MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1601662336

Internet-Based Instruction: A National Survey of Psychology Faculty

2001· article· en· W1601662336 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen J. Vodanovich, Chris Piotrowski

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of instructional psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueOnline and Blended Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThe InternetPsychologySyllabusEducational psychologyMedical educationPedagogyWorld Wide WebComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Survey responses from a national sample psychology faculty (N = 150) found that respondents generally held favorable attitudes toward the Internet and incorporated online technology for instructional purposes. The specific usage the Internet for teaching purposes was somewhat fundamental (e.g., e-mail, dissemination course syllabi, literature searches). Respondents indicated that the primary drawbacks Internet-based instruction were the substantial time requirements involved and a lack formal training for faculty. ********** Computer-based instruction is a dominant area research focus in education (e.g., Gueldenzoph, Guidera, Whipple, Mertler, & Dutton, 1999). Interestingly, online education, despite its attributes, has been viewed as a potential threat to traditional instruction (Eamon, 1999; Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2000; Ridley & Husband, 1998). Yet, it is noteworthy that relatively few studies have discussed the impact Web-based instruction on the field psychology (e.g., Sherman, 1998), although there has been some recent attention on the advantages that the Internet could offer for the sub-discipline clinical psychology (Smith & Senior, 2001). However, the research focus, to date, has been largely on the impact the Internet upon pedagogical needs psychology students (Maki, Maki, Patterson, & Whittaker, 2000; Pious, 2000; Varnhagen, Drake, & Finley, 1997). But, what are the attitudes faculty in psychology toward Web-based instruction? One recent empirical study (Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 1999), using a sample industrial-organizational psychology faculty, found that the advantages online instruction (i.e., information availability, remote access, convenience) were counterbalanced by several critical drawbacks (e.g., time commitment for course design, sparse training for faculty). Indeed, more data, preferably on national samples, are needed in this area. Thus, the purpose the present study was to determine the attitudes, usage patterns, and perceived drawbacks psychology faculty regarding Web-based instruction. Method Our sample was selected from psychology programs in the United States and Canada listed in the 2000 Graduate Study in Psychology catalog (American Psychological Association.) A two-page questionnaire was mailed to the Chair each department (N = 500) with the request to distribute the survey to the one faculty member most involved in online instruction. The survey included a brief section on personal attitudes toward Internet use, didactic applications specific online functions, and the pros/cons Internet use for instructional purposes. The respondents were asked to respond to each question by completing a series 5-point scales with a rating of 1 indicating a negative or low response (e.g., none/very ineffective) and a 5 depicting a positive score (e.g., extensively/very effective.) A total 150 usable surveys were returned for an adjusted response rate 30 percent. The response sample characteristics were as follows: 86% males, 12% females; 19% Assistant Professor, 21% Associate Professor, and 60% Full Professor. The respondents taught at the university-level for a median 20 years. Results and Discussion Generally, our findings indicate that psychology faculty hold favorable attitudes toward the Internet and incorporate online technology for instructional purposes. That is, faculty indicated that they use the Internet in their teaching to a large extent (M = 3.6), that their general view toward the Internet for instruction is quite positive (M = 4.3), and that they perceive its use as an effective educational tool (M = 4.0). These ratings are somewhat higher than those obtained by Vodanovich and Piotrowski (1999) in a similar survey based on a national sample industrial-organizational psychologists. Perhaps this is an indication that psychology faculty are becoming even more accepting the Internet as an evolving instructional technology. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,315
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,132
Tête enseignante GPT0,455
Écart entre enseignants0,323 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of instructional psychologyMême sujetOnline and Blended LearningTravaux en français237 207