Assessment of Instructor Information Technology Self-efficacy on Online Course
Delivery Modes and Design Methods in the Radiologic Sciences
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of
Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Stacey Copley, BSNM
Graduate Program in the School of Allied Medical Professions
The Ohio State University
2012
Thesis Committee:
Nina Kowalczyk, PhD, Advisor
Susan White, PhD
Georgianna Sergakis, PhD
ii
Introduction
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the current status of online
education in the radiologic sciences, as well as the use of online educational tools,
methods of delivery, and the instructor IT self-efficacy. This study provides
information about the tools currently utilized in online education in the radiologic
sciences as well as to provide information regarding information self-efficacy from
the instructors’ perspectives.
Methods
An electronic survey instrument was created using Survey Monkey®, and
invitations were sent to a random stratified sample of 365 educators, including
instructors from Joint Review Committee accredited programs in radiography,
radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine. Of these 365 invitees, 102 participants
responded to the survey resulting in a 27.95% response rate. Of the 102
respondents to this survey, only 38 educators indicated they offer on-line courses.
The survey results were then analyzed descriptive statistics, frequency values, and
Spearman Rho correlation.
Results
Approximately two-thirds of the programs responding to the survey did not
offer online core courses. However the institutions that do provide online core
iii
radiologic courses, most commonly reported using PowerPoint® and Flash® online
tools for course delivery and BlackBoard® was reported as the most commonly
used learning management system.
Results from the survey demonstrated a significant relationship between the
type of institution and the use of synchronous technologies suggesting that
university-based programs were more likely to utilize this technology. Significant
relationships were not identified for the remaining variables: IT self-efficacy and the
instructors, age, years of teaching in higher education, years of teaching online, the
use of asynchronous technologies or the use of synchronous technologies.
Additionally, no significant relationship exists between the type of institution and
the use of asynchronous technologies.
Conclusion
The utilization of the online education in the radiologic sciences has
increased, but the traditional classroom setting is still the primary class style
offering. PowerPoint remains the primary content delivery tool of choice, suggesting
a need for educators to incorporate tools that promote student interactions and
interactive learning. The results from the survey did not reveal a significant
relationship between IT self efficacy and age, years of teaching, years of teaching
online course and the use of synchronous and asynchronous technologies, but the
small correlations identified suggests that the younger instructors have a higher IT
self-efficacy. Additionally, no significant relationship exists between the type of
institution and the use of asynchronous technologies. However, there is a significant
relationship between the type of institution and the use of synchronous
iv
technologies. According to the literature, the demonstrated small negative
correlations may indicate that a relationship exists if studies in a larger sample.
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to give special, sincere thanks to my advisor, Professor Nina
Kowalczyk, PhD, for without her expertise, guidance and patience this thesis would
not have been completed. I would also like to give a special thanks to my committee
members, Dr. Susan White and Dr. Georgianna Sergakis for their assistance and
willingness to help and offer expertise. Additionally I would like to thank my
manager, Robert Reid for his insistence that I attend graduate school. I would like to
thank Christopher Scurlock for his support and computer assistance. Lastly, I would
like to thank my parents, Charles and Leisa Copley for their continued support and
always believing in me.
vi
Vita
2001…………………….. B.S. Nuclear Medicine Technology, Wheeling Jesuit University
2001-2005…………… Staff Nuclear Medicine Technologist, The Ohio State University
Medical Center
2005-Present……….. Program Director, Nuclear Medicine Technology Education Program,
Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University
Fields of Study
Major Field: Allied Medical Professions
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Vita…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
iii
vi
vii
ix
x
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Implications and Suggestions for Further Research……………………………………….
50
57
58
60
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
63
68
73
74
75
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………...........................
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………….
Significance of the Problem………………………………………………………………….
Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………................................
Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………....
Chapter 2: Review of Literature……………………..………………………………………………
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………..…….
Distance Education in the Radiologic Sciences…………………………..…………
Instructional Technologies…………………………………………………………………..
Course Structure and Content Delivery………………………………………………...
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….
Research Design………………………………………………………………………………….
Sample Selection…………………………………………………………………………………
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………………………
Reliability and Validity………………………………………………………………………..
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………………
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………
Chapter 4: Results of Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………
Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1
1
2
3
3
5
7
7
12
14
16
21
26
26
27
28
29
30
30
32
32
Sample Demographic…………………………………………………………………………………... 32
Research Questions..……………………………………………………………………………………. 33
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, Implications………………………………………………… 50
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Report of the number of online courses taught……………………………………………...
Table 2: Learning Management systems…………………………………………………………………….
Table 3: Method on online course development…………………………………………………………
Table 4: Number of training hours before course implementation………………………………
Table 5: Number of training hours after course implementation…………………………………
Table 6: Location of online course training………………………………………………………………...
Table 7: The percent time used for different online technologies………………………………..
Table 8: Online tools utilized……………………………………………………………………………………..
Table 9: Assessment of Instructor IT self Efficacy……………………………………………………...
Table 10: Relationship, correlation & p-value…………………………………………………………….
ix
36
37
38
39
40
40
41
43
44
49
List of Figures
Figure 1: Survey question- In the past five years, has your institution offered any
online courses for the core curriculum in your radiologic sciences program…………….
Figure 2: Survey Question – Do you offer fully online courses in your radiologic
curriculum without face to face classroom session………………………………………………….
Figure 3: Survey Question – Do you offer hybrid or blended courses in your core
radiologic sciences program…………………………………………………………………………………..
Figure 4: Survey question – are the online courses also offered as face-to-face………..
x
34
34
35
36
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
Distance education is not a new phenomenon. It began in the 1700s utilizing
U.S. mail as the method of delivery (Walker & Fraser, 2005). As the Internet has
become more accessible, online education is a growing trend in higher education.
Students can obtain access to a course at home, a work, at the library, as well as
other areas offering online access (Johnston, Killion, & Oomen, 2005). According to
the Sloan Consortium survey, in the autumn 2009 term, approximately 5.6 million
students were taking at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2010). This is an
increase from 2.35 million students taking online courses reported in 2004 (Kim, &
Bonk, 2006). Although student success and satisfaction is a key factor in distance
education, how are instructors adapting to this shift in instruction methods and
designs? What are common course design resources and methods/modes of content
delivery? A report from the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic
Technology (2009) indicated that approximately 7% of the accredited programs are
providing online learning courses. Given the increase in the use of Learning
Management Systems (LMS) and educational technology such as podcasts (Boulos,
Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006) in medical education, should the radiologic sciences
1
consider adding more online courses for their students?
For accreditation requirements with online learning, the same requirements
for a physical classroom apply to the online classroom according to the JRCNMT.
Some of the requirements include a safe learning environment, didactic assessment
that is specific to the learning goals for nuclear medicine technology, as well as the
course load should be representative of the credit hours required. The JRCERT
requires in section1.15 of the Standards for radiography programs, that online
courses provide methods of assessment to determine that the student who
registered for an online class is the same student who completes that course work.
Some examples of how to assess the methods include secure logins, pass codes or
proctored exams.
Significance of the Problem
In the health sciences, medicine has taken the lead in utilizing educational
technology. Furthermore, the use of online learning is gaining popularity within
institutions of higher education, but radiologic science programs have not followed
this trend, as it appears that traditional face-to-face learning is still the status quo in
the radiologic sciences. The literature review indicates a growing number of
educational technologies available for programs to adopt in order to serve a diverse
group of students. In addition, it appears that the expectation of using technology in
post-secondary education is on the rise. The use of on-line resources, as a primary
source of learning or in conjunction with traditional educational methods, has been
2
shown to enhance student learning and encourage self-directed learning. Therefore,
this study seeks to explore the types of learning management systems and course
design methods currently utilized in the radiologic sciences; and to identify possible
relationships between instructor information technology self-efficacy and
demographic information.
Research Questions
This exploratory, survey research study will attempt to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the status of distance education in the radiologic sciences?
2. What learning management systems are commonly used for on-line course
delivery?
3. What are the common course design methods of content delivery?
4. Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and:
a. age?
b. years of teaching experience?
c.
number of years of online teaching experience?
d. extent of use with asynchronous technology?
e. Extent of use with synchronous technology
5. Is there a relationship between the type of academic institution and the
extent of use of:
3
a. asynchronous technology?
b. synchronous technology?
Definition of Terms
Asynchronous course delivery The transmission and receipt of information do
not occur simultaneously and learners are responsible for pacing their own self
instruction and learning (Ruiz, Mintzer, Leipzig, 2006)
Blackboard A learning Management System that is proprietary
Blog or Weblog two types of Blog the Journal and filter style: the Journal style is
an online journal or diary containing personal thoughts and opinions where as
the Filter style posts links to websites followed by commentary (Weller, Pegler,
Mason, 2005)
Core Courses Professional educational content that reflects the disciplinespecific courses required by the professional community to supports clinical
practice within a specific area of practice within the radiologic sciences.
IT competency To breakdown IT Competency: IT referencing Information
Technology and Competent defined by Dictionary.com as having suitable or
sufficient skill, experience, properly qualified
Learning Management Systems (LMS) - AKA course Management Systems a
program used to create and manage online course (Vai, Sosulski, 2011)
Moodle an Open Learning Management System – non proprietary
Web based delivery
4
Online Course A course where most or all of the content is delivered online.
Typically have no face-to-face meetings (Allen, Seaman, 2010, pp 5)
Online Learning Also known as ELearning; refers to the use of internet
technologies to deliver solutions to enhance knowledge and performance (Ruiz,
Mintzer, Leipzig, 2006)
Podcast audio of video delivered via RSS to a media player so that a person can
listen and or watch the audio content or video at a time independent of when it
was recorded (Boulos, Maramba, Wheeler, 2006)
Rich Site Summary (RSS) is a format for delivering regularly changing web
content. Many news-related sites, weblogs and other online publishers syndicate
their content as an RSS Feed to whoever wants it (http://www.whatisrss.com/
retrieved on August 21, 2011)
Self-efficacy is a self appraisal of one’s ability to master a task. Self –efficacy
includes judgments about one’s ability to accomplish a task as well as one’s
confidence in one’s skills to perform that task (Pintrich, P, Smith, D, Garcia, T,
and McKeachie, W, 1991).
Skype a program that allows video conferencing with both audio and video to
provide an interactive meeting with two or more locations (Adams, 2011)
Synchronous course delivery refers to real time instructor led online learning,
where learners receive information simultaneously and communicate directly
with other learners (Ruiz, Mintzer, Leipzig, 2006).
