Capstone Course Redesign: A Case Study in An Online Academic Program
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
The quality of course redesign is a key performance indicator for higher education institutions. The innovations in curriculum, instructional design, instructional delivery, and pedagogy should be student-centered so that the redesigned course will engage students and promote student learning. This research was intended to investigate the effectiveness of a revised capstone course in an online master’s program in healthcare administration. We examined the levels of student satisfaction with the course content, interaction with the instructors, and the overall experience in this redesigned capstone ePortfolio course. Multiple data sources were utilized to answer the research questions in the mixed methods study design. The results revealed that students rated high for the interactions between them and their instructors as well as how this revised capstone wrapped up as a whole. The challenges in the implementation of ePortfolio and solutions to the challenges were discussed. Research limitations and future research were also presented.
References
-
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
Google Scholar
1
-
Baloran, E. T., Hernan, J. T., & Taoy, J. S. (2021). Course satisfaction and student engagement in online learning amid COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 22(4), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1002721
Google Scholar
2
-
Bayrak, F., Tibi, M., & Altun, A. (2020). Development of online course satisfaction scale. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 21(4), 110- 123.
Google Scholar
3
-
Collins, M. J., & McLain, N. E. (2021). Pharmacology course redesign using high-impact practices. Journal of Nursing Education, 60(9), 529-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20210719-01
Google Scholar
4
-
Das, A. K., Nguyen, Q. Y., Nguyen, A. T., Nomikoudis, M., & Van, D. H. (2019). Course redesign to incorporate flipped delivery: A business degree case in Vietnam. Issues in Educational Research, 29(2), 363–383. http://www.iier.org.au/iier29/das.pdf
Google Scholar
5
-
Di Silvestro, F., & Nadir, H. (2020). The power of ePortfolio development to foster reflective and deeper learning in an online graduate adult education program. Adult Learning, 32(4), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159520977735
Google Scholar
6
-
Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analyzing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277-292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4
Google Scholar
7
-
Goh, C., Leong, C., Kasmin, K., Hii, P., & Tan, O. (2017), Students’ experiences, learning outcomes and satisfaction in e-learning, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(2), 117-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1298
Google Scholar
8
-
Harder, J., Abuhamdieh, A. H., & Weber, P. (2021, Sept). Conveying positive regard in distance courses: An exploratory study. Journal of Educators Online, 18(3), 11-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2021.18.3.3
Google Scholar
9
-
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2019). Project-based learning in capstone design courses for engineering students: Factors affecting outcomes. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 123-140.
Google Scholar
10
-
Katsarou, E., & Chatzipanagiotou, P. (2021). A critical review of selected literature on learner-centered interactions in online learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 19(5), 349-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.5.2469
Google Scholar
11
-
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Google Scholar
12
-
Krsmanovic, M. (2021). Course redesign: Implementing project-based learning to improve students’ self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 93-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i2.28723
Google Scholar
13
-
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programmes. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
Google Scholar
14
-
Linder, K. E., & Hayes, C. M. (2018). Introduction. In K. E. Linder, C. M. Hayes (Eds.), High-Impact practices in online education: Research and best practices (pp, 1-10). Stylus Publishing.
Google Scholar
15
-
Love, D. B., & Ayadi, M. F. (2015). Redefining the core competencies of future healthcare executives under healthcare reform. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice & Research, 5(2), 3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5929.2015.5.2.1
Google Scholar
16
-
Marrhich, A., Lafram, I., Berbiche, N., & El Alami, J. (2021). Teacher’s roles in online environments: How AI based techniques can ease the sift challenges from face-to-face to distance learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(24), 244-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i24.26367
Google Scholar
17
-
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Google Scholar
18
-
Moore, K. (2019). Tools and tips for helping students create e-Portfolios. Computers in Libraries, 39(8), 32-37.
Google Scholar
19
-
Morrison, J. S. (2021). Getting to know you: Student-faculty interaction and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 21(12), 38-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i12.4697
Google Scholar
20
-
Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2015). What factors impact student – Content interaction in fully online courses. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7, 28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2015.07.04
Google Scholar
21
-
Ndoye, A., & Martin, F. (2021 May). Examining student perceptions of important features in online courses: A study based on demographic and contextual characteristics. Journal of Educators Online, 18(2), 91-106.
Google Scholar
22
-
Walker, C. E., & Kelly, E. (2007). Online instruction: Student satisfaction, kudos, and pet peeves. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 309-319.
Google Scholar
23
-
Watson, C. E., Kuh, G. D., Rhodes, T., Penny Light, T., & Chen, H. L. (2016). Editorial: ePortfolios—The eleventh high impact practice. International Journal of ePortfolio, 6(2), 65-69.
Google Scholar
24
-
Weems-Landingham, V., & Paternite, J. (2021). Help me help you! Using online discussions to improve student success. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 21(11), 220-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v21i11.4677
Google Scholar
25
-
Wilson, D. A., Dondlinger, M. J., Parsons, J. L., & Niu, X. (2018). Exploratory analysis of a blended learning course redesign for developmental writers. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(1), 32-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1264898
Google Scholar
26