Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This multiple case study explores how three online, high school teachers used technological tools to create meaningful learning activities for their students. Findings reveal that teachers use a wide variety of tools and approaches to online learning. Tools are categorized as content, communication, and management tools. Approaches include utilizing a course management system, a teacher developed and designed course, and Project Foundry, an online management tool for project-based learning. Meaningful learning was observed in all sites. However, key findings reveal that students all had few instances of peer-to-peer collaborative learning, competing issues may replace content area learning in online courses, and available tools are not fully utilized for meaningful learning.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bransford

Brown

Cocking

(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burgess

L. A.

(2003). WebCT as an e-learning tool: A study of technology students' perceptions. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 6–15.

Duphorne

Gunawardena

(2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 37–50.

Live

Elluminate

. (2007). About us. Retrieved, May 15, 2007, from http://www.elluminate.com/

Firdyiwek

(1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy? Educational Technology, 39(1), 29–34.

Jonassen

Howland

Moore

Marra

(2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Kearsley

Blomeyer

(2004). Preparing K-12 teachers to teach online. Educational Technology, 44(1), 49–52.

LeCompte

M. D.

Preissle

(1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lewis

C. C.

Abdul-Hamid

(2006). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(20), 83–98.

10.

L. L.

Jeng

(2006). Teacher online discourse: Impacts of instructor roles and facilitative strategies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 183–202.

11.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Moore

M. G.

(1989) Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

13.

Moore

M. G.

(1991). Editorial: Distance Education Theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.

14.

Oliver

Hannafin

M. J.

(2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 75–92.

15.

Project-Based Learning Systems. (2007). Project Foundry: Intuitive and practical by design. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from http://www.projectfoundry.org

16.

Roblyer

M. D.

(2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill–Prentice Hall.

17.

Setzer

J. C.

Lewis

(2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002–03 (NCES 2005-010). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005010.pdf

18.

Wallace

R. M.

(2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447–488.

19.

White

K. W.

Weight

B. H.

(2000). The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

20.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

High School Online: Pedagogy,Preferences,and Practices of Three Online Teachers

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References