The need for an evaluation instrument for web-based, mainly asynchronous, course websites is necessary. An instrument was developed and tested to assess whether there was an appropriate checklist of items that were expected of an online course website by both students and faculty. The instrument was developed from surveying the current literature in online learning. Faculty and student surveys showed that there was strong support for the instrument overall, but lack of agreement for some individual items. Categories that showed the most differences between faculty and students were instructor information, computer-mediated communication, navigation, and use of the site. Frustration, expressed in comments over differences in expectations, may be mitigated by faculty anticipating problems with the described items and stating requirements prior to the start of the course.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AACSB International. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2006). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/STANDARDS.pdf
AndersonJ. R. (2005). The relationship between student perceptions of team dynamics and simulation game outcomes: An individual-level analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81(2), 85–90.
4.
BernardM. L.ChaparroB. S.MillsM. M., & HalcombC. G. (2003). Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readability of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(6), 823–835.
5.
BryantS. M.KahleJ. B., & SchaferB. A. (2005). Distance education: A review of the contemporary literature. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(3), 255–272.
6.
CashinW. E. (1989). Defining and evaluating college teaching (IDEA Paper No. 21). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, IDEA Center.
7.
CohenP. A., & McKeachieW. J. (1980). The role of colleagues in the evaluation of teaching. Improving College and University Teaching, 28(4), 147–154.
8.
DickW.CareyL., & CareyJ. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
9.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A., & MiddletonE. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 551–565.
10.
EvansC.GibbonsN. J., & ShahK. (2004). Virtual learning in the biological sciences: Pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web.”Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 49–61.
11.
GasserM.BoekeJ.HaffernanM., & TanR. (2005). The influence of font type on information recall. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 181–188.
12.
HathornL. G., & IngramA. L. (2002). Cooperation and collaboration using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 325–347.
13.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In KayeA. R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
14.
IngramA. L., & HathornL. G. (2003). Designing your web site for instructional effectiveness and completeness: First steps. TechTrends, 47(2), 50–56.
15.
KanferR., & AckermanP. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690.
16.
KayeA. R. (1992). Learning together apart. In KayeA. R. (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 1–24). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17.
KeigL., & WaggonerM. D. (1994). Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
18.
KlingN.McCorkleD.MillerC., & ReardonJ. (2005). The impact of testing frequency on student performance in a Marketing course. Journal of Education for Business, 81(2), 67–72.
19.
KrentlerK. A., & Willis-FlurryL. A. (2005). Does technology enhance actual student learning? The case of online discussion boards. Journal of Education for Business, 80(6), 316–321.
20.
LeggeG. E.PelliD. G.RubinG. S., & SchleskeM. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading—I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239–252.
21.
LingJ., & van SchaikP. (2004). The effects of link format and screen location on visual search of web pages. Ergonomics, 47(8), 907–921.
22.
LorenzettiJ. P. (2004). Changing faculty perceptions of online workload. Distance Education Report, 8(20), 1–2.
23.
LynchP. J., & HortonS. (2002). Web style guide: Basic design principles for creating Web sites.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
MaharS.YaylacicegiU., & JanickiT. (2009). The dark side of custom animation. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 6(6), 581–592.
25.
McKinneyV.KanghyunY., & ZahediF. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296–315.
RaynerK., & PollatsekA. (1989). The psychology of reading.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
RieberL. P. (1996). Animation as a distractor to learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(1), 53–57.
30.
SheaP., & BidjeranoT. (2008). Measures of quality in online education: An investigation of the Community of Inquiry Model and the net generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 339–361.
31.
SchnotzW., & RaschT. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting of animation in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47–58.
32.
SperlingR. A.AleksicM., & SeyedmonirM. (2003). Animations as learning tools in authentic science materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(2), 213–221.
33.
TinkerM. A. (1963). Legibility of type.Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
34.
TorkzadehG., & Van DykeT. (2001). Development and validation of an Internet self-efficacy scale. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20(4), 275–280.
35.
TrumbullD.GayG., & MazurJ. (1992). Students' actual and perceived use of navigational and guidance tools in a hypermedia program. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 315–328.
36.
TullisT. S.BoyntonJ. L., & HershH. (1995). Readability of fonts in the Windows environment. Interactive poster session at the CHI 95 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, Denver, CO.
WarschauerM. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 470–481.
39.
WoodsR. H.Jr. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal Email and learners' perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377–394.
40.
YakimoviczA. D., & MurphyK. L. (1995). Constructivism and collaboration on the Internet: Case study of a graduate class experience. Computers in Education, 24(3), 203–209.