5
Traditional course delivery a course with no online technology used- content
is usually delivered in writing or orally (Allen, Seaman, 2010, pp 5)
WebCT A learning Management System that is proprietary
Wiki from Dictionary.com: a web site that allows anyone to add, delete, or revise
content by using a web browser
Limitations
Limitations of this survey include a possible low response rate due to e-mail
spam filters and undeliverable e-mail invitations. The responses will be selfreported and will be based on the respondents’ perceptions of self- efficacy.
Additionally, since the survey sample will include only a random sample of
instructors from institutions that are programmatically accredited by the JRCERT
and JRCNMT, the results of the survey may only be generalized to programmatically
accredited radiologic science programs.
6
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
When designing an online course the key concepts to consider are adult
learning models, maximizing the use of technology provided, and maintaining an
open mindedness about the change in instructor role. Selim (2007) identified three
instructor factors that greatly affect the success of on-line learning: information
technology (IT) competency, teaching style and attitude. IT competency and attitude
seem to share a relationship in that competency sometimes begets attitude toward
the use of technology for online courses. Teaching style also has a relationship to
attitude, as the educator may need to change or alter one’s teaching style in order
present content and facilitate learning in an online course. An individual’s behavior,
attitude and social values can be shaped by the social environment in which they
live, including the attitude and use of technical media (Schimitz & Fulk, 1991).
Technology barriers are frustrating to those who are technologically
insightful and even more so to those instructors who may be somewhat technophobic (Ezziane, 2007). Online courses pose possible disruptions with technical
problems, therefore the instructor’s IT competency, such as the ability to perform
basic troubleshooting tasks including adding a student to the class, password
maintenance, and course modifications, play a crucial role in the student’s success
7
with online courses (Volery & Lord, 2000). IT competency also plays a role in
instructor attitude as indicated by Tabata and Johnsrud (2008), who state that
“faculty who have skills and technical support are motivated to participate in
distance education, or conversely the lack of such support is a deterrent to
participation in distance education” (pp. 636). They suggest that if an instructor
should not feel adequately prepared to engage in distance education instruction,
perhaps the instructor could begin by using a less technical option such as
interactive television with audio – video capabilities and then move on to webbased delivery (Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008).
An instructor’s attitude toward distance education activities and the use of
technology can either have a positive or negative effect on student learning and
success (Sun, et al, 2008). This research suggests that professional expertise should
not be the only measures for selecting instructors for online teaching. Sun (2008)
also determined that student performance was affected by the instructor’s attitude
toward using network and computer technology for online course delivery.
Students enrolled in an online class may experience feelings of isolation; therefore
instructors can help the student to overcome these feelings by promoting the
technology and offering different forms of office hours and contact methods (Volery
& Lord, 2000).
Instructors may also present motivational and attitudinal barriers towards
the use of technology such as computer anxiety, technophobia and lack of IT
8
confidence (Childs, et al, 2005). With proper technical support, instructors may be
able to overcome the above-mentioned barriers. Perhaps if IT confidence can be
improved, then the attitude towards using different IT software for online education
may also improve.
Faculty may have concerns unrelated to technology that may also result in a
negative attitude towards teaching an online course. Maguire (2005) suggests that
faculty may be concerned about a lack of standards for distance education.
Additionally many are concerned about the impact of on-line education on
employment opportunities such as fewer jobs, a decrease in the need for full time
faculty, and a decrease in the quality of the faculty. Additionally, Maguire (2005)
reports that educators are concerned about the lack of time and institutional
support required to develop and implement on-line courses. The lack of online
course training and reduction in promotion or tenure may also affect faculty’s
attitude toward teaching an online course. In contrast to the aforementioned
barriers, Maguire (2005) also points out that the intrinsic motivator of personal
motivation to use technology and intellectual challenge may have a positive impact
on the attitude towards online teaching, since faculty also reported that online
teaching had added to their overall job satisfaction. Motivators such as monetary
incentives, credits toward tenure and promotion, technical support, and on-line
course development training and management were also identified (Maguire, 2005).
In addition, peer pressure, student pressure and community pressure may also
9
motivate educators to become more knowledgeable about distance education and
increase their willingness to engage in this educational method. Peer pressure for
educators may come from within the department, the employing academic
institution, or a competing institution (Maguire, 2005). Educators may experience
student pressure which has been noted not only by students’ preference for
electronic communication, but also in their expectation of the availability of online
libraries. Community pressure is stimulated from the expectation that local
institutions of higher education participate in “cutting-edge” educational methods,
as well as providing course access to all members within the community regardless
of geographic location (Maguire, 2005). Perhaps if the administrative support is
able to address these concerns, then teaching on-line courses may be a source of
motivation for educators, therefore leading to a more positive outcome. Although
the above-mentioned barriers and motivators may differ from one institution to the
next based on the culture and mission of that institution, it is important to identify
those areas of concern in the radiologic educational community.
Many factors play a key role in course design. In order to make a successful
transformation to the online learning environment, emphasis must be placed on the
use of appropriate adult learning models, instructor competency and information
literacy regarding the chosen content delivery technology. Teaching style and the
willingness to adapt a teaching style becomes important in online learning
environments. Educators often use an approach to instructing which he or she feels
10
is best for content covered and the student population, but educators are also often
uninformed of current literature questioning traditional educational methods
(Ezziane, 2007). Volery and Lord (2000) emphasize that instructors need to present
an interactive teaching style as well as encouraging communication and interaction
between fellow students and the instructor, regardless of the delivery method.
Although attitude and technology are important to online education, the
assessment of effective strategies is also important when determining what is best
for online education. Gaytan and McEwen (2007) assessed faculty characteristics
and maintenance of instructional quality; strategies used to asses online courses as
well what types of assessments are perceived as effective with a questionnaire
survey instrument. Some findings from the survey on effective online strategies
include that more females are teaching online courses, as well as more females are
taking online courses. The faculty is well experienced with more than five years of
teaching experiences and at least three years of online teaching experience (Gaytan,
McEwen, 2007). Additionally, the primary reason for enrolling in an online class
was the distance from campus (37%) followed by working full time (26%), where as
the preference to take online classes represented a much lower percentage at 8
percent (Gaytan, McEwen, 2007). As for effective online assessment of course work,
feedback was a critical component in addition to the assignments being clearly
defined and explained (Gaytan, McEwen, 2007). As online teaching continues,
continued assessment of effective assessment strategies should be considered.
11
Theoretical Framework
Bandura (1986) describes social cognitive theory as not being controlled by a
singular force, but rather a “Model of triadic reciprocality in which behavior,
cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events all operate as
interacting determinants of each other” (Bandura, 1986, pp 18). Social cognitive
theory postulates that “If actions were determined solely by external rewards and
punishments, people would behave like weathervanes, constantly shifting direction
to conform to whatever momentary influence happened to impinge upon them”
(Bandura, 1986, pp. 335), however he explains that self-motivation and self-efficacy
results in individuals setting their own goals without the need for encouragement
and the perception of the ability to achieve a task.
In regards to self-efficacy and the age of instructors that may choose to teach
online courses come into question in that it is often believed that “older people are
uncomfortable with new forms of technology than younger people” (Czaja & Sharit,
1998, p 329). Czaja and Sharit (1998) reported that older people are often overlook
for technology training and retraining. Often times the users acceptance of using a
technology, whether is be a personal computer (PC), or even an ATM, is based on the
users awareness of the technology’s purpose, features, if the technology meets the
needs of the user, and availability and support (Czaja & Sharit, 1998). So the
negative attitude towards using technology by older adults may be generally
improved by having more experience and training (Czaja & Sharit, 1998). Perhaps if
12
an older instructor has negative attitude towards converting to an online course
structure, the attitude can be improved by appropriate training and support.
An online learning environment offers instructors the ability to create a
learner-centered environment because on-line instructional models are designed to
be student-centered learning experiences (Moallem, 2001). Collaborative learning
theory postulates that the student is responsible for his or her own building of
knowledge and the role of the teacher is to facilitate to the learning processes
instead of serving as the a primary focus of learning (Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren, &
Ram, 2000). Student involvement is essential to the learning activity and a
collaborative learning model can be used in either a synchronous or asynchronous
method of delivery. Web-technology can support collaborative learning processes;
processes that are student centered in which the learners interact with one another
to accomplish a task (Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren, & Ram, 2000). In the
asynchronous online learning environment, the instructor can adopt the role as
facilitator, allowing the students to create meaning from the assignment rather than
the instructor telling the student what he/she should remember. These learning
strategies are only effective if the instructor has a positive attitude and
demonstrates a willingness to adapt to an on-line environment.
Sandars and Haythornthwaite (2007) raise the concept of ecology, described
as the “dynamic inter-relationships between organisms and their environment”
(Sandars & Haythornthwaite, 2007, pp. 307), when considering the learning
13
environment. These authors relate education to the idea of evolution, but in this
case evolution is referring to the evolution of technology and teaching styles rather
than the evolution of an animal species. This concept of evolution references how
learning has become more of a dynamic and active social development of knowledge
formation that is “tacit and codified” (Sandars & Haythornthwaite, 2007, pp. 308).
Tacit refers to knowledge gained by experience, whereas codified knowledge is
knowledge gained by transmission, such as using a textbook for learning. Tacit
knowledge is not easily found in a book or document, but tacit knowledge can be
shared socially by methods of Wikis and blogs (Sandars & Haythornthwaite, 2007).
Distance Education in the Radiologic Sciences
Online education has become quite ubiquitous throughout the United States
as well as many other countries throughout the world. Research often focuses on
the educational technology; student needs and perceptions; and theoretical guides
for consideration when designing online classes. But little is known about the
current use of on-line learning in the radiation sciences and how instructors are
adapting to this new teaching environment. According to a 2009 Joint Review
Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT) report, of the 729
accredited programs in radiography, radiation therapy, medical dosimetry and
magnetic resonance imaging, only 53 programs (7.2%) offer distance education.
What types of technology can be used to help instructors adapt to this new teaching
environment to increase the use of on-line learning?
14
Cauble and Chernow (1996) examined distance learning in the radiologic
sciences. The results of this study suggested improvement in communication
between faculty members and between students and faculty. Concerns were also
raised about the appropriate use technology (Cauble & Chernow, 1996). Although
the technology has changed over the past 15 years and the findings of this study
may be outdated and irrelevant to the current academic environment, the use of
appropriate educational technology must be managed for program success.
