MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601662336

Internet-Based Instruction: A National Survey of Psychology Faculty

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

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of instructional psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychologySyllabusEducational psychologyMedical educationPedagogyWorld Wide WebComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of instructional psychologySame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207