Assessing Distance Teaching and Learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Recently, the number of college and university programs delivered via forms of distance education has increased. the wake of this growth, questions are raised about the quality of distance teaching and learning, and about how to assess such teaching and learning. There a lack of evaluation tools and the majority of distance education publications are opinion pieces and how-to-articles rather than original research. So how can the quality of distance teaching and learning be assessed? We present a theoretical framework for three researched assessment approaches: Faculty/Student Assessment of Distance Education Practices, course-long student journal, and student focus group. Introduction recent years the number of college and university programs being delivered via forms of distance education, particularly via the Interact, has increased. The U.S. Department of Education found that their number increased by 72%, to 1,190 and certificate programs grew from 170 to 330 from 1995 to 1998. 1998 alone, 54,000 online education courses were taken by 1.6 million 1995, 33% of higher education institutions offered distance education courses, and by 1998 the percentage grew to 44%. The Internet was the primary medium for delivering these courses and programs: 66% in 1998, 22% in 1995. (National Center for Education Statistics, Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1997-98. December, 1999. ). Quality Questions There are, in the wake of this growth, questions being raised about the quality of distance teaching and learning. Neo-Luddites, a congressional commission, conscientious professors, and even the U.S. Department of Education have raised this important issue. Neo-Luddites David F. Noble, a professor of history at York University, Toronto, and long time critic of the role of technology in culture, speaks of distance education as fools' gold that is tempting some administrators to put the core values of their institutions at risk. He refers to the low-tech, old-fashioned classroom as sacred space and says, In person, you get a sense of me you can't get online. I'm convinced of that we have five senses. Why artificially narrow the bandwidth? (Young, The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 31, 2000, A47-A49). Congress The Congressional Commission on Web-Based Education, chaired by Senator Bob Kerrey (Democrat, Nebraska), announced that it would encourage distance education providers to offer high-quality programs (Carnevale, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2000, A56). Faculty Faculty have expressed concerns about the quality of distance education. For example, a January 2000 report, Teaching at an Internet Distance, from a faculty study committee from the University of Illinois' three campuses. The committee members' initial perspectives for distance education were balanced between skepticism and enthusiasm. However, the report of the faculty raised concerns about the quality of teaching and learning. Computer mediated instruction may indeed introduce new and highly effective teaching paradigms, but high-quality teaching not always assured. Administrative decisions made without due consideration to pedagogy, or worse, with policies or technology which hampers quality, may cause much wasted time, money, and effort of both faculty and students. See (Young, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 14, 2000, A48). Elsewhere The Faculty Senate at San Diego State University, on April 6, 2000, adopted a five page distance education policy focused on balancing the rights of professors with quality control of courses delivered online. Professorial oversight of distance education courses in their field; student interaction with faculty and other students in the course that substantial, personal, and timely; student access to appropriate resources and services; and full-time professors were among the quality concerns addressed. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».