The Effect of Age and Employment on Students’ Perceptions of Online Course Quality

References

• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aslanian, C., & Clinefelter, D. (2013). Online college students: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Retrieved from http://www.learninghouse.com/ocs2016/
   Google Scholar
• Chitkushev, L., Vodenska, I., & Zlateva, T. (2014). Digital learning impact factors: Student satisfaction and performance in online courses. International Journal of Information & Education Technology, 4(4), 356–359. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2014.V4.429
   Google Scholar
• Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• DiBiase, D., & Kidwai, K. (2010). Wasted on the young? Comparing the performance and attitudes of younger and older U.S. adults in an online class on geographic information. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 299–326. doi:10.1080/03098265.2010.490906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrmann, S., & Milman, N. (2011). Identifying and responding to online learners’ differences. Distance Learning, 8(3), 75–77.
   Google Scholar
• Feigenbaum, A. V. (1983). Total quality control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Fetzner, M. (2013). What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13–27.
   Google Scholar
• Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). Online course quality: What do nontraditional students value? Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, 19(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter194/hixon_barczyk_ralston-berg_buckenmeyer194.html
   Google Scholar
• Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., & Barczyk, J. (2015). Closing the feedback loop: Hearing the student voice in course quality. Quality Approaches in Higher Education, 6(1), 26–36.
   Google Scholar
• Hixon, E., Ralston-Berg, P., Buckenmeyer, J., & Barczyk, C. (2016). The impact of previous online course experience in students’ perceptions of quality. Online Learning, 20(1), 1–16. doi:10.24059/olj.v20i1.565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on leadership for quality: An executive handbook. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers and Education, 61, 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, L. (2011). “Go boldly, dream large!”: The challenges confronting non-traditional students at university. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 115–131. doi:10.1177/000494411105500203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Ralston-Berg, P. (2014). Surveying student perspectives of quality: Value of QM rubric items. Internet Learning, 3(1), 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Ralston-Berg, P., & Nath, L. (2008). What makes a quality online course? The student perspective. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, D., Simunich, B., & Kelly, V. (2013). The impact of findability on student perceptions of online course quality and experience. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 1122–1129). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, M., Ooms, A., & Montanez, M. (2008). Students’ perceptions of online-learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 105–118.
   Google Scholar
• Romero, M., & Barbera, E. (2011). Quality of learners’ time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 125–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shattuck, K., & Diehl, W. C. (2011). QM literature for 2011-2013 rubric. Annapolis, MD: Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/lit-review-2011-2013-rubricpdf/download/QM%20Lit%20Review%20for%202011-2013%20Rubric.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 59–70. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
   Google Scholar
• Summers, D. C. (2006). Quality (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Youger, R. E., & Ahern, T. C. (2015). Is a quality course a worthy course? Designing for value and worth in online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring181/youger_ahern181.html
   Google Scholar
• Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107–115. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.001
   Google Scholar