A survey of radiologic technology students, nursing students and the faculty
of these programs indicated the similar patterns of advantages and disadvantages of
online learning course (Britt, 2006). An educational opportunity is provided for
online classroom in that instructors can ask experts to be online guests to interact
with students, where as the guest speaker may not be able to attend a traditional
classroom meeting (Britt, 2006). A disadvantage for many instructors is that they
were traditional face –to-face students before becoming professors, therefore
technology may pose as a major stressor when engaging in online instruction (Britt,
2006). Another disadvantage posed to instructors, is that they lose the ability read
facial expressions and body language when not engaging in a traditional face-to-face
classroom, therefore an instructor may only be able to tell if a student has any
struggles by comments on discussion boards or email. As for the student the
primary advantage is that an online course provides a freedom not constrained by
physical place and time. On the other hand a disadvantage to an online class is that
15
the pace can cause students to fall behind being that the student is now in charge
ensuring that the work is completed. The survey results indicated that additional
research is needed to evaluate student and faculty perceptions as individuals
become more accustomed to online learning (Britt, 2006).
After an online course in healthcare is created, it is must be periodically
evaluated and updated. The Quality Matters Rubric (Donathan & Hanks, 2009) was
developed to help redesign and address the issues of the number of emails received
and time to respond to emails, student-to-student interaction and a reduction in
time grading assignment. The course evaluations indicated that improvement is a
progressive achievement. Collaboration with an instructional designer was
suggested for improved course design and delivery (Donathan, Hanks, 2009).
Johnston (2008) conducted a comparison of radiography student outcomes
when participating in a traditional, face-to-face course to student performance in an
online course in patient care and radiation protection. Student outcomes were
evaluated using a t-test and ANOVA to determine if the variance in GPA and ARRT
exam scores between the student populations was significant. The results indicated
that the GPA difference was not statistically significant, but the ARRT exam scores
indicated that the face-to-face class performed significantly better (Johnston, 2008).
Instructional Technologies
During the design of the course the instructor may choose to use a variety of
instructional technologies. These include text, audio, animation, webcasts, audio
16
conferencing, instant messaging, and web-blogging, as well as podcasts, and other
multimedia formats (Weller, Pegler, & Mason, 2005). Learning management
systems (LMS) are programs or software that are utilized in creating and/or
managing an online course (Vai & Solulski, 2011). They have the ability to create
virtual learning environments for online courses, are also used in the development
online universities, and may be used to track student progression within an on-line
course (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005; Simonson, 2007). LMSs are ubiquitous at
universities around the globe, adding a virtual aspect to traditional campus-based
institutions (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005). Examples of learning management
systems include technologies such as WebCT ®, Moodle™ and Blackboard ®
(Dalsgaard, 2006). Two types of LMS are currently available: proprietary and open
source. A proprietary learning management system is supplied by a single vendor
purchased by the institution and requires a license from that vendor; Blackboard ®
is an example of a proprietary LMS. An open source LMS is free and they are
maintained by the users; Moodle™ is an example of an open source LMS (Simonson,
2007).
When utilized to the fullest potential, many learning management systems
provide a platform on which to build richly collaborative communities of learning
around a particular subject matter. Conversely, some argue that the learning
management systems are only an administrative aide and the instructor is
responsible for building the content upon the constructivist theoretical principles
17
(Dalsgaard, 2006). Ideally the correct technology should effectively deliver the
content and help to achieve the learning goals without distraction from the
technology software.
In addition to a learning management system, the instructor may also use
learning tools such as podcasts, weblogs, instant messaging, wikis, go-to-meetings,
webinars, rotisserie, and second life. Some instructors may even find a use for
communicating with students via social media platforms such as Facebook (Mazer,
Murphy, & Simonds, 2007).
Weblogs are popular methods of communication and community building in
an on-line environment. Weblog and Wikis although asynchronous in nature, still
offer a more immediate form of communicating. The weblog can be either an online
journal/diary or a post of links that allows a community to comment (Weller, et al
2005). There are three major categories of weblogs: grouped blogs, academic
keeping blogs, and students using blogs. Students may use blogs for expressing
thoughts, journaling, reflection or discussion on a subject; whereas the academic
blog offers a fast approach to publication allowing other academics to instantly
comment on the content. Lastly, the group blog can be set up for a set of students
and allows the community to publish the blog and be recognized (Weller, et al,
2005). Weblogs are utilized in education as a means for sharing and discussion that
allows for students to share to other students or the educator to share resources
with students (Weller, et al, 2005).
18
Instructors may also choose to utilize Wiki as part of a collaborative online
community. A Wiki is a website which allows all members to of a community to add
and edit information to a particular website via a web browser. The Wiki may be
student or instructor managed and provides a collection of web pages linked to each
other (Beldarrain, 2006). In contrast to weblog, Wikis are organized more loosely
and allow the students and instructors to be more collaborative (Beldarrain, 2006).
Depending on the design, the online course can allow an instructor to choose
between using Wiki’s and weblogs. Although Wikis have been noted to create a
collaborative learning experience, some students adding content to the Wiki may
feel disinclined to edit the posts by other classmates in order not to offend peers
(Wheeler, 2010). Wikis and weblogs may only hold interest for a short period of
time, therefore tailing off as the course session continues (Wheeler, 2010). The fivestage approach to developing wikis was intended to reduce the chaos and lack of
structure a wiki can present, allowing students to remain engaged throughout the
course (Wheeler, 2010). The Five Stage approach includes the following steps and
associated activities:(1) exploration that includes orientation, basic principles, and
making initial contact; (2) exhibition that includes show and tell, sharing of ideas
and posting links to significant resources; (3) explanation which includes simple
posting and editing, informing and describing details; (4) elaboration which
includes collaborative posting complex editing and dialogue; and (5) evaluation
which includes assessing value, accuracy and significance of content included
19
(Wheeler, 2010). While wikis pose a more collaborative place, they share a bond
with using blogs that are more reflective in nature.
Podcasts can be used in both online and blended classrooms. They do not
require the use of an IPod, as they may also be viewed on any computer or handheld
device that can play MP3 files and RSS feeds (Beldarrain, 2006). Podcasts allow
users to sign up for their favorite or required feeds and notify the users when a new
feed is available (Beldarrain, 2006). Podcast when used as video is referred to as a
vodcast (Boulos, et al, 2006). One option for using podcasting in an on-line course is
to have students create their own podcasts and upload them for group viewing
(Beldarrain, 2006) or have groups provide a presentation in the form of a
podcast/vodcast for other students and instructors to view. Podcasts are commonly
used in medical school curricula to record lectures for review (Boulos, et al, 2006).
Harvard Medical School introduced podcasts to enhance their student’s education in
December 2005. In addition to using the podcast for lecture review; the student can
also use word recognition software to search the archived lectures for pertinent
information regarding a particular topic (Tinkelman, 2006). Some reasons to
consider using podcasts in medical education as well as other education areas
include the number of students who already use the technology, the ability to
selectively replay certain parts for review, besides technology supports podcasts not
only on the IPod, but many other devices such as laptop, tablet computers, and other
handhelds (Sandars, 2009). Podcast usage for education utilizes the hearing
20
sensory for learning and retention. Additionally podcasts appeal to students with
different learning styles, learning disabilities, English as a second language, and
students who prefer to multitask (Sandars, 2009). With the flexibility and potential
gains, podcasting is a technology for educators to adapt into online and or blended
courses.
Another interactive tool that can be used during instruction is Skype™.
Skype™ provides people with a product that allows two or more people to text, voice
and/ or video as a form of communication when they are at a distance, or down the
hallway (http://about.Skype.com, 2011). Adams (2011) describes the use of this
technology to allow the clinical coordinator to communicate with her/his students.
Often times the clinical instructor cannot frequently visit an off campus clinical site
due to travel budget restraints. Therefore, video conferencing, such as Skype can be
used so that the clinical coordinator and the students can interact and review
assignments (Adams, 2011).
Tablet technology and recording/playback software such as Lecture123
allow students to record audio content as well as PowerPoint slides and download
this information to a personal or tablet computers. The tablet computer offers an
advantage over traditional methods because it allows the student to mark and post
questions on the slides (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006). Student is also able to upload
this content from the tablet to the Blackboard management system allowing peers
to read, discuss and provide collaborative comments and peer feedback. These
21
activities promote a student-centered environment allowing students to take a
control of their learning process (Radosevich & Kahn, 2006).
Course Structure and Content Delivery
Although a “plug and play” course design program would be efficient for the
busy instructor, online course design must have instructor input. The instructor
needs to keep in mind the medium of the course, the instructor’s role and the
student’s role, and keep an open minded when reviewing course evaluation in order
to make improvements to the course. Course design for distance education needs to
consider course structure in addition to learning models. Course structure has two
main elements, course goals /objectives and infrastructure (Eom, Wen, & Ashill,
2006). Course objectives are similar to that in a traditional classroom setting and
the objectives should be included in the course syllabus. The syllabus may also
include the type of expected student participation as related to the technology used
for a particular online course (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006).
Infrastructure according to dictionary.com is the support or underlying basis
or framework of a system, therefore online course infrastructure, is referencing the
basics to how the course is structured and what technology is used to provide that
structure. Course infrastructure reflects the user friendliness of the website and
organization of course material (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006). Technology user
friendliness has an impact on both student and instructor satisfaction perceptions.
LMSs provide a medium for instructors to create a course infrastructure (Debourgh,
22
2002). Instructional strategies for an excellent infrastructure are multimode
instruction, for example: visual, aural, and text learning prompts; as well as
interactive online discussion, coaching, collaboration, and lastly reflection and selfregulated learning (Debourgh, 2002).
Course Infrastructure should include an LMS such as Blackboard ® or
Moodle, in conjunction with alternate technologies such as podcasts, Wikis, and
weblogs. With the Web 2.0 emergence allowing for more interactive sharing, RSS
feeds allows Wikis and blogs to become easily editable, consequently social software
is becoming part of the course Infrastructure (Martino & Odle, 2008).
Designing an online syllabus is also important. An online syllabus should be
similar to a traditional syllabus including basics such as course description,
objectives, evaluation methods, and assignment of grades, required and
recommended readings. Furthermore, the online syllabus should also include a
communication plan; a clear explanation of course time frame and format;
guidelines for class participation; technical requirements and support; and a course
outline with start and end dates (Vai & Sosulski, 2011). Vai and Sosulski (2011)
provide information on the unit structure for designing online courses breaking it
down course into subsections, starting with the unit, then lessons, then sections,
then segments. The authors also give insight to posting lecture notes in smaller
subsections versus long notes or videos (Vai & Sosulski, 2011).
