Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Volume 18, no. 2 / editors Michael Simonson, Charles Schlosser.

Print version record.

Front Cover; Statement of Purpose; Quarterly Review of Distance Education; â#x80;#x9C;Research That Guides Practiceâ#x80;#x9D;; Volume 18, Number 2, 2017; ARTICLES; Quarterly Review of Distance Education Editors and Editorial Board; Editors; Assistant Editor; Editorial Assistant; Department Editors; International; Ray J. Amirault, Illinois State University Yusra Laila Visser, Illinois State University; Michelle Rogers-Estable, SUNY Delhi; Editorial Board; Global Standards for Enhancing Quality in Online Learning; Florence Martin and Drew Polly; University of North Carolina Charlotte.

Annika Jokiaho and Birgit MayLudwigsburg University of Education; The quality of online courses offered has been a topic of discussion in the recent years, and efforts have been taken to establish standards for developing online courses. In this study, the authors review 12 online learning standard documents and ex ... ; INTRODUCTION; ONLINE LEARNING STANDARDS; Purpose of This Study; 1. What are some of the global standard models that focus on enhancing quality in online learning and how many sections and standards are included in each of these standard models?

2. What are the common elements (i.e., most and least emphasized, similarities and differences) of global standards related to online learning?METHOD; Data Sources; 1. Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet Based Distance Education; 2. Online Learning Consortium Quality Scorecard, 2005; 3. Blackboard Exemplary Course Rubric, 2000; 4. Quality Matters 2014, 5th Edition; 5. CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 2002; 6. Open eQuality Learning Standards, 2004; 7. NADEOSA (South Africa) 2005 revision of 1996 document.

8. ACODE (Australia) 2014 revision of 2007 document9. Asian Association of Open Universities, no date; 10. ECBCheck 2012; 11. UNIQUe 2011; 12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO); Procedure; Data Analysis; RESULTS; DISCUSSION; Table 1; Standard Details; 7; 24; 4; 25; 8; 75; 4; 17; 8; 45; 7; 7; 13; 184; 8; 64; 10; 54; 13; 46; 10; 71; 7; 38; 8.25; 54.16; Table 2; Codes From Standard Analysis; 164; 115; 102; 77; 47; 45; 40; 33; 27; 650; Selection of the 12 Global Standard Documents; Differences in the Documents; Most-Emphasized Standards; Least-Emphasized Standards.

Similarities and DifferencesImplications for Future Research and the Improvement of Practice; CONCLUSION; REFERENCES; Designing for Quality; An Analysis of Design and Pedagogical Issues in Online Course Development; Mapopa William Sanga; Southwestern Oklahoma State University; This study investigated the process through which 100 online courses were developed in compliance with a purpose-made rubric designed to bring the courses to a level that would meet requirements of membership in a state authorization reciprocity agre ... ; INTRODUCTION; QUALITY IN ONLINE LEARNING.

STATE AUTHORIZATION RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT.

Of ANOVA on Team Scores for Task Type3; 7.289; 0.135; 0.939; 80; 54.180; 3; 64.363; 2.122; 0.104; 80; 30.328; 217.276; 3; 72.425; 2.126; 0.103; 80; 34.066; Table 6; Lower Bias Compared to Higher Bias Team Personality by Task; RECOMMENDATIONS; LIMITATIONS; REFERENCES; APPENDIX A; Week 1: Team Memo Assignment; APPENDIX B; Week 5; Marketplace Simulation Student Instructions.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide