Work is proceeding apace. I have copies of most of the articles and some are beginning to trickle in through ILL. One thing I’ve noticed is that a portion of the ILL material is unusable. When I read an article in a journal or online I only copy and add it to the bibliography if I feel it will add to the final product. But I don’t get to vet the ILL material; I have to order it blind. So some titles below – Feenberg, for example – probably won’t make it into the final work.
Here is my strategy from here on out:
- As I read each article I’ll enter notes on thesis and methodology on the Notes Excel chart (the template of which is included in the copy of this document sent to Prof. Pavlovsky through eCollege).
- As I read through the articles certain themes (at this rate I’m guessing 3-5) will emerge. When I’m done with the articles I’ll assign each theme a number and re-sort the Excel Notes by theme.
- I’ll write a section on each of the themes,
- followed by the segueways between themes,
- followed by the conclusion,
- and finally the introduction.
- I’ll let it rest for a few days, proofread and submit.
Finally, I have submitted a slightly amended version of this paper to NERCOMP 2006, the northeast regional EDUCAUSE conference held in (ych) Worcester MA in March. Re-working it for a conference presentation, along with the professor’s notes, will help me shape it into an article for publication.
Here is the latest version of the proposal (amended only slightly) and the 11/10 version of the bibliography -- RobertStudent Noesis in the World of Online Coursework
The dawning of the information age has given young people more than portable music players and the ubiquitous cell phone: digitization allows coursework to be presented in startling new formats that rival any development in educational technology since Socrates picked up a stick and began drawing in the sand. It is not a change that should be taken lightly. The sudden shift from dragging backpacks full of books before a human teacher in a room filled with peers to a laptop alone at the kitchen table necessitates the development of new theoretical and psychological frameworks for both teacher and student. I will draw on the rich, interdisciplinary literature of social informatics to create a model of the emotional, intellectual, and social needs of distance learning students in the digital age. I neither to either praise nor condemn technology-mediated education, merely to get a glimpse into the minds, and needs, of students stepping over this new pedagogical threshold.Bibliography updated 11/22
Ahern, T. C. and Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on on-line education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4): 537-546.
Allen, Mike, and John Bourhis, Nancy Burrell, and Edward Mabry. (2002). Comparing Student Satisfaction with Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 83-97.
Anderson, Lorraine. and S. Banks, P. Leary. (2002) The effect of interactive television courses on student satisfaction. The Journal of Education for Business. 77(3), 164-168.
Barbrow, E. and M. Jeong, S. Parks. (1996). Computer experiences and attitudes of students and preceptors in distance education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(12), ??
Bee R. H. (1998). Differing attitudes of economics students about web-based instruction. College Student Journal, 32(2), pp. 258-269.
Biner P. M. (1999). Re-assessing the role of student attitudes in the evaluation of distance education effectiveness. Distance Education Review. ??(??), ??
Bisciglia, Michael, and Elizabeth Monk-Turner. (2002). Differences in Attitudes Between On-Site and Distance-Site Students in Group Teleconference Courses. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(1), 37-52.
Brown, K. M. (1996). The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education, 17(1): 44-71.
Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in computer conferenced contexts: The learners' perspective. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1): 19-43.
Dutton, John and Marilyn Dutton, Jo Perry. (2002). How do on-line students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6(1): 1-20
Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 6(2): 169-186.
Hara, Norika, and Robert Kling. (2003). Students’ distress with a web-based distance education course: an ethnographic study of participants' experiences. Information, Communication, and Society. 3(4): 557-579
Harasim, L. M. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2): 117-135.
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, and Nancy Coppola, Naomo Rotter, Murray Turoff, and Raquel Benbunan-Fich. (2000). Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 4(2).
Kling, R. (1999). "What is Social Informatics and Why Does it Matter?" 1999. D-Lib Magazine, (5:1) Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html
McGettigan, T. (1999). Virtually Educated: Student Perspectives on the Distance Learning Experience. Radical Pedagogy. 1(2).
Mastrian K.G., McGonigle D. (1997). Older student perceptions of technology based learning nation. assignments. On-Line Journal of Nursing Informatics, 11(2). Retrieved 2005.10.21 from http://cac.psu.edu/~dxm12/percep1.html
Mayzar, R. And C. Dejong. (2003). Student satisfaction with distance education in a criminal justice graduate course. The Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 14(4), ??.
Njagi, Kageni, and Ron Smith, Clint Isbell. (2003). Assessing Student Attitudes Towards Web-based Learning Resources. The North America Web-based Learning Series. Retrieved 2005.10 from http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/2003/PosterNjagiIsbell.html
O'Malley, John, Harrison McCraw. (1999). Students Perceptions of Distance Learning, Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2(4), retrieved: 2005.11.01 http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/omalley24.html
Qureshi, E. , L.L. Morton, E. Antosz. (2002). An Interesting Profile-University Students who Take Distance Education Courses Show Weaker Motivation Than On-Campus Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 4(4),
Rhodes, C. S. (1998). Multiple perceptions and perspectives: Faculty/students' responses to distance learning. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1089-1092.
Rivera, Julio C., and M.K. McAlister, Margaret Rice. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings. Online Journal of DistanceLearning Administration. 4(3)
Rovai, Alfred, and Kirk T. Barnum. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: Student Interactions and Perceptions of Learning. Journal of Distance Education. 18(1), 57-73.
Royal, Kenneth, and K.D. Bradley, G.T. Lineberry. (2005). Evaluating Interactive Television Courses: An Identification of Factors Associated with Student Satisfaction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 8(2), retrieved 2005.11.01
Sawyer, Steve. (2005). Social informatics: overview, principles and opportunities. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved 2005.10.20 from http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Jun-05/sawyer.html
Spiceland, J. Davis, and Charlene Hawkins. (2002). The impact of learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of the Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6(1), 68-75.
Thurmond, Veronica, and Karen Wambach, Helen Connors, Bruce Frey. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: determining the impact of web-based environments by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16(3), 169-189.
Valenta, Annette, and David Therriault, Michael Dieter and Robert Mrtek. (2001). Identifying Student Attitudes and Learning Styles in Distance Education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), pp. 111-127.
Zarghami, F. and C. Hausafus. (2002) Graduate student satisfaction with interactive televised courses based on the site of participation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 3(3), 295-306.