The following concepts need to be given time and consideration during
23
course design: “(a) presentation of content, (b) instructor-student and studentstudent interaction, (c) individual and group activities, and (d) assessment of
student performance” (Rovai, A., 2004, pp. 84). As discussed above, the instructor
first must assess the goals or purpose of the class. After assessing the
goals/purpose of the class and keeping in mind an appropriate learning model, the
method of content delivery must be determined. Childs, et al (2005) discuss
barriers and solutions for online education suggesting that online learning may be
more effective utilizing a blended design of both traditional and online learning. The
online component of a course may also be synchronous and asynchronous. A
synchronous class presentation means that thing is happening at the same time
where as an asynchronous class presentation means that things are happening at
different times (Vai, Sosulski, 2011). Branon and Essex (2001), suggest the following
uses of synchronous course content delivery: holding virtual office hours,
brainstorming activities, community building opportunities, team decision making,
or possible technical issues. In contrast, asynchronous activities are excellent when
communicating with diverse students, to facilitate ongoing discussion with archival
requirement, and when asking students to reflect on a topic prior to responding,
thus allowing more thoughtful in-depth discussions (Branon & Essex, 2001). If the
goal of the course is not to be blended with a traditional classroom setting, then a
blending between both synchronous and asynchronous methods will allow the
instructor to offer multi modes of content delivery as well as consider different
24
learning styles.
Learning goals is key to using technology is education. Martino and Odle
(2008) provide student-centered teaching strategies when using technology
focusing on active learning. In this learning environment, students are confronted
with a problem and must apply knowledge onsite. For example, a radiologic science
student can better learn the applied math by calculating the doses in the clinic al
environment versus completing math problem from a workbook (Martino & Odle,
2008).
25
Chapter 3
Methodology
Research Design
This exploratory, survey research study is a descriptive analysis of the status
of on-line education in the radiologic sciences in reference to course delivery,
design, and resources. It evaluates relationships between instructors’ perceptions of
information technology self-efficacy and instructor age, years of experience teaching
in higher education, years of experience teaching online courses and the extent of
use with asynchronous and synchronous technologies. It also assesses if a
relationship exists between the type of educational institution and the extent of use
of asynchronous and synchronous technologies. This study was determined to be
exempt by the The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board. A web based
survey to radiologic science educators provided data in reference to the following
research questions:
1. What is the status of distance education in the radiologic sciences?
2. What learning management systems are commonly used for on-line course
delivery?
3. What are the common course design methods of content delivery?
4. Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
26
information technology and:
a. age?
b. years of teaching experience?
c.
number of years of online teaching experience?
d. extent of use of asynchronous technology?
e. extent of use of synchronous technology
5. Is there a relationship between the type of academic institution and the
extent of use with use of:
a.
asynchronous technology?
b. synchronous technology?
Sample Selection
Participants of the survey consist of a random stratified sample of 373
educators, including instructors from Joint Review Committee accredited programs
in radiography, radiation therapy and nuclear medicine. This population was
chosen because they are the major decision makers regarding the adoption of online education in the radiologic sciences. The educational institutions solicited for
this study represent programs at the baccalaureate degree, associate degree, and
certificate level. The names and email addresses of radiologic science program
directors were obtained from the JRCERT and JRCNMT and the list of educator’s
names and addresses were reviewed to assure duplicates were purged and selection
27
error was controlled. A goodness of fit Test will be performed to assess the observed
and expected values.
After the list of all JRC programs was obtained, a power analysis to determine
the effect size was determined using RatStats. Of the 813 programs 150 programs
were randomly selected to participate in the survey. Information regarding the
current projected number of online radiologic science programs for the power
analysis was determined by comparison with online nursing programs in the United
States. An online search of accredited nursing programs (American Association of
Colleges of Nurses, 2012; All Nursing Schools, 2012) offering online courses was
conducted to determine the appropriate number of programs required for this
study. Based on this analysis, a stratified random selection of programs was
selected using the Microsoft Excel randomization function based on the discipline
(radiography, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy) and type of institution
(baccalaureate degree, associate degree, and certificate level). Individual instructor
e-mail contact information from the randomly selected programs was obtained from
the specific institutional websites.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument used is adapted from the U.S. Department of
Education National Center for Education Statistics Distance Education at
Postsecondary Institutions Survey (2007); research conducted by Gaytan and
28
McEwen (2007) regarding effective online instructional and assessment strategies;
and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, et al,
1991). Demographic information was adapted from the Gaytan and McEwen (2007)
survey to correspond to radiologic science educators.
The survey instrument is comprised of four sections (Appendix A). The first
section determines the status of on-line education in the radiologic sciences. It
consists of 4 questions to be evaluated by responding “yes” or “no” and one question
to report frequency. Section two determines the percentage of time the instructor
utilizes various course delivery technologies as well as well as identify the on-line
Learning Management Systems and delivery tools used in their on-line courses. This
section is designed using a continuous scale of time from 0%-100%, multiple choice,
frequency and open-ended questions. Section three uses 7 questions adapted from
the MSLQ to identify the instructors’ self-identified information technology selfefficacy scores. This section is evaluated by “yes”, “No”, “Part of the time”. The
fourth section solicits demographic information, which includes age, type of
institution, IT support, professional discipline, campus structure, and years of
experience in higher education, years of experience teaching on-line courses, and
training in on-line technologies.
Reliability and Validity
Gaytan and McEwen’s (2007) instrument revealed an internal consistency of
29
0.86. The calculation of a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0 .7 demonstrates a strong
correlation between the research questions items (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, 2002).
Content and face validity was also previously established through a pilot study
conducted by Gaytan and McEwen (2007) prior to the large survey administration.
Data Collection
The survey was developed and implemented on Survey Monkey ™, providing
the educators with an easy mechanism of completing the survey. An email
announcement was mailed to the stratified random sample of educators from
accredited radiologic science programs in the United States describing the research
study and providing a link to the Survey Monkey ™ site for the survey (Appendix B).
One reminder emails was sent two weeks after the initial invitation and included the
website address to access the survey (Appendix C). All data was collected through
Survey Monke™ and transferred to an Excel® spreadsheet and statistically analyzed
using SPSS.19®.
Data Analysis
The reliability of the survey instrument was analyzed for reliability at the
completion of the web based survey. Section 2 of the instrument, Technologies &
Design Resources/Methods of Delivery demonstrated acceptable internal
consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha α= 0.672. Section 3: IT Self-efficacy
30
demonstrated high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha α= 0.767. The
calculation of a Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0 .7 demonstrates a strong correlation
between the research questions items (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh, 2002). A field test of
the instrument was conducted for content validity and face validity by a panel of
four experts in radiography education.
The frequencies were reported (Yes/No) for Section 1 to answer research
question 1 regarding the current status of on-line education in the radiologic
sciences. In terms of the LMS currently in the use, research question 2, frequencies
were reported from Section 3, question 1, based on the five most common platforms
currently available. Research question 3 is addressed by reporting means, standard
deviations, and distribution spreads using the continuous scale of time percentages
captured in Section 2 and the course delivery tools used as listed in section 3,
question 2.
The relationships between the dependent variable and independent
variables in research question 4 were analyzed using Spearman rho correlation
coefficient. Any item with a p level less than .05 is considered to be statistically
significant. Relationships between academic institution type (certificate, AS, BS) and
the methods of on-line course delivery, research question 5, were evaluated using
Spearman rho correlation. The Spearman rho calculation was chosen because of the
non-parametric measure of dependence between variables (Archambault, 2000).
31
Chapter 4
Results of Data Analysis
The electronic survey questionnaire was emailed to 373 educators, including
instructors from Joint Review Committee accredited programs in radiography,
radiation therapy and nuclear medicine. Of the 373 invitations sent, one was
returned as undeliverable and seven were rejected by the recipient, thus the final
sample size was 365 individuals. The survey was open for four weeks, with one
reminder email sent two week following the initial invitation. Of these 365 invitees,
102 participants responded to the survey resulting in a 27.95% response rate. Of
the 102 respondents to this survey, only 38 educators indicated they offer on-line
courses. Of those 38 respondents, 12 surveys included incomplete data so the
results reported in some areas of this study are only based on a sample size of 26
educators.
Sample Demographics
The age of respondents ranged from 21- 70 years of age with the majority of
respondents between the ages of 40 – 60 years. In terms of the area of primary
discipline, the majority of the respondents are educators in radiography (90.0%),
followed by nuclear medicine (7.8%), and radiation therapy (2.2%). The majority of
the respondents are employed at a two year community or Junior college setting
32
(58.9%), followed by educators at a four year university (17.8%), and employment
in a hospital based program (16.7%). In reference to the campus structure, the
majority of respondents (83.3%) are employed on-site at a main college or
university campus. A goodness of fit test was run on the observed and expected
values between discipline and institutional type. The goodness of fit test resulted in
a p-value of 3.6E-05 and a chi-square value of 25.7473. The results suggest that the
institutional type for 4- year (BS) programs are over represented with the observed
value of 17 and the expected value of 11.4. Whereas the institutional type for
hospital based (certificate) programs was slightly under represented with the
observed value of 16 and an expected value of 26.4.
The years of teaching experience in higher education ranged from 1- 40 years
with the majority of respondents having less than 20 years of experience.
Additionally, the majority of respondents (52.8%) have also never taught an on-line
course. Of those respondents who have taught on-line courses, the majority (76.7%)
have been teaching on-line courses for 5 years or less. Please see Appendix D for a
summary of demographic information.
Research Questions
What is the status of distance education in the radiologic sciences?
Approximately one third of the respondents (38 respondents) had offered
online courses in the past five years.
33
Figure 1: Survey question- In the past five years, has your institution offered any
online courses for the core curriculum in your radiologic sciences program
Of these educators who reported experience teaching on-line courses, only 36.4%
stated that they offer fully online courses, whereas the majority of programs
(78.8%) offer hybrid or blended courses.
Figure 2: Survey Question – Do you offer fully online courses in your radiologic
curriculum without face-to-face classroom session.
34
Figure 3: Survey Question – Do you offer hybrid or blended courses in your core
radiologic sciences program
The respondents were asked to report the number of fully online core courses and
the number of hybrid or blended core courses. As for the fully online core courses,
more than half of the educators responding to the survey (54.5%) have not taught a
fully online core course, although 6.1% have taught more than 5 fully online core
courses. In reference to hybrid and blended core courses, more than a quarter of
the educators responding to the survey (27.3%) have not taught a hybrid or blended
course, where as 30.3% of the educators responding have taught only 1 course.
None of the educators responding to the survey have taught more than 5 online core
courses.
35
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
Please report the number of on-line core radiologic science courses that you teach within your
curriculum.
Answer Options
0
1
2 3 4 5
More
Respon
than 5
se
Count
Fully on-line courses without face-to-face
18
9
3 1 0 0
2
33
classroom time.
