000 and 2006. Journal of Educators Online, 6, 1–21.
3.
AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved fromwww.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
4.
AllenJ. (2004). The impact of student learning outcomes assessment on technical and professional communication programs. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13, 93–108.
5.
AnH.ShinS.LimK. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers and Education, 53, 749–760.
6.
AnnandD. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 40–56.
7.
ArbaughJ. B.Cleveland-InnesM.DiazS. R.GarrisonD. R.IceP.RichardsonJ. C.SwanK. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136.
8.
BakerC. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7, 1–30.
9.
BattalioJ. (2009). Success in distance education: Do learning styles and multiple formats matter?American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 71–87.
10.
BejeranoA. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: Who are they for and what have we lost along the way?Communication Education, 57, 408–414.
11.
BentleyT.ZhaoF.ReamesE. H.ReedC. (2004). Frames we live by: Metaphors for the cohort. The Professional Educator, 26, 39–44.
12.
BrownA. L. (2014). Implementing active learning in an online teacher education course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28, 170–182.
13.
BrumbergerE. (2007). Visual communication in the workplace: A survey of practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 369–395.
14.
CameronB. A.MorganK.WilliamsK. C.KosteleckyK. L. (2009). Group projects: Student perceptions of the relationship between social tasks and a sense of community in online group work. American Journal of Distance Education, 23, 20–33.
15.
CargillK.KalikoffB. (2007). Linked psychology and writing courses across the curriculum. Journal of General Education, 56, 83–92.
CoppolaN.ElliotN. (2007). Technology transfer model for program assessment in technical communication. Technical Communication, 54, 459–474.
18.
DennenV. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26, 127–148.
19.
DuJ.HavardB.LiH. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42, 207–218.
20.
DuH. S.WagnerC. (2007). Learning with Weblogs: Enhancing cognitive and social knowledge construction. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50, 1–16.
21.
EvansC. (2013). Making sense of feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.
FergusonP. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51–62.
24.
FogleC. D.ElliottD. (2013). The market value of online degrees as a credible credential. Global Education Journal, 3. Retrieved fromhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2326295
25.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT.ArcherW. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
26.
GarrisonD. R.Cleveland-InnesM. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148.
27.
GerlockJ. A.McBrideD. L. (2013). Managing online discussion forums: Building community by avoiding the drama triangle. College Teaching, 61, 23–29.
28.
GetzlafB.PerryB.ToffnerG.LamarcheK.EdwardsM. (2009). Effective instructor feedback: Perceptions of online graduate students. Journal of Educators Online, 6, 1–22.
29.
HansonJ. (2015). Preparing globally distributed virtual team members to bridge boundaries of language difference: A graduate program teaching case. Connexions, 3, 87–112.
30.
HartH.ConklinJ. (2006). Toward a meaningful model for technical communication. Technical Communication, 53, 395–415.
31.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
32.
JonesI. M. (2011). Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in the online classroom through building a learning community. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 28, 67–116.
33.
JungI.ChoiS.LimC.LeemJ. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in Web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 153–162.
34.
KanukaH.GarrisonD. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15, 21–39.
35.
KeF. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers and Education, 55, 808–820.
36.
LanierC. R. (2009). Analysis of skills called for by technical communication employers in recruitment postings. Technical Communication, 56, 51–61.
37.
LapadatJ. C. (2007). Discourse devices used to establish community, increase coherence, and negotiate agreement in an online university course. Journal of Distance Education, 21, 59–92.
38.
LearJ. L.IsernhagenJ. C.LaCostB. A.KingJ. W. (2009). Instructor presence for Web-based classes. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, L1, 86–98.
39.
LeeJ.Carter-WellsJ.GlaeserB.IversK.StreetC. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 13–33.
40.
LinardopoulosN. (2012). Employers’ perspectives of online education. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29, 189–194.
41.
MaherM. A. (2005). The evolving meaning and influence of cohort membership. Innovative Higher Education, 30, 195–211.
42.
MahoneyS.SchamberJ. (2011). Integrative and deep learning through a learning community: A process view of self. Journal of General Education, 60, 234–247.
43.
MartonF.SaljoR. (1976). On qualitative difference in learning: Outcomes and processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
44.
MayhewM. J.SeifertT. A.PascarellaE. T.Nelson LairdT. F.BlaichC. F. (2012). Going deep into mechanism for moral reasoning growth: How deep learning approaches affect moral reasoning development for first-year students. Research in Higher Education, 53, 26–46.
45.
Nelson LairdT. F.ShoupR.KuhG. D.SchwarzM. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469–494.
46.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.
47.
NollenbergerK. (2015). Comparing alternative teaching modes in a masters program: Student preferences and perceptions. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21, 101–114.
48.
OztokM.BrettC. (2011). Social presence and online learning: A review of the research. Journal of Distance Education, 25, 3.
49.
ParkerK.LenhartA.MooreK. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
50.
PeeryT. S.VenerusoS. S. (2011). Balancing act: Managing instructor presence and workload when creating an interactive community of learners. Online Classroom, 3. Retrieved fromwww.magnapubs.com/newsletter/online-classroom-2908-1.html
51.
PhillipsM. E.GraeffT. R. (2014). Using an in-class simulation in the first accounting class: Moving from surface to deep learning. Journal of Education for Business, 89, 241–247.
RichardsonJ. C.SwanK. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68–88.
54.
RomeroM. (2014). The temporal perspective in higher education learners: Comparisons between online and onsite learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17, 190–209.
55.
RourkeL.KanukaH. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23, 19–48.
56.
ShackelfordJ. L.MaxwellM. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 228–249.
57.
SheaP.LiC. S.PickettA. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and Web-enhanced college courses. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190.
58.
SheaP.VickersJ.HayesS. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11, 127–154.
59.
ShearerR. L.GreggA.JooK. P. (2015). Deep learning in distance education: Are we achieving the goal?American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 126–134.
60.
ShinN. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Learning, 24, 69–86.
SwanK.GarrisonD. R.RichardsonJ. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In PayneC. R. (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
64.
TsaushuM.TalT.SagyO.KaliY.GepsteinS.ZilbersteinD. (2012). Peer learning and support of technology in an undergraduate biology course to enhance deep learning. Life Sciences Education, 11, 402–412.
65.
VarelaO. E.CaterJ. J.MichelN. (2012). Online learning in management education: An empirical study of the role of personality traits. Journal of Computers in Higher Education, 24, 209–225.
66.
Waltonen-MooreS.StuartD.NewtonE.OswaldR.VaronisE. (2006). From virtual strangers to a cohesive online learning community: The evolution of online group development in a professional development course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 287–311.
67.
WalvoordB. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments, and general education (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68.
WangJ.WangH. (2012). Place existing online business communication classes into the international context: Social presence from potential learners’ perspectives. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42, 431–451.
69.
WhitesideA. L. (2003). The skills that technical communicators need: An investigation of technical communication graduates, managers, and curricula. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33, 303–318.
70.
WilliamsJ. M. (2010). Evaluating what students know: Using the RosE portfolio system for institutional and program outcomes assessment. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, 46–57.
71.
WootenB.HancockT. (2009, 2–3). Online learning offers flexibility and convenience for teacher education. Momentum, 40, 28–31.
72.
ZingaroD.OztokM. (2012). Interaction in an asynchronous online course: A synthesis of quantitative predicators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16, 71–82.
