2015
DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2015.1023621
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Student Perceptions of Online Learning: An Analysis of Online Course Evaluations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(36 reference statements)
1
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, after faculty participated in the teaching online seminar, they anticipated lower course evaluation scores when teaching online courses; a decrease of -1.52 from the beginning to the end of the seminar (see Question 4 in Table 9). This result could be due to the fact that faculty participants read the assigned textbook about online teaching, realized the demands of highly interactive online courses in action, and read research on teaching evaluations decreasing when teaching online compared to teaching face-to-face courses (see Lowenthal et al, 2015). Then when asked if they expected the workload of designing and teaching to be higher in online courses than in face-to-face courses, faculty responses increased over the duration of both seminars-meaning that while they expected the workload to be higher, this expectation grew by the end of both seminars.…”
Section: Faculty Confidencementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For instance, after faculty participated in the teaching online seminar, they anticipated lower course evaluation scores when teaching online courses; a decrease of -1.52 from the beginning to the end of the seminar (see Question 4 in Table 9). This result could be due to the fact that faculty participants read the assigned textbook about online teaching, realized the demands of highly interactive online courses in action, and read research on teaching evaluations decreasing when teaching online compared to teaching face-to-face courses (see Lowenthal et al, 2015). Then when asked if they expected the workload of designing and teaching to be higher in online courses than in face-to-face courses, faculty responses increased over the duration of both seminars-meaning that while they expected the workload to be higher, this expectation grew by the end of both seminars.…”
Section: Faculty Confidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is common practice to administer an end-of-course evaluation at the end of a workshop or course to determine learner satisfaction (Lowenthal, Bauer, & Chen, 2015). However, the problem with waiting until the end of the course or workshop to get learner feedback is that once the course is over, it is too late to make any changes and possibly improve the experience for the cohort learners (Dobrovolny & Lowenthal, 2011).…”
Section: Faculty Satisfactionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bauer and Chen [53], students' rating of online courses was lower. Jacob [54] stated that if online experience isolation, "they will not benefit from the course" (p. 10).…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Grade inflation though, makes using grades problematic in many programs (Allen, 2005;Johnson, 2006), which leaves many relying heavily on end-of-course evaluations (Rogers, 2003;Vogt & Slish, 2011;Winters & Payne, 2005). While course evaluations are often criticised for not being valid measures of teaching effectiveness, research does suggest that course evaluations are adequate measures of student satisfaction (Lowenthal, Bauer, & Chen, 2015) and research suggests that student satisfaction is important for administrators of online programs to investigate . The problem with using course evaluations to evaluate an entire online program is that they are completed after each course is over and therefore are unable to provide a larger perspective of an online program.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%