Hybrid or blended core courses. (combination
9
10 5 7 1 1
0
33
of online and face to face classes)
answered question
33
skipped question
69
Table 1: Report of the number of online courses taught
The final question regarding the Status of Online Education in the Radiologic
Sciences inquired to whether the online core course also had an equivalent
traditional face-to-face course. A majority of the educators programs (81.8%) do
not offer an equivalent traditional face-to-face course.
Figure 4: Survey question – are the online courses also offered as face-to-face
36
What learning management systems are commonly used for on-line course
delivery?
In regards to Learning Management Systems (LMS), Blackboard® was the
most frequently used system with 53.8% of the respondents reporting the use of
this LMS. This was followed by 19.2% of the respondents reporting use of Desire to
Learn. WebCT and Moodle both had a response of 7.1%, with no respondents
choosing to use Learning Space. Those respondents who chose the “other” option
wrote in the following learning management systems: Angel, Google Docs and CE6.
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
What Learning Management System(s) does your program use? (Choose all that apply)
Answer Options
WebCT
BlackBoard
Learning Space
Moodle
Desire to Learn
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
7.7%
53.8%
0.0%
7.7%
19.2%
23.1%
2
14
0
2
5
6
answered question
skipped question
26
76
Table 2: Learning Management systems
What are the common course design methods of content delivery?
Results of this survey indicate that the majority (96.2%) of on-line courses
are developed by the instructor for the specific course.
37
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
How did your program acquire and/or develop the online course content? (Choose all that
apply)
Answer Options
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Developed by faculty within your institution
Developed in collaboration with other postsecondary
institutions
Acquired from textbook on-line resources
Acquired from licensed commercial vendors of on-line
programs
Other (please specify)
96.2%
3.8%
25
1
26.9%
3.8%
7
1
3.8%
1
answered question
skipped question
26
76
Table 3: Method on online course development
Textbook online resources were the second most frequent method with
26.9% of the respondents using this method of content delivery. Very few
educators report collaboration with other postsecondary institutions or the use of a
licensed commercial vendor in the development of the course content and delivery.
Only one respondent indicated institutional support in the course delivery design
stating that his/her institution has a “Center of Teaching Excellence (CTE) that
research and collaborate to set up the system for the facility”.
Educators report that although they may be required to design the on-line
course, the majority (80.8%) did receive training prior to course implementation.
38
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
How much initial training did you receive regarding on-line technologies prior course
implementation?
Answer Options
Response
Response Count
Percent
0
1-4 hours
5-10 hours
11-20 hours
21-40 hours
Greater than 40 hours
19.2%
34.6%
19.2%
11.5%
0.0%
15.4%
answered question
skipped question
5
9
5
3
0
4
26
76
Table 4: Number of training hours before course implementation
Approximately one third of the respondents indicate he/she attended 1-4 hours of
training prior to the course implementation. Approximately 20% of the respondents
received 5-10 hours of training, followed by 15.4% of the respondents attending
greater than 40 hours of training prior to course implementation. Interestingly,
however, almost half the respondents did not receive additional training regarding
online technologies after the online course was implemented.
39
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
How much training did you receive regarding on-line technologies after course
implementation?
Answer Options
0
1-4 hours
5-10 hours
11-20 hours
21-40 hours
greater than 40 hours
Response Percent
Response Count
42.3%
26.9%
11.5%
3.8%
11.5%
3.8%
11
7
3
1
3
1
answered question
skipped question
26
76
Table 5: Number of training hours after course implementation
Those that did receive post-implementation training reported attending 1-4 hours
of training after the online course was implemented. Only one respondent received
greater than 40 hours of training after the online course was implemented. The
actual location of the online technologies training was most often an on-site
workshop.
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
Where did the on-line technology training occur?
Answer Options
On-site workshop
Vendor site workshop
CE conference
Formal educational course
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
50.0%
7.7%
11.5%
7.7%
34.6%
13
2
3
2
9
answered question
skipped question
Table 6: Location of online course training
40
26
76
Lastly, in terms of information technology support for on-line technologies, all of
the respondents report the presence of “institutional IT support”, with 23.1%
indicated IT support at the departmental level.
In reference to course design resources/ methods of delivery, the
respondents were asked to indicate the amount of time they use each of the
different technologies in their online courses.
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
What percentage of time do you use the following technologies in your courses?
Answer Options
Asynchronous internet based technologies
where transmission and receipt of
information does not occur simultaneously;
students responsible for self pacing.
Synchronous internet based technologies
where learners receive information
simultaneously and communicate with other
learners; real time instructor led online
learning.
Two way interactive video/ audio (example:
Skype or compressed video)
One-way prerecorded audio/video
(example: Interactive TV, podcasts, or
webcasts)
Wikis (a website that allows students and
instructors to add, delete or revise content
while using a web browser)
Blogs(student led or Instructor led)
Discussion/message boards
Chat
0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
Response
Count
9
5
4
3
5
26
16
5
2
0
3
26
20
3
2
0
1
26
11
12
1
1
1
26
21
3
1
0
1
26
19
5
18
5
7
5
1
6
3
0
6
0
1
2
0
26
26
26
answered question
skipped question
Table 7: The percent time used for different online technologies
41
26
76
From the choices provided, the most frequently used technology was “Discussion
and Message Boards”. Approximately 80% of the respondents report utilization of
discussion boards in their online courses; however this technology is not heavily
used as a means of student interaction. Approximately 62% of the respondents
report use of this technology less than 50% of the time allotted in the online course
From the choices provided, the second most frequently used method of
content delivery was “Asynchronous technologies”. The majority of educators
(65.4%) responding to the survey do use asynchronous technologies in their on-line
learning programs. However, only 30.8% of the respondents report using
asynchronous technologies greater than 50% of the time in the online course.
“Synchronous” internet technologies were utilized less frequently with only 38.5%
of the respondents reporting use of synchronous internet technologies in online
courses.
“One-way Pre Recorded Video-Audio” technologies such as interactive TV,
podcasts and webcasts were used by approximately 58% of the educators
responding to the survey. However, the majority of those responding use of one-way
pre recorded technologies only used the technology for 25% of the time allotted for
the online course. “Two-way Interactive Video-Audio” content delivery systems
such as Skype or compressed video are not common methods of content delivery.
The technology was only used by 23% of the educators responding to the survey,
with 83% of those reporting use of the technology less than 50% if the time
42
allocated for the on-line course.
Additionally “wikis” and “blogs” were rarely utilized in on-line learning
courses. Blogs are only used by 7.7% of the respondents and Wikis are used by less
than 4% the educators responding to this survey (Appendices O). The use of chat
rooms also ranked low with 69.2% of the respondents choosing not to utilize chat
rooms in their online courses.
The delivery tool used most frequently in the online programs is Microsoft
PowerPoint with 92.3% with of the respondents reporting use of this software
program.
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
What delivery tools do you use in your on-line programs? (select all that apply)
Answer Options
Power point
Student response systems
Wiki
Blog
Prezi
Adobe Flash
Soft Chalk
interactive whiteboards
Second life
Elluminate
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
92.3%
30.8%
3.8%
7.7%
15.4%
34.6%
7.7%
7.7%
0.0%
7.7%
15.4%
24
8
1
2
4
9
2
2
0
2
4
answered question
skipped question
Table 8: Online tools utilized
43
26
76
Approximately one third of the respondents report use of Adobe Flash (34.6%) and
student responses systems (30.8%). Prezi was used by 15.4% of the respondents
followed by “Soft chalk” and “Elluminate” which are used by 7.7% of the
respondents. “Second Life” was not used by any of the educators responding to this
survey. Other delivery tools mentioned by educators include the use of “Panopto”,
“Camtasia” and “Wimba”.
Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
Rate your level of confidence for each of the following:
Answer Options
I am confident in my IT literacy needed to
teach online course content
I am confident in my ability to utilize a
learning management system to create an
online courses
I am confident that I will do an excellent job in
delivering on-line course content to my
students
I am confident in my ability to create and
monitor wikis in the online course for my
students
I am confident in my ability to create and
monitor discussion boards in the online
courses
I am confident in my ability to create and
monitor blogs in the online course for my
students
I have greater than or equal the confidence
teaching an online course as compared to
teaching a traditional face-to-face course
Yes
No
N/A
Response
Count
2
Part of
the
time
8
16
0
26
19
2
5
0
26
16
1
9
0
26
5
10
3
8
26
19
1
5
1
26
7
8
3
8
26
11
9
6
0
26
answered question
skipped question
Table 9: Assessment of Instructor IT self Efficacy
44
26
76
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and age, years of teaching experience, number of years
of online teaching experience, use of asynchronous technology, and use of
synchronous technology?
In terms of educator confidence in learning and using a learning
management system (LMS), 73% of the respondents in this survey reported they
were comfortable utilizing the LMS. In addition, 73.1% of the educators also felt
confident in his/her ability to create and monitor discussion boards in the online
course for students. The majority of the respondents (61.5%) reported feeling
confident in IT literacy necessary for teaching an on-line course and feeling
confident in his/her ability to excellently deliver online course content to students.
In terms of confidence teaching an online course in comparison to teaching a
traditional face-to-face course, respondents were almost equal with a small majority
of the respondents (42.3%) always feeling equally confident, 23.1% feeling equally
confident part of the time and 34.6% not feeling equally confident. Additionally,
only 26.9 % of the respondents felt confident creating and monitoring blogs and
only 19.2% of the respondents felt confident in monitoring wiki’s. For statistical
analysis, a self-efficacy score was calculated for each respondent by calculating the
average of responses to question 15.
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and age?
45
A relationship between respondent perceived self-efficacy and age was evaluated
using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r=- 0.151, p=0.462). No significant
relationship was identified between IT self-efficacy and age, however, the small
negative correlation suggests that IT self-efficacy is higher in younger educators.
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and years of teaching experience?
A relationship between respondent perceived self-efficacy and age was evaluated
using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r= - 0.041, p=0.840). No significant
relationship identified between IT self-efficacy and years of teaching higher
education. However, the weak negative correlation may suggest that IT self-efficacy
is higher in educators that have been teaching fewer than ten years.
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and years of teaching online courses?
A relationship between respondent perceived self-efficacy and years of teaching an
on-line course was evaluated using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r= 0.046, p=0.823). No significant relationship was identified between IT selfefficacy and years of teaching online courses. However, the weak negative
correlation may suggest that IT self-efficacy is higher in educators that have been
teaching online courses for fewer than 10 years.
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and the extent of use of asynchronous technologies?
