Measuring quality in online programs

Internet and Higher Education

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 159-177

  McGorry, Susan Y ^a  

^a DeSales University   (United States)

Author keywords

Distance education; Information technology; Model; Online programs; Quality

Indexed keywords

DISTANCE EDUCATION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH; STUDENTS;

ONLINE PROGRAMS; POLICYMAKERS; QUALITY;

ONLINE SYSTEMS;

EID: 2942522978     PISSN: 10967516     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00022-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alavi M. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly. 18:1994;159-174.
2. Alavi M., Wheeler B.C., Valacich J.S. Using IT to re-engineer business education: an exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly. 19:1995;293-312.
3. Alavi M., Yoo Y., Vogel D.R. Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal. 40:(6):1997;1310-1333.
4. American Distance Education Consortium. ADEC Guiding principles for distance learning and teaching. 1999; http://www.adec.edu/papers/distance- teaching_principles.html.
5. Arbaugh J.B. Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction in Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education. 24:(1):2000;32-54.
6. Arbaugh J.B. Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: an exploratory comparison of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education. 24:(2):2000;207-227.
7. Arbaugh J.B. How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly. 63:(4):2000;9.
8. Arbaugh J.B. Managing the on-line classroom - A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of Web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research. 13:(2):2002;203-223.
9. Atkinson M., Kydd C. Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. 28:(2):1997;53-62.
10. Bagozzi R.P., Davis F.D., Warshaw P.R. Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations. 45:(7):1992;659-686.
11. Clarke R.D. Going the distance. Black Enterprise. 29:1999, April;113-118.
12. Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13:(3):1989;319-340.
13. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science. 35:(8):1989;982-1003.
14. Fresen J. Quality in Web-supported learning. Educational Technology. 42:(1):2002, January-February;28-32.
15. Gibson C., Gibson T. Lessons learned from 100+ years of distance learning. Adults Learning. 7:(1):1995;15.
16. Graham M., Scarborough H. Enhancing the learning environment for distance education students. Distance Education. 22:(2):2001;232-244.
17. Greco J. Going the distance for MBA candidates. Journal of Business Strategy. 20:(3):1999;30-34.
18. Gronroos C. A service-oriented approach to marketing of services. European Journal of Marketing. 12:(8):1978;588-601.
19. Harasim L. Online education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. Harasim L. Online education: perspectives on a new environment. 1990;133-169 Praeger, New York.
20. Harasim L., Hiltz S.R., Teles L., Turoff M. Learning networks. 1995;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
21. Hiltz S.R., Wellman B. Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM. 40:(9):1997;44-49.
22. Li O. Exploration of collaborative learning and communication in an educational environment using computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 34:(4):2002;503-516.
23. McGinn D. College online. Newsweek. 135:(17):2000;54-58.
24. Parasuraman A., Berry L., Zeithaml V. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 1985, Fall;41-50.
25. Parasuraman A., Berry L., Zeithaml V. SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of SERVQUAL. Journal of Marketing. 68:(1):1988, Spring;112-140.
26. Parasuraman A., Berry L., Zeithaml V. Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing. 70:(3):1994;193-199.
27. Phipps R., Merisotis J. What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. 1999;The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC, http://www.ihep.com/org. php/parm=Press/PR15.htm.
28. Russel T. The "no significant difference" phenomenon. 1997; http://tenb.mta.ca/phenom/phenom.html.
29. Sherry L. Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 1:(4):1995;337-365.
30. Sistek-Chandler C. Webifying courses: online education platforms. Converge. 2000, April;34-38.
31. Sonwalkar N. A new methodology for evaluation: the pedagogical rating of online courses. Syllabus. 15:(6):2002, Jan;18-21.
32. Thach E.C., Murphy K.L. Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development. 43:(1):1995;57-79.
33. University of Illinois. (1999, December 7). Teaching at an Internet distance: the pedagogy of online teaching and learning. University of Illinois Faculty Seminar.
34. Warkentin M.E., Sayeed L., Hightower R. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a Web-based conference system. Decision Sciences. 28:(4):1997;975-996.