Student satisfaction with asynchronous learning

Online Learning Journal

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 87-95

  Dziuban, Charles ^a   Moskal, Patsy ^a   Brophy, Jay ^a   Shea, Peter ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Complexities of Measurement; Digital; Digital Generation; Media Culture; Pedagogy; Personal and Mobile Technologies; Student Learning Preferences; Student Satisfaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872340116     PISSN: 24725749     EISSN: 24725730     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.24059/OLJ.V11I1.1739     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Dziuban, C., P. Moskal and L. Futch. Reactive Behavior, Ambivalence, and the Generations: Emerging patterns in student evaluation of blended learning. Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2007.
2. Postman, N. Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.
3. Postman, N. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985.
4. Dertouzos, M. What Will Be: How the New World of Information will Change Our Lives. New York, New York: Harper Collins, 1997.
5. Kellner, D. Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern Media Culture. New Fetter Lane, London: Routledge, 1995.
6. Morris, L. Have the devices changed the learner? Innovative Higher Education 31(1): 1–3, 2006.
7. Mitch, L. The People’s Encyclopedia. Science 301(5638): 1299, 2003.
8. Korfiatis, N., M. Poulos and G. Bokos. Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wikipedia. Online Information Review 30(3): 252–262, May 2006.
9. Lanier, J. Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism, 2006. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html.
10. Friedman, T. L. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
11. Doctrow, C. On “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism” By Jaron Lanier, 2006. http://www.edge.org/discourse/digital_maoism.html.
12. Jones, D. NCHEMS News – March 1996, 1996.
13. Chad, K. and P. Miller. Do Libraries Matter? The Rise of Library 2.0, 2005. http://www.talis.com/downloads/white_papers/DoLibrariesMatter.pdf.
14. Oblinger, D. Integrating Tradition and Technology. Presentation at the Cornell University Computer Policy and Law Program, Ithaca, NY, 2006. http://www.cit.cornell.edu/oit/ucpl/.
15. Skiba, D. The Millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing? Nursing Education Perspectives 26(6): 370–371, 2005.
16. Prensky, M. Listen to the Natives. Educational Leadership 63(4): 8–13, Dec 2005/Jan 2006.
17. Wager, J. Support Services for the Net Generation: The Penn State Approach. College & University 81(1): 3–10, Summer 2005.
18. Dziuban, C. D., P. D. Moskal and J. Hartman. Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In: J. R. Bourne and J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2005.
19. Abram, S. and J. Luther. Born with the chip: The next generation will profoundly impact both library service and the culture within the profession. Library Journal 129(8): 34, 2004.
20. Howe, N. and W. Strauss. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2000.
21. Prensky, M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. In: F. Yonekura, A Study of Millennial Students and Their Reactive Behavior Patterns in the Online Environment, 17. Dissertation at the University of Central Florida, Department of Educational Studies, 2006.
22. Bisoux, T. Rethinking It. In: F. Yonekura, A Study of Millennial Students and Their Reactive Behavior Patterns in the Online Environment, 20. Dissertation at the University of Central Florida, Department of Educational Studies, 2006.
23. Prensky, M. On the Horizon 9:6, November-December 2001. In: F. Yonekura, A Study of Millennial Students and Their Reactive Behavior Patterns in the Online Environment, 17. Dissertation at the University of Central Florida, Department of Educational Studies, 2006.
24. Brown, J. S. Growing Up Digital. Change 32(2): 10–11, March/April 2000.
25. Frand, J. The Information-Age Mindset: Changes in Students and Implications for Higher Education. EDUCAUSE Review 35(5): 15–24, September/October 2000.
26. Oblinger, D. Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the ‘New Students.’ EDUCAUSE Review 38(4): July/August 2003.
27. Tenner, E. Searching for Dummies. The New York Times, March 26, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/opinion/26tenner.html.
28. Prensky, M. Engage Me or Enrage Me: What Today’s Learner’s Demand. EDUCAUSE Review 40(5): 60–64, September/October 2005. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf.
29. Twenge, J. M. Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—And More Miserable Than Ever Before. New York, NY: Free Press, 2006.
30. Feldman, K. A. The superior college teacher from the students’ view. Research in Higher Education 5: 243–288, 1976.
31. Marsh, H. W. and L. A. Roche. Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist 52(11): 1187–1197, 1997.
32. Dziuban, C. D., M. C. Wang and I. J. Cook. Dr. Fox rocks: Student perceptions of excellent and poor college teaching. Unpublished manuscript, University of Central Florida, 2004.
33. Shea, P., E. Fredericksen, A. Pickett and W. Pelz. Student satisfaction and reported learning in the SUNY Learning Network. In: T. Duffy and J. Kirkley, Learner Centered Theory and Practice in Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003.
34. Bangert, A. W. Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 17(2): 79–99, Spring 2006.
35. Chickering, A. W. and S. C. Erhmann. Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin 49(2): 3–6, 1996.
36. Kuh, G. D. Assessing what really matters to student learning. Change 33(3): 10–19, 2001.
37. Dahl, J. Online services keep Syracuse students satisfied. Distance Education Report: 4–8, November 2005.
38. DiBiase, D. The impact of increasing enrollment on faculty workload and student satisfaction over time. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 8(2): 45–60, 2004.
39. Shea, P. and C. S. Li. A comparative study of “Teaching Presence” and student sense of learning community in online and classroom environments. The Internet and Higher Education 9(3): 175–191, 2006.
40. Shea, P. J., A. M. Pickett and W. E. Pelz. A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(2): 61–80, 2003.
41. Sener, J. and J. Humbert. Student satisfaction with online learning: An expanding universe. Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2003.
42. Swan, K. Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication, & Information 2(1): 23–49, 2002.
43. Linn, L., P. Cranton and B. Bridglall. Psychological type and asynchronous written dialogue in adult learning. Teachers College Record 107(8): 1788–1813, 2005.
44. Shea, P., C. Li, K. Swan and A. Pickett. Developing learning community in online asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(4): 59–82, 2005.
45. Stein, D. Course Structure: Most important factor in student satisfaction. Distance Education Report 8(3): 4, 2004.
46. Helft, M. Young internet producers, bankrolled, are seeking Act II. New York Times, C1, Monday, September 25, 2006.