46
A relationship between respondent perceived self-efficacy and use of asynchronous
technologies was evaluated using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r= 0.197,
p=0.334). No significant relationship was identified between IT self-efficacy
and the extent use of synchronous technologies However, the small positive
correlation suggests that those educators that use asynchronous technologies also
have higher IT self-efficacy.
Is there a relationship between the instructors' self-efficacy regarding
information technology and the extent of use of synchronous technologies?
A relationship between respondent perceived self-efficacy and the use of
asynchronous technologies was evaluated using a Spearman rho correlation
coefficient (r= - 0.073, p=0.724). No significant relationship was identified
between IT self-efficacy and the extent of use of synchronous technologies
(Appendix R). However, the weak negative correlation may suggest that those
educators that use synchronous technologies do not have higher IT self-efficacy.
Is there a relationship between the type of academic institution and the extent of
use with asynchronous technology?
A relationship between the type of academic institution and the use of asynchronous
technology was evaluated using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r= -0.259,
p=0.201). No significant correlation was identified between the type of
academic institution and the extent of use of asynchronous technology.
However a small negative correlation was identified suggesting that asynchronous
47
technologies are used more frequently by hospital-based and community college
programs, than by four year University programs.
Is there a relationship between the type of academic institution and the extent of
use of synchronous technology?
A relationship between the type of academic institution and the use of synchronous
technology was evaluated using a Spearman rho correlation coefficient (r= 0.454,
p=0.020). A significant correlation was identified between the type of academic
institution and the extent of use of synchronous technologies. This finding
suggests the use of synchronous technology is utilized more frequently by
institutions offering a baccalaureate degree in the radiologic sciences than programs
offered through a hospital system or community/Junior college.
48
Relationship between
Instructor’s IT self
efficacy:
Age
Years of Teaching
Experience in higher
Education
Years of Experience
teaching online courses
The extent of use with
Asynchronous
technologies
The extent of use with
Asynchronous
technologies
Correlation Coefficient
P-Value
-0.151
-0.041
0.462
0.840
-0.046
0.823
0.197
0.334
-0.073
0.724
Relationship between
Correlation Coefficient
Type of Academic
Institution:
The extent of use with
-0.259
Asynchronous
technologies
The extent of use with
0.454
Asynchronous
technologies
Table 10: Relationship, correlation & p-value
49
P-Value
0.201
0.020
Chapter 5
Discussion, Limitations, Conclusions and Implications
Discussion
The use of online education has increased in colleges and universities across
the United States; however most of the research conducted regarding online
education seeks information from the perspective of the students. This survey and
research focused on the instructors’ perspective of online education. One goal of the
research study was to determine the current status of online education provided in
the radiologic sciences. The survey instrument requested radiologic technology
instructors to identify online teaching activities, mode of instruction, design tools, as
well as his/her IT self-efficacy related to instructional technology used in online
course.
According to the Sloan Consortium survey, in the autumn 2009 term,
approximately 5.6 million students were taking at least one online course (Allen &
Seaman, 2010). An increase in the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) and
educational technology such as podcasts in medical education was also reported by
Boulos, Maramba, and Wheeler (2006). The majority of educational institutions
responding to this survey reported Blackboard® as the most frequently used
learning management system. Since Blackboard® is a well established LMS with a
50
strong presence in post-secondary institutions and has recently acquired both Angel
and WebCT learning management systems, this is not a surprise. In most instances,
the LMS resides with the institution, not the specific educational program. This may
change over time as institutions update the LMS programs across the entire
enterprise to more robust systems in the future.
A 2009 report from the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic
Technology indicated that approximately 7% of the accredited programs are
providing online learning courses. Although, the current survey results suggest that
the use of online distance education is still not prevalent in radiologic science
education, it does suggest an increase in online course activity in the past three
years. Of those responding to this survey, thirty-eight educators representing 28
radiography programs, stated that that his/her institution offered online courses. In
2009 Approximately 7% (48 programs) of JRCERT accredited radiography and
radiation therapy programs offer online courses. From this survey, the 28 programs
represent approximately 19% of the 150 programs randomly selected offering
online course, resulting in an increase of approximately12%. However, only a
minority indicated they offered fully online courses, as over 75% of the educators
reporting use of online activities stated the activities were incorporated in a hybrid
format within the radiologic sciences. Therefore, one may conclude that radiologic
science educators are neither early nor late adopters of online educational
technology, but perhaps fall in the middle of this continuum.
51
According to Debourgh (2002), instructional strategies for online courses
should include visual, aural, and text learning prompts. These consist of interactive
online discussion, coaching, collaboration, reflection and activities that promote
self-regulated learning. Results from this survey suggest that radiologic science
educators have not fully made a transition to interactive technologies, as 92.3%
with of the respondents identified Microsoft PowerPoint as the delivery tool used
most frequently in the online programs. Although this method helps to depart
important information, it does not promote interactive learning. According to
Weller, Pegler, and Mason (2005) online course instructors should use a variety of
instructional technologies such as text, audio, animation, webcasts/podcasts, audio
conferencing, instant messaging, and web-blogging. On the bright side, results of
this survey also indicate that radiologic educators are slowly making a transition to
incorporating alternative interactive online learning strategies. Approximately one
third of the respondents report use of Adobe Flash (34.6%) and a few respondents
report the use of other delivery tools such as Prezi, Soft Chalk, Elluminate, Panopto,
Camtasia and Wimba, which do promote student interactivity. In addition, one of
the most frequently used instructional strategies in the radiologic sciences is
discussion boards with 80% of the respondents reporting utilization of this strategy
in their online courses at least 50% of the time. However, live discussions via
synchronous communication were rarely reported to be used in online radiologic
science courses. Asynchronous discussions were used by the majority of educators
52
(65.4%) responding to the survey. The use of wikis and blogs in on-line learning
courses was also quite low, perhaps due to the facts that they may only hold interest
for a short period of time as stated by Wheeler (2010).
Podcasts are commonly used in medical school curricula to record lectures
for review (Boulos, et al, 2006). They are flexible so they can be used in both online
and blended classrooms (Weller, Pegler, & Mason, 2005). Podcasts may be used in a
variety of ways, for instance Belderrain (2006) suggests requiring individual
students or groups of students to create podcasts to upload for group viewing. They
appeal to students with different learning styles, learning disabilities, English as a
second language, and students who prefer to multitask (Sandars, 2009). One-way
pre recorded video-audio technologies such as interactive TV, podcasts and
webcasts were used by approximately 58% of the educators responding to the
survey, but less than one quarter of the educators reported the use of two-way
interactive video-audio systems such as Skype or compressed video.
The second goal was to assess instructor IT self-efficacy. In the review of
literature, instructor IT self-efficacy may play an important role in online education.
According to Bandura (1986) self-efficacy is the individual’s perception of the ability
to achieve a task. Additionally, Selim (2007) identified three instructor factors that
greatly affect the success of on-line learning: information technology (IT)
competency, teaching style and attitude. The review of literature did not include
current information on the relationship between the instructor IT self-efficacy and
53
the instructor’s age, but a study conducted by Czaja and Sharit (1998) suggested
that age may be a factor in the acceptance of online education. The survey results of
this research identified no significant relationship between instructor IT selfefficacy and the instructor’s age, but the slight negative correlation suggests that
higher IT self efficacy is present in younger instructors. The small sample size is a
limitation to this study, so more research is needed in this area. However, one may
conclude that although IT self-efficacy of older individuals has increased over the
past ten years, a generation gap may still exist. A longitudinal study observing the
instructors’ age and IT self-efficacy maybe useful in further evaluating this weak
relationship suggesting that younger instructors have higher IT self-efficacy.
Gaytan and McEwen (2007) assessed faculty characteristics in order to
address effective strategies for online education. Their research suggested faculty
with more than five years of teaching experiences and at least three years of online
teaching experience were more likely to be successful in teaching online courses
(Gaytan, McEwen, 2007). An analysis of the results of this current study did not
identify a significant relationship between instructors IT self-efficacy and the
number of years the instructors have taught in higher education. Additionally, there
was no significant relationship identified between instructors IT self-efficacy and
the number of years the instructors have taught an online course. Moreover, the
weak negative correlation identified in the current study may not fully support the
findings of Gaytan and McEwen’s research (2007), as an analysis of the current
54
survey data suggests that educators that have been teaching for fewer than 10 years
may have a higher IT self-efficacy than more experienced educators. Although this
is greater than the five years of teaching experiences suggested by Gaytan and
McEwen (2007), it also suggests that those educators with greater than 10 years of
teaching experience may not feel as confident as younger educators in managing an
online course.
Technology barriers are frustrating to those who are technologically
insightful and even more so to those instructors who may be somewhat technophobic (Ezziane, 2007). Online courses pose possible disruptions with technical
problems, therefore the instructor’s IT competency, such as the ability to perform
basic troubleshooting tasks play a crucial role in the success of online courses
(Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008; Volery & Lord, 2000). An instructor must feel adequately
prepared to engage in distance education instruction. The majority of educators
responding to the current survey report that although they may be required to
design their own on-line course, they did receive at least one to four hours of
training prior to course implementation. This may help in the initial design and
implementation, but additional training post-implementation, may be necessary to
improve the success of the online delivery (Donathan & Hanks, 2009). After an
online course in healthcare is created, it is must be periodically evaluated and
updated. Collaboration with an instructional designer was suggested for improved
course design and delivery (Donathan, Hanks, 2009). Only approximately half the
55
respondents to this survey reported completion of this critical post-implementation
training regarding online technologies.
In terms of the relationship between the instructor IT self-efficacy and the
use of synchronous or asynchronous technologies, literature suggests that
instructors need to present an interactive teaching style as well as encouraging
communication and interaction between fellow students and the instructor,
regardless of the delivery method (Volery & Lord, 2000). The instructor must adopt
the role as facilitator in the asynchronous online learning environment, allowing the
students to create meaning from the assignment rather than the instructor telling
the student what he or she should remember. These learning strategies are only
effective if the instructor has a positive attitude and demonstrates a willingness to
adapt to an on-line environment (Nachmias, Mioduser, Oren, & Ram, 2000). Use of
synchronous and asynchronous activities can support collaborative learning
processes, but the instructor’s IT self efficacy will have an impact on the use of
synchronous or asynchronous technologies in online course. In analyzing the results
of this current study, neither the relationship of IT self-efficacy and the use of
synchronous technologies, or the relationship between IT self-efficacy and the use of
asynchronous technologies presented a significant correlation. Interestingly,
however, the relationship between IT self-efficacy and the use of asynchronous
technologies did demonstrate a slight positive correlation suggesting that the
educators who have a high IT self efficacy also effectively use asynchronous
56
technologies in their online courses. Again, a larger sample size may result in more
statistical power suggesting that a stronger relationship may exist.
