4.5 Article

Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation

期刊

INTERNET AND HIGHER EDUCATION
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 34-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001

关键词

Award-winning faculty; Online teaching; Course design; Online assessment; Evaluation facilitation strategies; Qualitative research

资金

  1. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grant from University of North Carolina Charlotte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to identify the course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation practices from the perspectives of award-winning online faculty. Aligned with this purpose, we developed a conceptual framework focused on online course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation; and review relevant literature in light of this framework. We interviewed eight award-winning online faculty members from across the United States. These faculty received online teaching awards from one of the following professional associations: Online Learning Consortium (OLC), Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), or United States Distance Learning Association. Based on the interviews, it was found that online instructors use a systematic design process, backwards design, considered learner needs, and designed learner interaction during the design process. Faculty recommended using a variety of assessments, using traditional and authentic assessments and used rubrics to assess students, course templates and quality assurance process and surveys, learning analytics, and peer reviews for assessment and evaluation. Timely response and feedback, availability and presence, and periodic communication were some facilitation strategies the award-winning instructors used. We discuss these findings and provide suggestions for future research and practice. These findings can add to what is known about effective online teaching best practices, standards, and competencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据