Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
IT8140StudyCritique
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

IT8140StudyCritique

302

Published on

Critique of a research study for IT8140 at WSU

Critique of a research study for IT8140 at WSU

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
302
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Review and Critique of Study Jason Siko IT8140
  • 2. Lee, J.A. & Busch, P.E. (2005). Factors related to instructors’ willingness to participate in distance education. Journal of Educational Research, 99 (2), 109-115. <ul><li>Focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What factors encouraged and discouraged faculty from teaching distance education (DE) courses </li></ul></ul>
  • 3. Hypotheses <ul><li>Instructors’ willingness to participate in DE will be correlated positively with their perception of the training that they receive. </li></ul><ul><li>Instructors’ willingness to participate in DE will be related negatively with their opinions about the effort and time commitment to develop course materials. </li></ul><ul><li>Instructors’ willingness to participate in DE will be correlated positively with their perception of recognition for their effort. </li></ul><ul><li>Instructors will rate face-to-face (FF) instruction more favorably than DE formats in terms of their comfort with the format, instructor-student interaction, students’ opportunities to interact before and after class, students’ opportunities to participate in class discussions, and compatibility with various learning styles. </li></ul><ul><li>Format of instruction (face-to-face instruction vs. DE formats) will not affect instructors’ timely delivery of feedback to students or their belief that motivation contributes to student success (p. 110). </li></ul>
  • 4. Methods <ul><li>Electronic Survey </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed to 55 professors at a “midsized southeastern university (p.111).” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likert-type scale questions rating statements on overall importance to instruction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Same questions asked with respect to whether they accurately portrayed their last teaching experience in DE and FF formats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Several open-ended questions asked as well. </li></ul></ul>
  • 5. Methods <ul><li>Correlated responses with questions related to willingness </li></ul><ul><li>Content analysis of open-ended questions </li></ul>
  • 6. Results <ul><li>Strong correlations between willingness and </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training (positive) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student satisfaction (positive) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Faculty rate FF courses more favorably than DE courses </li></ul><ul><li>No correlation between format and timeliness of feedback </li></ul><ul><li>These results support hypotheses </li></ul>
  • 7. Results <ul><li>Weak correlation between willingness and </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time and effort required for course development </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Although negatively correlated, correlation was not significant enough to support hypothesis. </li></ul>
  • 8. Results Course management issues Technical problems Accessibility Flexibility Interaction Blended Interaction Equipment problems Course management issues Accessibility Flexibility Student control Asynchronous online Nonverbal communication Flexibility Equipment problems Course management issues Accessibility Interaction Interactive TV Accessibility Flexibility Class composition Interaction Nonverbal behaviors Course management issues Adaptability Student comfort Familiarity Face-to-face Disadvantages Advantages Format
  • 9. Implications <ul><li>Comfort level is important </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data for comfort were higher for FF courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can improve with training </li></ul></ul>
  • 10. Critique <ul><li>Weak data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>44% response rate (26 respondents) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivery system may skew results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of methodology for qualitative data </li></ul>
  • 11. Extensions <ul><li>Expand study to include perceptions of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who have never taught DE courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who have consistently taught DE courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Separate data from those who have only taught DE courses on occasion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Comparisons based on different amounts of training </li></ul>

×