A significant relationship was identified between the type of institution and
the use of synchronous technologies. This significant positive correlation suggests
that 4 year institutions are more likely to use synchronous technologies, perhaps
because the universities offer the infrastructure to allow interactive synchronous
learning.
Limitations
The primary limitation to this study relates to the low number of
respondents actually using on-line instructional technologies. Of the 102 surveys
completed, only 38 (37.3%) educators reported to have offered an online course at
his/her institution. Of those 38 respondents, only 26 respondents completed all
survey questions. This low number of responses limits the statistical power for
analysis. Therefore, although only one significant statistical relationship was
identified, the small correlational relationships identified between many of the
variables may have been deemed statistically significant with a larger sample size.
A second limitation was the overall response rate (27.95%). The survey was
emailed to 365 instructors and only 102 instructors submitted the survey in either
full or partial completion. This may be due to use of the electronic format, as some
survey invitations may have been trapped in spam filters or blocked by institutional
firewalls.
57
A goodness of fit test was performed on the sample population for the
survey. One limitation determined from this test, was the the BS programs were
over represented with the observed values from the survey as to what the expected
values should be. Lastly, the results of this survey may only be generalized to
JRCERT and JRCNMT accredited programs in radiography, radiation therapy, and
nuclear medicine technology since this was the population studied.
Conclusion
Results from the survey demonstrated a significant relationship between the
type of institution and the use of synchronous technologies suggesting that
university-based programs were more likely to utilize this technology. Significant
relationships were not identified for the remaining variables: IT self-efficacy and the
instructors, age, years of teaching in higher education, years of teaching online, the
use of asynchronous technologies or the use of synchronous technologies.
Additionally, no significant relationship exists between the type of institution and
the use of asynchronous technologies.
The radiologic science programs are slowly adopting the use of online
education in their curriculum and continued development of online education will
reach a larger student population. As noted in the literature, online educational
programs are able to reach students in rural areas and those who have personal
responsibilities such as a job and/or family, which prohibit them from attending
58
college as a traditional full time student. The most common learning management
system is Blackboard®, that most likely was the choice of the institution and not the
specific program. PowerPoint remains the most utilized online tool suggesting that
instructors are merely taking a face-to-face course and posting it online. PowerPoint
provides an excellent platform to display and describe information, but does not
encourage student interaction alone. This is an important issue as discussed by
Ezziane (2007) and Volery and Lord (2000) emphasizing that educators must
demonstrate a willingness to adapt a teaching style conducive to online learning
environments and must present an interactive teaching style as well as encouraging
communication and interaction between fellow students and the instructor.
Although a few instructors reported the use of Adobe Flash, Soft chalk, and Prezzi,
radiologic science educators appear to be slow to adapting to interactive teaching
methods. When designing an online course, student to student and student to
instructor interaction is crucial for success of the course. As we see the change in
adding more interactive programs to online courses, the use of programs that
encourage interaction is still lacking. Also noted from the survey is that most of the
educators were teaching in blended or hybrid course and not fully online courses.
Additionally, the survey suggested amount of training pre and post
implementation of online courses the instructor’s received was low. Radiologic
instructors may not have a choice in reference to the learning management system
utilized by the university or college, but could request additional training on how to
59
integrate interactive online tools into his/her course. Instructor training may
improve IT self-efficacy since self efficacy is one’s perception. Instructor training
may improve the design of the online course to better meet student’s needs. The
instructor needs to be prepared to create an interactive, student centered course
utilizing online tools. If the instructor lacks the self-efficacy to create the course or
the environment, he/she can try different types of training, including how to use the
tools, but how to design the course.
Although there were no significant relationships among the instructor IT
self-efficacy correlations, the negative correlations may suggest that IT self-efficacy
is greater in younger instructors. To improve one’s perception of his/her ability to
create and conduct an online course, the instructor could attend training on how to
implement, utilize and customize interactive online tools. The instructor may also
consider collaboration and the use of instructor discussion boards to keep updated
and share best practices or other advice for online course design and security.
After reviewing the literature and the analysis of the survey, there is a
growth in the utilization of online courses in the radiologic sciences. However most
of the online course are hybrid and blended. The radiologic science instructors may
continue to increase the number of online courses providing the student interest is
also supportive.
Implications and Suggestions for Further Research
Online education has been progressing in concert with the improvement of
60
technology. This research was aimed at the instructor’s perception of online
education. The limiting factor of statistical power due to a low response rate
suggests that this research should be repeated with a larger sample to improve
statistical power. It was apparent that there was an increase in the use of online
course in the radiologic sciences during the three year period from the JRCERT
report and this survey. A longitudinal study over 5 year period with a tool scaled to
only evaluate instructor IT efficacy may be useful to increase the response rate in
order to demonstrate continued trends educators’ comfort and use of online
courses in radiologic sciences. It would also helpful and interesting to investigate in
the longitudinal study the adoption and the use of new educational content delivery
technologies.
From the survey analysis, the instructors did not receive an overwhelming
amount of training regarding the use of online education tools and learning
management systems. It may interesting to investigate if there is a relationship
between the amount training an instructor receives on the use of online
technologies and their willingness to accept and/or adopt the use of online courses.
Programmatically accredited radiologic science programs are required to report
student performance on national certification examinations. Literature suggests that
students learn just as well in online courses as those students who take a traditional
course. It may be helpful to determine if a difference student performance on
certification examinations exists for content delivered in online courses versus
61
traditional courses. Additionally, information regarding the current status of clinical
performance comparing those students who have received online instruction and
those students who received traditional face-to-face education maybe be helpful in
informing radiologic program considering offering online courses.
Much of the research on online education was conducted with the student as the
primary population. Perhaps a study that reviews what students find important to
online education and compare this information to what instructors find they can
provide students in the online course. This study would provide information to
what student want and what instructors can offer and determine if they are on the
same tract.
62
Bibliography
Adams, L.(2011). using skype in clinical education. Radiologic Technology, 82(5),
475-477.
Allen, I., and Seaman, J. (2010). class differences: Online Education in the United
States, 2010. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences.
All Nursing Schools.(2012). Retrieve from http://www.allnursingschools.com/.
American Assocaition of Colleges of Nursing (2012). Retrieve from
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/ccne-accreditation/accredited-programs.
Archambault , S. (2000).Spearman Rho. Psych 205 Review Site.Retrieved from
http://www.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Psych205/index.html.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A.(2002)Introduction to Research in Education.
California, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Bandura, A.(1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Beldarrain, Y.(2006). distance education trends: integrating new technologies to
foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139153.
Boulos, M., and Maramba, I., and Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, Blogs and Podcasts: A
new generation of webbased tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice
and education. BMC Medical Education, 6(41), 1-8. doi: doi:10.1186/14726920-6-41.
Branon, R., and Essex, C. (2001). synchronous and asynchronous communication
tools in distance education: a survey of instructors. TechTrends, 45(1), 36-42.
Britt, R. (2006). online education: a survey of faculty and students. Radiologic
Technology, 77(3), 183-190.
Cauble, K., and Chernow, H. (1996). a distance learning project in the radiologic
63
sciences. Radiologic Technology, 67(4), 307.
Childs, S., and Blenkinsopp, E., and Hall, A., and Walton, G. (2005). effective elearning for health professionals and students – barriers and their solutions.
A systematic review of the literature – findings from the HeXL project. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 22(2), 22-32.
Coates, H., and James, R., and Baldwin, G.(2005). A critical examination of the
effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning.
Tertiary Education and Management, 11,19-36
Czaja, S., and Sharit, J.,(1998).age differences in attitudes toward computers.The
Journals of Gerontology series B.vol 53B, issue 5, 329-340.
Dalsgaard, C. (2006). social software: eLearning beyond learning management
systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and ELearning, Retrieved on
August 21, 2001,
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm.
Debourgh, G. (2002). simple elegance: course management systems as pedagogical
infrastructure to enhance science learning. The Technology Source Archives,
May/June, Retrieved on August 21, 2011,
http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034.
Dictionary.com.(2011)retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/
Donathan, L., and Hanks, M. (2009). redesigning online course delivery. Radiologic
Technology, 80(6), 589-590.
Eom, S., and Wen, J., and Ashill, N. (2006). the determinants of students’ perceived
learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an
empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
4(2), 215-235.
Ezziane, Z. (2007). information technology literacy: implications on Teaching and
Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 10(3), 175-191.
Gaytan, J., McEwen, B.,(2007).effective online instructional and assessment
strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 117-132.
Johnston, J. (2008). effectiveness of online instructions in radiologic sciences.
Radiologic Technology, 79(60), 497-506.
Johnston, J., and Killion, J., and Oomen, J. (2005). student satisfaction in the virtual
64
classroom. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2),17.
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology.(2009) 2009 annual
report. http.//.www.jrcert.org.
Kim, K., and Bonk, C. (2006).the future of online teaching and learning in higher
education: survey says. Educause Quarterly, 4, 22-30.
Maguire, L. (2005).literature review – faculty participation in online distance
education: barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 8(1), Retrieve on August 19, 2011,
http://colinmayfield.com/wvlc/DistanceLearning/Literature%20Review%2
0%96%20Faculty%20Participation%20in%20Online%20Distance%20Educ
ation%20Barriers%20and%20Motivators.htm.
Martino, S., and Odle, T. (2008). new instructional technology. Radiologic
Technology, 80(1), 67-74.
Mazer, J., and Murphy R., and Simonds C.(2007). i'll see you on “facebook”: the
effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation,
affective learning, and classroom climate, Communication Education, 56(1),
1-17.
Moallem,M (2001).applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the
design of a web based course: implications for practice. Educational
Technology and Society, 4(3), 113-125.
Nachmias, R., and Mioduser, D., and Oren, A., and Ram, J. (2000).web-supportive
emergent-collaboration in higher education courses. Educational Technology
and Society, 3(3), 94-104.
Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W.(1991). A Manual for the Use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
Project on Instructional Processes and Educational Outcomes.9-63.
Radosevich, D., and P. Kahn. (2006).using tablet technology and recording
software to enhance pedagogy. Innovate 2 (6). Retrieved August 19, 2011.
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=300
Ruiz, J., and Mintzer, M., and Leipzig, R. (2006).the impact of e-learning in medical
education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207-212.
65
Rovai, A. (2004).a constructivist approach to online learning. Internet and higher
Education, 7, 79-93.
