FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W283554237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W283554237 startingPage "58" @default.
• W283554237 abstract "Abstract As demand for use of technology in education increases so too should attention scholarship of teaching within these technologically mediated environments. Interested in doing just that, a team of three professors worked together assess value of online research components in traditionally taught face-to-face classes. Fifty-six education students taking online classes responded a Likert style survey that included a space for comments. Reported in this article are not only generally positive results of study, but also, and in some ways more importantly, interesting analysis issues that research team dealt with in relation scholarship of teaching and survey research. Introduction Integrating technology into educational environments is rapidly shifting from a novelty employed by technologically savvy a requirement forced upon professors in higher education (GaPSC, 2001; NCATE, 2002; Simon Fraser University, 1998; Wright, 2000). As demand for use of technology in education increases so too should attention scholarship of teaching within these technologically mediated environments. Scholars of teaching have been characterized as faculty who frame and systematically investigate questions related student learning--the conditions under which it occurs, what it looks like, how deepen it, and so forth (Hutchings & Shulman, 2000, p. 48). There is hardly a more opportune time ask such questions than when both student and teacher experience change from face-to-face instruction teaching and learning in an online environment. Traditionally educational research has used surveys gather data on classroom practices (Mayer, 1999). However, Mayer (1999) questions validity of such data when he states, the teaching process consists of complex interactions between students and teachers that a survey may not be able do justice to (p. 33). Although it is recognized that adding open ended questions surveys can express feelings, ideas, or reactions without being limited preset categories (Thomas, 1999, p. 47), survey methods texts also emphasize complexity of analyzing responses open ended questions and amount of time involved by both researcher and subject as strong disadvantages there use (Fowler, 2002; Thomas, 1999). Yet it is contention of these authors that advantages listed by Fowler when he states that surveys permit researcher obtain answers that were unanticipated [and] may describe more closely real views of respondents (p. 91) far outweigh disadvantages when issue at hand relates quality of teaching and learning. In this article we demonstrate that in educational settings, and indeed we believe in all research on scholarship of teaching, pragmatic action research (Levin & Greenwood, 2001) that is paradigmatically qualitative and logically inductive (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) is a highly effective approach understanding and improving practice. More specifically, we show value of incorporating a qualitative component into survey research, particularly when survey relates scholarship of teaching. We believe that such a mixed method design (Tashakori & Teddlie, 1998) has potential yield research results that might assist others in understanding more about online teaching and learning environment and, consequently, improve practice. The Study Framework As advocates of active learning (Race, 1998) and supporters of Boyer's suggestion make research a standard component of undergraduate coursework (Boyer Commission, 1998), we are always looking for an opportunity incorporate those activities into our classes. Such an opportunity presented itself one of us who was able move two required education classes a WEBCT-based online learning environment that allowed him opportunity not only incorporate, but also emphasize research-related web-based activities in classes that had been taught in a traditional face-to-face format. …" @default.
• W283554237 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W283554237 creator A5067263012 @default.
• W283554237 creator A5073868036 @default.
• W283554237 creator A5087052563 @default.
• W283554237 date "2002-06-22" @default.
• W283554237 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W283554237 title "Reading between the Lines on Surveys. Bottom Up or Top Down: Which Way to Go for Research on the Scholarship of Teaching?" @default.
• W283554237 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W283554237 type Work @default.
• W283554237 sameAs 283554237 @default.
• W283554237 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W283554237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W283554237 hasAuthorship W283554237A5067263012 @default.
• W283554237 hasAuthorship W283554237A5073868036 @default.
• W283554237 hasAuthorship W283554237A5087052563 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C151416629 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C2777667586 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C2778807487 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W283554237 hasConcept C88610354 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C119857082 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C120912362 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C144024400 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C145420912 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C151416629 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C15744967 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C17744445 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C19417346 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C199360897 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C199539241 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C2776291640 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C2777667586 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C2778061430 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C2778807487 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C41008148 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C554936623 @default.
• W283554237 hasConceptScore W283554237C88610354 @default.
• W283554237 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W283554237 hasLocation W2835542371 @default.
• W283554237 hasOpenAccess W283554237 @default.
• W283554237 hasPrimaryLocation W2835542371 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W114550063 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W1160966 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W1580738353 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W1964775261 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2008697129 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2014205178 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2073538149 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W222568821 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2346420272 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2532535622 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2605636079 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W283436941 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2963181281 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W310840463 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W315766723 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W3197775359 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W342634067 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W60895024 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2160244515 @default.
• W283554237 hasRelatedWork W2605751167 @default.
• W283554237 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W283554237 isParatext "false" @default.
• W283554237 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W283554237 magId "283554237" @default.
• W283554237 workType "article" @default.