With the advent of web 2.0 and virtual technologies and new understandings about learning within a global, networked environment, online course design has moved beyond the constraints of text readings, papers, and discussion boards. This next generation of online courses needs to dynamically and actively integrate the wide-ranging distribution of content knowledge: network learners, in new ways, while still addressing their unique qualities, assess the process as well as the products of learning and assimilate the rapidly-emerging technologies that are expanding communication and sharing. The acceleration of change in the communication process is requiring a flexibility in the course development process but also in the attitude of the instructor. Instructors must be open to new conceptions of learning and evidence of learning and must be willing to embrace challenge and uncertainty while establishing ongoing development, evaluation, and research goals. This article provides plentiful examples of ways that growth in online and technology-mediated environments can generate high levels of knowledge, learning, and engagement, and can allow for the open development of new learning resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbendrothM. A.GolzyJ.O'ConnorE. A. (2012). Self-created YouTube recordings of microteachings: Their effects upon candidates' readiness for teaching and instructors' assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(2), 141–159.
2.
RamakishnanS. BalasundaramRamadossB. (2009). Assessment using multi-criteria decision approach for “higher order skills” learning domains. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 241–262. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
3.
BaoJ.ShenT. (2012). Creating a digital museum collaboratively to inspire history learning. In RestaP. (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 4568–4573). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
4.
BeranekP.FrenchM. (2011). Team trust in online education: Assessing and comparing team-member trust in online teams versus face-to-face teams. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/735/1296
5.
BradeyS. (2008). Exploring the relationship between academics' personal theories of teaching and their web-enhanced teaching practices. In McFerrinK. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 242–249). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
6.
CongerS. B. (2005). If there is no significant difference, why should we care?The Journal of Educators Online, 2(2), 1–4.
7.
CoulterB.LeBaronJ.CoulterB.McFaddenA. (2005). A passage to online scholarship: One institution's struggle with high-stakes change. In RichardsG. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 601–606). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
8.
Dall'AcquaL. (2009). Specifications and conditions for an adaptive and intelligent e-learning environment. In BastiaensT. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 2485–2493). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
9.
DedeC. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question?Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.
10.
DedeC. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in technology and faculty. In OblingerD.OblingerJ. (Eds.), Educating the net-generation (pp. 15.1–15.22). Boulder, CO: Educause.
11.
DiPietroM.SivyM. (2011). Virtual school teaching: Establishing a framework for K-12 virtual school professional development programs. In KoehlerM.MishraP. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 3447–3453). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
FischerG. (2000). Lifelong learning—more than training. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(3), 265–294. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
14.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
15.
HannaA.MetzerJ. (2011). Beyond learning and sharing information: Voices for liberal education democracy. In BartonS. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011 (pp. 1614–1621). AACE.
16.
HrabowskiF. A.SuessJ.FritzJ. (2011, September-October) Assessment and analytics in institutional transformation: Assessment and analytics in institutional transformation. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 14–28.
17.
HuberE.HarveyM. (2012). The design of a meta-evaluation study of learning and teaching projects in higher education. In Proceedings of Global TIME 2012 (pp. 71–77). AACE.
18.
KhaddageD. F.BakerR.KnezekG. (2012). If not now! When? A mobile badge reward system for K-12 teachers. In RestaP. (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 2900–2905). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
19.
KnezekG.ChristensenR.Tyler-WoodT. (2011). Contrasts in teacher and student perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92–117. AACE.
20.
KrumsvikR.SmithK. (2009). Videopapers—An attempt to narrow the notorious gap between theory and practice in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 3(18), 269–278.
21.
KumarL. R.DamodarK. SampathChackoT. (2012). Dynamics of listsev discussion on educational research. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine, 3(2), 76–81.
22.
LeeK.BrettC. (2012). What student teachers are talking about their online communities of practice (CoP) in constructivist online course? Investigating student teachers'experiences in double-layered CoP participation. In RestaP. (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 566–573). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
23.
LiukkunenK. (2009). Journey from material distribution to virtual working environments. In BastiaensT. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 1351–1358). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
24.
MakoszA. (2011). Using 3D virtual worlds—Opensim, Quest Atlantis—To teach international school students computer science and human values. In BastiaensT.EbnerM. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2480–2489). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
25.
McKenzieB.HuettJ.OzkanB.HaynesL. (2008). Turning hindsight into foresight: Mentoring new distance education faculty. In BonkC. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 2988–2993). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
26.
MillerC.DoeringA.ScharberC. (2010). No such thing as failure, only feedback: Designing innovative opportunities for e-assessment and technology-mediated feedback. In SanchezJ.ZhangK. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (pp. 714–724). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
27.
MollerL.PresteraG.HarveyD.Downs-KellerM.McCauslandJ. (2002). Creating an organic knowledge-building environment within an asynchronous distributed learning context. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 34(1), 47–58.
28.
NorrisD. M.MasonJ.RobsonR.LefrereP.CollierG. (2003). A revolution in knowledge sharing. Educause Review, 38(5), 14–26.
29.
O'ConnorE. (2008). Initial study of pre-service teachers' comments on a reality-based, urban-student video streamed within an online course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(2), 139–157.
30.
O'ConnorE. (2010). The use of a wiki in teacher education: How does learning and instruction change when work can go public? In GibsonD.DodgeB. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2822–2829). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
31.
O'ConnorE. (2011a). Practical considerations when using virtual spaces for learning and collaboration, with minimal setup and support. In YangH. H.YuenS. C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in virtual worlds and environment. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
32.
O'ConnorE. (2011b). The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-created YouTubes of microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 135–154.
33.
O'ConnorE. (2012). Developing effective online collaborative science projects by using course scaffolding, a virtual world, and web 2.0 technologies. In the Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (pp. 728–735). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
34.
RockwellS.SchauerJ.FritzS.MarxD. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/winter24/rockwell24.html
35.
RyanT.JacobK. (2004). Social strategies for engaging online learners. In NallJ.RobsonR. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 1449–1452). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
36.
SandenS.DarraghJ. (2011). Wiki use in the 21st century literacy classroom: A framework for evaluation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 6–20. AACE.
37.
SimpsonC. (2011). Overcoming barriers to e-teaching: Developing a process to support educators who don't know what they don't know. In BartonS. (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011 (pp. 850–853). AACE.
38.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
StuessyC.PetersonC. A.RuebushL.HemingwayC. (2012). There's more to IT than pre-post gains: Outcomes in inquiry-based learning environments engaging research scientists as online mentors. In RestaP. (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 2115–2122). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
40.
TerasH.TerasM. (2010). 21st century professional development—Bridging the gap between higher education and working life. In SanchezJ.ZhangK. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (pp. 836–843). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
41.
VäljatagaT.LaanpereM. (2010). Learner control and personal learning environment: A challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 277–291.
42.
VeletansiosG. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In VeletansiosG. (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 3–22). Edmonton: AU Press.
43.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
WigginsG.McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45.
WilliamsV.WilliamsB. (2005). Continuous instructional improvement: Assess your way to success. In RichardsG. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 458–461). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