Sandars, J., and Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). new horizons for e-learning in medical
education: ecological and Web 2.0 perspectives. Medical Teacher, 29, 307310. doi: 10.1080/01421590601176406
Sandars, J. (2009).twelve tips for using podcasts in medical education. Medical
Teacher, 31, 387-389.
Schimitz, J., and Fulk, J. (1991).organizational colleagues, medial richness, and
electronic mail: a test of the social influence model of technology use.
Communication and Research, August, 487-523.
Selim, H. (2007).critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: confirmatory
models. Computers and Education, 49, 396-413.
Simonson, M. (2007).course management systems. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 8(1),7-9.
Sun, P., and Tsai, R., and Finger, G., and Chen, Y., and Yeh, D. (2008). what drives a
successful e-learning? an empirical investigation of the critical factors
influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50,1183-1202.
Skype (2011). About Skype. Retrieved from http://about.skype.com.
Tabata, L., and Johnsrud, L. (2008).the impact of faculty attitudes toward
technology, distance education and innovation. Res High Education, 49, 625646. Doi: 10.1007/s11162-008-9094-7
Tinkleman, R. (2006).student scene. In Webweekly: News from the Harvard Medical
Community. Retrieved from
http://webweekly.hms.harvard.edu/archive/2006/0130/student_scene.htm
l#top.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.(2007).
Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions.c1-c4.
Vai, M., and Sosulski, K. (2011).essentials of online course design: A StandardsBased Guide. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Volery, T. and Lord, D. (2000).critical success factors in online education. The
international Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.
66
Walker, S., and Fraser, B. (2005).development and validation of an instrument for
assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: the
distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Learning
Environments Research, 8, 289-308.
Whatisrss.com/. Retrieved from http://www.whatisrss.com/ on 8/21/2011.
Weller, M., and Pegler, C., and Mason, R. (2005).use of innovative technologies on an
e-learning course. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 61-71.
Wheeler, S. (2010). Changing Cultures in Higher Education.doi: 10.1008/978-3-64203582-1_9.
67
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
68
Section 1: Status of On-line Education in Radiologic Sciences
1 In the past five years, has your institution offered any online courses for the core
curriculum in your radiologic science program?
Yes__________
No ___________
2 Do you offer fully on-line courses in your core radiologic sciences curriculum without faceto-face classroom sessions? Do not include hybrid or blended course
Yes__________
No ___________
3 Do you offer hybrid or blended courses in your core radiologic sciences curriculum?
Yes__________
No ___________
4 Please report the number of on-line core radiologic science courses that you teach within
your curriculum.
Fully on-line courses without face-to-face classroom
1 2 3 4 5 More than
time
5
Hybrid or blended core courses. (combination of online
1 2 3 4 5 More than
and face to face classes)
5
5 Are your online courses also offered as traditional face-to face, in-class courses?
Yes _______
No ___________
Section 2: Course Delivery Technologies & Design Resources/Methods of Delivery
6 What percentage of time you use the following technologies in your courses:
Technology
0%
Asynchronous internet based technologies
where transmission and receipt of
information does not occur simultaneously;
students responsible for self pacing.
Synchronous internet based technologies
where learners receive information
simultaneously and communicate with
other learners; real time instructor led
online learning.
Two way interactive video/ audio
(example: Skype or compressed video)
One-way prerecorded audio/video
(example: Interactive TV, podcasts, or
webcasts)
69
a one-way transmission such as podcasting,
pre recorded audiotapes provided to
students
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76100%
Wikis (a website that allows students and
instructors to add, delete or revise content
while using a web browser)
Blogs(student led or Instructor led)
Discussion/message boards
Chat
7 What Learning Management System does your program use?
WebCT
Blackboard
Learning Space
Moodle
Desire to
Learn
Other _______________________________________
8 What delivery tools do you use in your on-line programs?
Power point, Student response systems, Wiki, Blog, Prezi, adobe flash, soft chalk, interactive
whiteboards, Second life, Elluminate, Other
9 In what method did your program acquire and/or develop the online courses:
Developed by
Developed in
Acquired from
Acquired from
Other
institution
collaboration
textbook or other licensed
with other
online resources
commercial
postsecondary
vendors of oninstitution
line programs
10
During the development and or delivery of your online courses, identify the top 3
barriers you encountered.
1 Barrier
2 Barrier
3 Barrier
Lack of administrative support
Lack of financial support
Lack of self confidence in using IT
Lack of IT design support
Lack of IT troubleshooting support
Lack of IT online security support
Lack of IT infrastructure (hardware)
Lack of student interest
Resistance of Peers to adapt to online format
Other (please specify)
11
What best practices relative to on-line learning did you identify that should be shared
with other educators?
12
0
How much initial training did you receive regarding on-line technologies prior course
implementation?
1-4
5-10
11-20
21-40
>40
13
How much training did you receive regarding on-line technologies after course
70
implementation
0
1-4
5-10
11-20
14 Where did the on-line technology training occur?
On-site workshop
Vendor site workshop
CE conference
other
21-40
>40
formal educational course
Section 3: IT Self-Efficacy
15 Rate your level of confidence for each of the following
I am confident in my IT literacy needed to teach online yes
course content.
I am confident in my ability to utilize the Learning
yes
Management System to create an online course for my
students.
I am confident that I will do an excellent job in
yes
delivering on-line course content to my students.
I am confident in my ability to create and monitor
yes
wikis in the online course for my students.
I am confident in my ability to create and monitor
yes
discussion boards in the online course for my
students.
I am confident in my ability to create and monitor
yes
blogs in the online course for my students.
I have greater than or equal the confidence teaching
yes
an online course as compared to teaching a traditional
face-to-face course.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Part of the
time
Part of the
time
N/A
Part of the
time
Part of the
time
Part of the
time
N/A
Part of the
time
Part of the
time
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16 Does your institution provide department specific IT support?
Yes__________ No_______________
17 Do you have institutional IT support?
Yes __________ No _______________
Section 4: Demographic Information.
18
What is your age?
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
6170
19 For the courses that you teach, what is your primary radiology concentration?
Radiography
Radiation Therapy
Nuclear Medicine
20 In what type of educational institution is your radiologic sciences program offered
Hospital Based(certificate) Community or Junior College (2 year) University (4
Othe
year)
r
21 What is your campus structure?
Main Campus – on-site
Satellite campus – on-site
71
Distance- Online only
22
1-5
Years of teaching experience in higher education.
6-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
Other
23
0
Years of experience teaching online courses
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
Other
72
Appendix B: E-mail Invitation to Participants
To: Radiologic Technology, Radiation Therapy and Nuclear Medicine Program Directors
From: Stacey Copley, BSNM, CNMT, RT(N)
Subject: Online Education In the Radiologic Sciences: Common Course Delivery Modes and
Course Design Methods
Dear Colleague,
I am requesting your assistance in completing a survey study I am conducting regarding the
status of online instructor in the radiologic science education and common course delivery
methods. I have been given your name from a program director list for either the Joint
Review Committee on Educational Programs in Nuclear Medicine (JRCNMT) or the Joint
Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT). The survey is
intended to help identify current status of online instruction and common course delivery
methods and should only take about 10 minutes to complete.
The survey is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/ ** This link is uniquely tied to
this survey and your email address, so please do not forward this message. The survey will
be open for input until April 23, 2012.
If you have additional questions, I can be reached by email at Copley.21@osu.edu . If you do
not wish to receive survey reminders, please click the link below, and you will be
automatically removed from the mailing list. http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx
For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other studyrelated concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may
contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-6786251.
Your participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You can choose to
participate or not. Your decision to participate or not participate in the research project will
not affect in any way your job or position, or any relationship with The Ohio State
University. This study poses no more than minimal risks to potential subjects, and does not
offer any direct benefit of participation. The primary risk is a breach of confidentiality.
Although the questions asked are not personally sensitive in nature, it is possible that a
breach of confidentiality of participants could occur given the association with selected
institutions. This potential is minimized by training of the investigator in human subject’s
protection and by following IRB-approved procedures for protecting confidentiality and
maintaining data security. I consider survey information obtained from this study to be
confidential in the sense that individual names will not be used in any reports or articles.
Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to your reply.
73
Appendix C: E-mail Follow-up to Participants
To: Radiologic Technology, Radiation Therapy and Nuclear Medicine Program Directors
From: Stacey Copley, BSNM, CNMT, RT(N)
Subject: Online Education In the Radiologic Sciences: Common Course Delivery
Modes and Course Design Methods
Dear Colleague,
I recently sent an e-mail requesting your participation in completing a survey study I am
conducting regarding the status of online instructor in the radiologic science education
and common course delivery methods. The survey is intended to help identify current
status of online instruction and common course delivery methods in the radiologic
sciences and should only take about 10 minutes to complete. Please understand that your
participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You can choose to
participate or not. If you do not wish to receive survey reminders, please click the link below,
and you will be automatically removed from the mailing list.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx
The survey is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/ ** This link is uniquely tied to this
survey and your email address, so please do not forward this message. The survey will be open
for input until April 23, 2012.
If you have additional questions, I can be reached by email at Copley.21@osu.edu . For
questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related
concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may
contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800678-6251.
Thank you very much for your assistance. I look forward to your reply.
74
Appendix D: Demographic Information
1. What is your age in years?
Answer Options
Response
Percent
1.1%
24.4%
38.9%
31.1%
4.4%
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
Response
Count
1
22
35
28
4
answered question
skipped question
2.
90
12
For the courses that you teach, what is your primary radiology concentration?
Answer Options
Radiography
Radiation Therapy
Nuclear Medicine Technology
Response
Percent
Response
Count
90.0%
2.2%
7.8%
81
2
7
answered question
skipped question
90
12
3. In what type of educational institution is your radiologic sciences program offered ?
Answer Options
Hospital-based (certificate)
Community or Junior College (2 year)
University (4 year)
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
16.7%
58.9%
17.8%
6.7%
15
53
16
6
answered question
skipped question
4. Assessment of Online Education in the Radiologic Sciences
What is your campus structure?
75
90
12
Answer Options
Main campus - on-site
Satellite campus - on-site
Distance (on-line only)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
83.3%
16.7%
0.0%
75
15
0
answered question
skipped question
90
12
5. Years of teaching experience in higher education.
Answer Options
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
15.7%
32.6%
20.2%
23.6%
6.7%
1.1%
14
29
18
21
6
1
answered question
skipped question
89
13
6. Years of experience teaching online courses
Answer Options
0
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
Other (please specify)
Response
Percent
Response
Count
52.8%
37.1%
7.9%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
47
33
7
0
2
0
answered question
skipped question
76
89
13