Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:22:36.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2020

Catherine R. Barber ,
Janet K. McCollum  and
Wendy L. Maboudian
Catherine R. Barber
Affiliation:
University of St Thomas, Houston
Janet K. McCollum
Affiliation:
University of St Thomas, Houston
Wendy L. Maboudian
Affiliation:
University of St Thomas, Houston
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The New Roadmap for Creating Online Courses
An Interactive Workbook
 , pp. 222 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allcock, S. J., & Hulme, J. A. (2010). Learning styles in the classroom: Educational benefit or planning exercise. Psychology Teaching Review, 16(2), 67–79.Google Scholar
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 (1990). As amended, 2008. Retrieved from ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwold, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273–284.Google Scholar
Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (rev ed.). BC Open Textbooks. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwold, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
Boud, D. (1991). Implementing student self assessment (2nd ed.). Sydney: HERDSA.Google Scholar
Branson, R., Rayner, G., Cox, J., Furman, J., King, F., & Hannum, W. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Executive Summary, Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, Phase V. (TRADOC Pam 350-30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (NTIS No. ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490). Retrieved from http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a019488.pdf.Google Scholar
Brill, J. M., & Hodges, C. B. (2011). Investigating peer review as an intentional learning strategy to foster collaborative knowledge-building in students of instructional design. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 114–118.Google Scholar
Brookhart, S. M. (2019). A perfect world is one with no grades. ASCD Express, 14(31). Retrieved from http://ascd.org/ascd-express/vol14/num31/a-perfect-world-is-one-with-no-grades.aspxGoogle Scholar
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1993). The mind map book. London: British Broadcasting Corp.Google Scholar
Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
Cantillon, P., & Sargeant, J. (2008). Giving feedback in clinical settings. British Medical Journal, 337, 1292–1294.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2017). Meta-learning: Teaching students how to learn builds success for life. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 26(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
Clancy, A., & Vince, R. (2019). “If I want to feel my feelings, I’ll see a bloody shrink”: Learning from the shadow side of experiential learning. Journal of Management Education, 43(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
Clark, D. R. (2015). ADDIE timeline. Retrieved from http://nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html.Google Scholar
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668.Google Scholar
Clement, N. D., & Lovat, T. (2012). Neuroscience and education: Issues and challenges for curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(4), 534–557.Google Scholar
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.Google Scholar
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dale, E. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching. New York, NY: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
de Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. A., & Hulshof, C. D. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
DiCarlo, S. E. (2009). Too much content, not enough thinking, and too little FUN! Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 257–264.Google Scholar
Drew, A. J. (2014). Teaching international business across multiple modes of delivery: How to maintain equivalence in learning outcomes. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 25, 185–199.Google Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., & Shain, E. A. (2014). How accuracy in students’ self perceptions relates to success in learning. In Benassi, V. A., Overton, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (Eds.). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 142–151). Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php.Google Scholar
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999.) Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gannon-Cook, R., & Ley, K. (2015). Overlooking the obvious: How to use semiotics and metaphors to reinforce e-learning. Participatory Educational Research, 2(3), 109–121.Google Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31–36.Google Scholar
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123–133.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Toward transformation in social knowledge (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. (2004). Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 228–249.Google Scholar
Girash, J. (2014). Metacognition and instruction. In Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (Eds.). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 152–168). Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.phpGoogle Scholar
Goggins Selke, M. J. (2013). Rubric assessment goes to college: Objective, comprehensive evaluation of student work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2012). Good feedback is targeted, specific, timely. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 82–83.Google Scholar
Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. New York, NY: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261.Google Scholar
Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2002). The trouble with learning outcomes. Learning in Higher Education, 3(3). 220–233.Google Scholar
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Gotlieb, R. (2017). Embodied brains, social minds, cultural meaning: Integrating neuroscientific and educational research on social-affective development. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1S), 344S–367S.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (2005). Rethinking thinking: Does Bloom’s taxonomy align with brain science? Kagan Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/289/Rethinking-thinking-does-bloom-s-taxonomy-align-with-brain-science.Google Scholar
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 165–184.Google Scholar
Kember, D,. & Leung, D. Y. P. (2006). Characterising a teaching and learning environment conductive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 185–198.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.Google Scholar
Kisfalvi, V., & Oliver, D. (2015). Creating and maintaining a safe space in experiential learning. Journal of Management Education 39(6), 713–740.Google Scholar
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Koc-Januchta, M., Hoffler, T., Thoma, G., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures – an eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Krathwold, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Book II: Affective domains. New York, NY: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
