An examination of innovative online lab technologies

ABSTRACT

As online education continues to grow, new and innovative ways are needed for these educational institutions to interact with distance learners. Online educational institutions need to compete with traditional brick-and-mortar institutions and training centers to offer distance learners an interactive environment. Distance learning institutions traditionally have had a disadvantage in this area. In this paper we will examine online laboratories, and compare online learners surveyed results to two other interactive technologies. This paper seeks to examine the advantages of online laboratories, and how these technologies try to reduce the competitive gap between distance and traditional educational settings.

REFERENCES

• 1: Blustain, H., Goldstein, P., Lozier, G. (1999). Assessing the new competitive landscape. In R.N. Katz & Associates (Eds), Dancing with the devil - Information technology and the new competition in higher education (pp. 51--71). Educause.
• 2: Council for Higher Education Accreditation (1998), Assuring Quality in Distance Learning, Washington, D.C.
• 3: Evans, J. R. (2001). The emerging role of the Internet in marketing education: from traditional teaching to technology-based education. Marketing Education Review, 11 (Fall), 1--14.
• 4: Foklers, D.A. (2005). Competing in the Marketplace: Incorporating Online Education into Higher Education - An Organizational Perspective. Information Resource Management Journal, 18(1), 61--77.
• 5: Gunawardena, C.N., Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social pressure as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8--26.
• 6: Hawkins, B. (1999). Distributed Learning and institutional restructuring. Educom Review, (34). Educause.
• 7: Knowlton, D.S., Weiss, R.E. (2000). Technologically enhanced courses vs. traditional instruction: Empirical evidence, reflections from practice, and designing for maximum learning. The Cyber Peer Newsletter. Retrieved 12 February 2004 from http://www.crichton.edu/cdealt/cyber_peer/tech-trad.htm
• 8: Levine, A, & Sun, J. (2002). Barriers to distance education. American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis.
• 9: Lorenzo, G., & Moore, J. (2002). The Sloan Consortium Report to the Nation: Five Pillars of quality online education. Retrieved February 24, 2005, at http://www.aln.org/effective/pillarreport1.pdf
• 10: McKinley, S. K, Matthew, M. (2003). Affordable online systems enhance science education. T H E Journal, 30, (10), p.10
• 11: Moore, M.G., Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view (San Francisco: Wadsworth).
• 12: NSA (2002). The promise and reality of distance education. NEA Higher Education Research Center Update (8), 1-4. Retrieved March 08, 2005, at http://www2.nea.org/he/heupdate/vol8no3.pdf
• 13: Olsen, F. (2002). Phoenix rises. The University's Online Program Attracts Students, Profits, and Praise. The chronicle of higher education. Retrieved March 03, 2005, at http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/texis/chronicle/search
• 14: Swan, K., Richardson, J.C. (2003). Examining social pressure in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 68-82..
• 15: Wulf (1996). Training Via the Internet. Training & Development, (May) 1996.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.1 Computer Uses in Education
          Subjects: Distance learning

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Theory

Keywords:
online labs, simulators, virtual learning environment