<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="Joomla! - Open Source Content Management" -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Journal of Interactive Online Learning - Issues</title>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<link>http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 04:06:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Joomla! - Open Source Content Management</generator>
		<atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/rss"/>
		<language>en-gb</language>
		<item>
			<title>BE VOCAL: Characteristics of Successful Online Instructors</title>
			<link>http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/be-vocal-characteristics-of-successful-online-instructors</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/be-vocal-characteristics-of-successful-online-instructors</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<p class="articletitle">
	<strong>BE VOCAL: Characteristics of Successful Online Instructors</strong></p>
<div class="authors">
	<p>
		John R. Savery<br />
		<em>The University of Akron</em></p>
</div>
<div class="abstract">
	<p>
		<strong>Abstract</strong></p>
	<p>
		While classroom teaching and management strategies are well documented, the online learning environment presents different challenges and benefits. Teaching in an online environment requires a special set of teaching skills since many of the strategies and tactics associated with best teaching practices are somewhat constrained by the primarily text-based environment. The VOCAL approach summarizes the key characteristics that a master instructor utilizes to be effective in an online environment. VOCAL is an acronym for Visible, Organized, Compassionate, Analytical and Leader-by-example. The ability of the teacher to effectively infuse these characteristics into their instructional practice &ndash; to BE VOCAL - will promote a supportive, challenging, constructive, rigorous and effective instructional environment. Instructors who practice a VOCAL approach will have more productive learning environments, fewer management problems and more positive learning experiences with their students.</p>
</div>
]]></description>
			<category>Issue 3 - Winter, 2010</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Constructive Student Feedback: Online vs. Traditional Course Evaluations</title>
			<link>http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/constructive-student-feedback-online-vs-traditional-course-evaluations</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/constructive-student-feedback-online-vs-traditional-course-evaluations</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<p class="articletitle">
	<strong>Constructive Student Feedback: Online vs. Traditional Course Evaluations</strong></p>
<div class="authors">
	<p>
		Judy Donovan<br />
		<em>Georgia College and State University</em></p>
	<p>
		Cynthia E. Mader<br />
		John Shinsky<br />
		<em>Grand Valley State University</em></p>
</div>
<div class="abstract">
	<p>
		<strong>Abstract</strong></p>
	<p>
		Substantial efforts have been made recently to compare the effectiveness of traditional course formats to alternative formats (most often, online delivery compared to traditional on-site delivery). This study examines, not the delivery format but rather the evaluation format. It compares traditional paper and pencil methods for course evaluation with electronic methods. Eleven instructors took part in the study. Each instructor taught two sections of the same course; at the end, one course received an online course evaluation, the other a traditional pencil and paper evaluation. Enrollment in these 22 sections was 519 students. Researchers analyzed open-ended comments as well as quantitative rankings for the course evaluations. Researchers found no significant differences in numerical rankings between the two evaluation formats. However, differences were found in number and length of comments, the ratio of positive to negative comments, and the ratio of formative to summative comments. Students completing faculty evaluations online wrote more comments, and the comments were more often formative (defined as a comment that gave specific reasons for judgment so that the instructor knew what the student was suggesting be kept or changed) in nature.</p>
</div>
]]></description>
			<category>Issue 3 - Winter, 2010</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers</title>
			<link>http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/best-practices-in-teaching-k-12-online-lessons-learned-from-michigan-virtual-school-teachers</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/best-practices-in-teaching-k-12-online-lessons-learned-from-michigan-virtual-school-teachers</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<p class="articletitle">
	<strong>Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers</strong></p>
<div class="authors">
	<p>
		Meredith DiPietro<br />
		Richard E. Ferdig<br />
		Erik W. Black<br />
		Megan Preston</p>
</div>
<div class="abstract">
	<p>
		<strong>Abstract</strong></p>
	<p>
		Virtual schools are rising in popularity and presence. Unfortunately, there is a relative dearth of research related to teaching and learning in virtual schools. Although there are numerous handbooks addressing teaching online, there is little research on successful online teaching in the K-12 arena. Much of the existing research focused on teaching online is rooted in face-to-face content, not focused on content areas, built upon a post-secondary audience, or fails to use data from the teachers themselves to triangulate findings. This article reports on a study of 16 virtual school teachers from the Michigan Virtual School (MVS). It reports on best-practices from the interviews conducted with MVS teachers; and also provides research triangulation for those practices. The paper concludes with implications for policy, research, and practice.</p>
</div>
]]></description>
			<category>Issue 3 - Winter, 2010</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Teachers’ Reflections on Pedagogies that Enhance Learning in an Online Course on Teaching for Equity and Social Justice</title>
			<link>http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/teachers-reflections-on-pedagogies-that-enhance-learning-in-an-online-course-on-teaching-for-equity-and-social-justice</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v9/n3/teachers-reflections-on-pedagogies-that-enhance-learning-in-an-online-course-on-teaching-for-equity-and-social-justice</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<p class="articletitle">
	<strong>Teachers&rsquo; Reflections on Pedagogies that Enhance Learning in an Online Course on Teaching for Equity and Social Justice</strong></p>
<div class="authors">
	<p>
		Omiunota Nelly Ukpokodu<br />
		<em>University of Missouri-Kansas City</em></p>
</div>
<div class="abstract">
	<p>
		<strong>Abstract</strong></p>
	<p>
		This study investigated teachers&rsquo; reflective perspectives on pedagogies that enhance learning in an online course on &ldquo;Teaching for equity and social justice&rdquo; in a teacher education program. Data were collected from survey, alternative anonymous course assessment, interview, and document analysis. Participants identified threaded discussions, partner-shared learning, course 3Rs (rigor, relevance and relationships), pre-post narrative inquiries and writing reading response papers as critical pedagogies that enhanced their learning in the online course. In this paper, I analyze and discuss the teachers&rsquo; reflective perspectives and the construction and implementation of these pedagogies.</p>
</div>
]]></description>
			<category>Issue 3 - Winter, 2010</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