Kuechler, W., & Stedham, Y. (2018). Management education and transformational learning: The integration of mindfulness in an MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 42(1), 8–33.Google Scholar
Lalley, J. P., & Miller, R. H. (2007). The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction? Education, 128(1), 64–79.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 220–223.Google Scholar
Lapakko, D. (1997). Three cheers for language: A closer examination of a widely cited study of nonverbal communication. Communication Education, 46, 63–67.Google Scholar
Lapakko, D. (2007). Communication is 93% nonverbal: An urban legend proliferates. Communication and Theater Association of Minnesota Journal, 34, 7–19.Google Scholar
Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter: An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
Martinez, A. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699.Google Scholar
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934/2015). Mind, self, & society: The definitive edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31(3), 248–252.Google Scholar
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Merriam, S. B., & Brockett, R. G. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer, R. M. & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Monahan, N. (2015, October 12). More content doesn’t equal more learning. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://facultyfocus.com/articles/curriculum-development/more-content-doesnt-equal-more-learning.Google Scholar
Montessori, M. (1948/1973). From childhood to adolescence, including erdkinder and the function of the university (The Montessori Educational Research Center, trans.). New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school – expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.Google Scholar
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.Google Scholar
Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38.Google Scholar
O’Connor, A. B. (2006). Clinical instruction and evaluation: A teaching resource (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.Google Scholar
Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(3), 160–181.Google Scholar
Reeves, B. (2004). Benefits of interactive online characters. Unpublished manuscript, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rhodes, T. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
Robert, L. P. Jr., Dennis, A. R., & Hung, Y. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 241–279.Google Scholar
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: Where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46, 630–635.Google Scholar
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
Sankey, M. D., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. W. (2011). The impact of multiple representations of content using multimedia on learning outcomes across learning styles and modal preferences. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 7(3), 18–35.Google Scholar
Saunders, S., & Kardia, D. (1997). Creating inclusive college classrooms. Retrieved from http://crlt.umich.edu/gsis/p3_1.Google Scholar
Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb: Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73–95.Google Scholar
Scheuermann, J. A. (2018, February 5). Group vs. collaborative learning: Knowing the difference makes a difference [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://facultyfocus.com/articles/course-design-ideas/group-vs-collaborative-learning-knowing-difference-makes-difference.Google Scholar
Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 159–166.Google Scholar
Schlegel, M. J. (1995) A handbook of instructional and training program design. Springfield, VA: Eric Document Reproduction Service. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383281.pdf.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016/1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (reprint). Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.Google Scholar
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190.Google Scholar
Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience design 1. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Google Scholar
Shelley, D. J., Swartz, L. B., & Cole, M. T. (2007). A comparative analysis of online and traditional undergraduate business law classes. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 3(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
Shireman, R. (2016). The real value of what students do in college [report]. The Century Foundation. Retrieved from http://tcf.org/content/report/the-real-value-of-what-students-do-in-college/?agreed=1.Google Scholar
Simon, E. (2018, November 21). 10 tips for effective online discussions. EduCause Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/11/10-tips-for-effective-online-discussions.Google Scholar
Singh, H., & O’Boyle, M. W. (2004). Interhemispheric interaction during global–local processing in mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students. Neuropsychology, 18(2), 371–377.Google Scholar
Snyman, M., & van den Berg, G. (2018). The significance of the learner profile in recognition of prior learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(1), 24–40.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4), 23–39.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. (2001). Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Subramony, D. P., Molenda, M., Betrus, A. K, & Thalheimer, W. (2014). The mythical retention chart and the corruption of Dale’s cone of experience. Educational Technology, 54(6), 6–16.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. C. M., & Hamdy, H. (2013). Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide no. 83. Medical Teacher, 35(11), e1561–e1572.Google Scholar
Taylor, V. F. (2018). Afraid of the deep: Reflections and analysis of a role-play exercise gone wrong. Journal of Management Education, 42(6), 772–782.Google Scholar
Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.Google Scholar
US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Table 311.5 Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution: Fall 2015 and fall 2016. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_311.15.asp?current=yes.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Y. (2019, February 16). Memorizing versus understanding [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://learningscientists.org/blog/2018/2/16-1.Google Scholar
Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of education. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
Willingham, D. T. (2018). Does tailoring instruction to “learning styles” help students learn? American Educator, 42(2), 28–32, 43.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C. L., & Dunlap, J. C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3), 1–19.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2006). Rethinking rubrics in writing assessment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×