Innovation in Higher Education: How public universities demonstrate innovative course delivery options
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTThis study examines innovative ways that traditional public universities deliver online and hybrid web-enabled courses. The study finds which actual course features (lectures, readings, discussions, examinations, tutoring, and group work) are more likely found in pure online courses and which in hybrid courses. Results also reveal which of these course features students are likely to prefer to be online for purely online courses and for hybrid courses. Finally, results find which course features are associated with student satisfaction and student achievement. This in-depth study should help traditional public universities to develop more innovative (meaning creating new effective means to improve student satisfaction and achievement) online and partially online programs and courses, as they face competition from newer private online-only universities.Keywords: Online education, web-enabled courses, student achievement, public universitiesIntroductionOnline education is increasing in popularity, and has been the topic of a substantial amount of research (Dykman & Davis, 2008a). Research by the Sloan Consortium indicates that the number of students in the United States taking at least one online course per year reached 3.2 million in 2005 (Allen & Seaman, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; Allen, Seaman, & Garrett, 2007; Sloan-C, 2007; see Dykman & Davis, 2008a). More students expect the convenience of online courses and programs. Traditional public universities, facing increasing competition from newer private online-only universities, must innovate their course offerings and programs. In response, many public universities are using technology to develop their own innovative curricula.Therefore, besides online-only universities, many traditional public universities also now offer varying degrees of online education. Online education formats range from a portion of a course to offering entire degree programs (Holstrum & Lloyd-Jones, 1998). A small online segment may be integrated into a traditional course. For example, a professor may elect to use certain course management tools in order to facilitate out-of-class online discussion boards to complement in-class discussions. These tools can also be used to facilitate small group interaction through group chatting and file sharing, that is, to enhance classroom team projects. Moreover, traditional universities may offer entire courses or majors online (Bryant et al., 2005). As such, traditional universities may offer in the online environment entire programs, entire courses, or just specific features inside of a traditional course.Many studies and reports, focusing predominantly on purely online and purely traditional courses, have shown mixed results regarding student satisfaction and achievement (refer to Hara & Kling, 1999; Hirschheim, 2005; Jackson & Helms, 2008; Klesius, Homan, & Thompson, 1997; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000; Storck & Sproull, 1995, as examples). Therefore, it is important to research this entire range of online education formats offered at traditional universities. To do so, it is important to examine the role and effectiveness of offering specific course features or activities (e.g., lectures, readings and assignments, examinations, participation threats, etc.) This in-depth detail is required to truly understand the nature of this innovation to higher education.Therefore, the current study will attempt to address these issues. This study will address the impact on student satisfaction and achievement of online-only courses and hybrid courses (those using web-enabled technologies) for traditional public universities. Specifically, this study looks at the course features that students would prefer to receive online, and what they actually do receive online. By looking more closely at specific course features, those that students prefer (perhaps because they are convenient), and those that students actually receive in various course formats, we should be better able to understand student satisfaction and student achievement. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».