By: National DETA Research Center | February 27, 2015
During our collaboration sessions at the DETA Summit, we posed two questions:
(1) What are the Research Questions that will assist us in identifying key factors impacting desired outcomes to best enhance the understanding of distance education across institutions and populations?
(2) What Variables should be included in the framework of inquiry to help us answer these questions surrounding distance education and technological advancements?
Based on our discussions, the following are the research questions and variables the key stakeholders came up with. Part of the exercise was to have everyone vote for their top 10 research questions and variables. The “No. Votes” column indicates how many votes each research question and variable received.
Table Name | Research Questions | No. Votes |
Rochambo | What characteristics are most critical for “good” online instruction? | 1 |
What are the different design components (content, interactivity, assessments) that impact student learning? | 29 | |
What support structures are critical to providing quality access to online instruction? | 22 | |
What are the students’ user experiences in their online course? | 3 | |
Three Lions | What variables are institutions looking at and using to define student success? | 18 |
Who is looking at institutional success data? | 2 | |
What methods/measurements are being utilized at our institutions to assess student success? (e.g. PAR, NSSE, etc.) | 3 | |
What data is accessible at your institution? | 2 | |
What are the small number of definable, measurable characteristics that make research rich for student success in distance education? | 8 | |
What is the currency of student learning and success? Time? Demonstration of Skills/Knowledge? | 14 | |
Comet | Look at bridging the pre-college and college. Students’ expectations of college: Do they align with institutions expectations? | 12 |
Influence on student readiness and providing support? | 1 | |
How can we build on existing knowledge looking at desired outcomes? | 0 | |
Can we benchmark at state (larger-level?) looking at systematic differences in online and in-person students? | 7 | |
Lakefront | What is the currency of student learning beyond the existing credit hours? | 22 |
How can policy and research be linked? | 3 | |
How can tech-based assessment truly assess learning and skills? | 5 | |
How can open educational resources lead to affordability and accessibility? | 7 | |
How can we develop student-driven metrics of success? | 18 | |
Hollander | What are the key components that promote a sustainable and an effective teaching and learning ecosystem? | 21 |
What differences are there between subgroups of online learners? Including PIRS | 17 | |
What are the institutional drivers? | 4 | |
What types of faculty preparedness lead to positive student outcomes? | 14 | |
Benelux | How can we define and measure student success beyond traditional outcomes? | 25 |
What was good about the old academy, and what is good in this new digital environment? | 7 | |
How can we democratize and increase access to digital higher education? | 8 | |
How can we re-design the professoriate/academic career? | 1 | |
Wicked Hop | What are the definitions of success from students’ perspective? | 33 |
What are the definitions of success for programs/university/faculty? | 3 | |
What are the variables that will impact the definition of success? | 10 | |
Safe House | What are the social and institutional support factors across student segments? | 11 |
What is the impact of different practices on institutional outcomes looking downstream (post-course, post-program)? | 6 | |
How can student voice/perspective impact effective design? | 4 | |
What patterns of behaviors lead to increased student learning for different population? | 26 |
Table Name | Main Variables | Sub-category Variables | Number of Votes |
Comet | Student Variables | 19 | |
engagement | |||
affect | |||
motivation | |||
student preparedness | |||
student disability | |||
accessibility | |||
student demographics | |||
“see PAR dataset” | 4 | ||
course information | |||
major | |||
Faculty Variables | 19 | ||
preparedness | |||
faculty support (institutional policy for online learning) | |||
learning design (previous framework?) | 2 | ||
discipline | |||
demographics | |||
Institutional Variables | 19 | ||
2yr/4yr | |||
part/full time | |||
for/non-profit | |||
developmental placement rates | |||
math remidiation rates | |||
strategic planning | |||
entrance criteria | |||
Safe House | flexibility of instructional activities | 1 | |
Instructor Variables | 2 | ||
experience | |||
training | |||
Student Outcomes (beyond grades) | 18 | ||
Student Purpose or Intention | 20 | ||
Measuring student-centered or active learning | 8 | ||
definitions | |||
methodologies | |||
Full “DETA” Fields and Minimum “DETA” fields | 1 | ||
Benelux | Cognitive | 3 | |
Affective | 2 | ||
Behavioral | 3 | ||
problem solving | |||
media literacy | |||
critical thinking | 5 | ||
collaborative thinking | 2 | ||
information fluency | 1 | ||
curiousity | 4 | ||
creative thinking | 2 | ||
Wicked Hop | Variable associated with student success as defined by students | 23 | |
Course Effectiveness Variables | 0 | ||
Course Modality Definition (are these standardized across institutions?) | 16 | ||
fully online vs. blended vs. flipped | |||
Qualitative projects to better surface appropriate variables related to student success | 7 | ||
Rochambo | Programatic | 7 | |
duration | |||
CBE vs traditional | |||
program path (fixed v. multiple) | |||
data driven guidance on courses (recommend, “you also might like”) | |||
Course Level | 11 | ||
types of content | |||
types of interactivity | |||
frequency/rigor of assessments | |||
variety of communication channels | |||
personalized path | |||
Hollander | Communication | 5 | |
type | |||
frequency | |||
quality of instructional process | |||
Insitutional Level – sustainability strategy? | 11 | ||
financial resources | |||
tutoring | |||
advising | |||
institutional support | |||
revenue plan | |||
communication plan | |||
Course Level | 8 | ||
interactivity | |||
differences by discipline | |||
pedogogically-driven approach | |||
online lab courses | |||
Student At-Risk Characteristics in post-secondary institutional sysrating tem (PIR) | 8 | ||
percent on Pell | |||
family income | |||
labor-market success | |||
Learner & Institutional Success | 10 | ||
time to degree | |||
retention | |||
engagement | |||
grades | |||
demonstrated competency | |||
satisfaction | |||
skill development | |||
Learner & Institutional Motivation for Online Learning | 7 | ||
Lakefront | Student Goals & Achievement | 1 | |
intent on enrollment | |||
employment | |||
perceptions of degree | |||
Learner Characteristics | 9 | ||
learning sequencing | |||
acceleration | |||
Course Content | 11 | ||
interactivity | |||
accessibility | |||
assessments (competencies; measures of critical thinking) | |||
institution type | |||
frequency & immediacy of instructor response | |||
spectrum of interactivity | |||
Meeting Learned Goals | 11 | ||
civic engagement | |||
employment | |||
learner goals | |||
Three Lions | access to student support & use | 0 | |
Data Points for Student Success | 1 | ||
who sees this? | |||
what do you know? | |||
learner readiness, orientation, preparation | 1 | ||
Existing Framework | 21 | ||
learning design (e.g. PAR, QM) | |||
student success (e.g. DQP) | |||
online consortium score card (Sloan-C) | |||
Current Data Sources | 4 | ||
Stakeholders for Online Learning | 2 | ||
profession associations | 1 | ||
organizations that guide online learning | |||
Program-level Curriculum Design | 1 | ||
Partnerships Between Academic & Student Affairs | 0 | ||
student information system data | 1 | ||
learning management system data | 3 |
Citation: National DETA Research Center, February 9, 2015, “Key Research Questions”, Retrieved from: https://uwm.edu/deta/key-rqs-and-variables/