Post on 30-Nov-2014
description
Online Students’ Expectations of Interaction and Locus of Instructional Control:
Enhancing Learning in the Virtual Classroom
Joan Van TasselJoseph Schmitz
Faculty Scholarship Conference 2012National University
This research was supported by National University Presidential Scholar Award.
We thank Scott Campbell for help with survey design and data collection.
Literature
…the current literature tends to separate the experiences and practices of academics from those of students within teaching–learning processes. This has meant that this research does not support an examination of the dynamic and shifting aspects of teaching–learning interactions in higher education.
- Paul Ashwin, 2009 Analyzing teacher-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. (p. 7)
Literature Domains
• Nontraditional students• Online learning
considerations• Interaction expectations– Importance of
expectations met • Locus of instructional
control
Theoretical Model
Research Questions
• Research Question 1: How do students’ age, gender, and life situations impact their communication, interaction expectations and experiences, course interaction satisfaction, and learning in online courses?
• Research Question 2: How do students’ perceptions of locus of instructional control expectations and subsequent course experiences impact course interaction processes and student learning?
• Research Question 3: Which communication factors most influence students’ course interaction satisfaction and overall student learning?
RQ 1
Students': - Age - Sex - Life situation
RQ 2
- Perception of locus of instructional control- Interaction expectations- Interaction experience
RQ 3 - Which communication factors have an effect?
- Interaction satisfaction - Learning
- Interaction expectations - Interaction experience - Interaction satisfaction - Learning
- Interaction satisfaction - Learning
Methods
• Online survey to active online students• Sent to 28 classes• Anonymous respondents• Communication interaction expectations (4) • Communication interaction behaviors • Locus of instructional control• Students’ course interaction satisfaction• Students’ course learning
Results• 63 respondents– Roughly half undergrad and
half grad students– Virtually all nontraditional
students• Generally satisfied with
interaction & communi- cation, course learning
• Undergrad students had interaction expectations met and rated course processes and outcomes higher
Locus of Instructional Control
• Students expected they would share locus of instructional control with instructors more than they actually experienced
• Students who experienced shared locus of control with instructors reported better communication-interaction processes and better course learning outcomes
Predicting interaction satisfaction and student learning
– Overall interaction satisfaction• 76 % of variance explained by:
– Students’ course experience met their expectations of communication with:
» Instructors» instructor guidance,» course content» Peer interaction expectations
– Overall student learning• 57 % of the variance explained by:
– Overall interaction satisfaction– Shared instructor-student or instructor directed locus of instructional control– Met expectations of interaction with course content
InteractionExpectations
Met for:
- Instructor - instructor guidance - Peers
- Course content
Satisfactionwith level of
courseinteraction
R2
= .76
InteractionExperiences
with:
- Instructor - Instructor guidance (syllabus, due dates, etc.) - Peers - Course Content
Students begin an online course with expectations of interaction...
Locus of InstructionalControl
- Instructor-directed - Shared Control (Instructor-Student - Student/Self-directed
CourseLearning
R2
= .57
Broad Take-Away• Demographic variables played
relatively minor roles in course interaction and learning.
• Communication between instructors and students shapes important course outcomes – including student learning.
• Meeting student expectations has (by far) the most effect on satisfaction with course instructional processes and reported learning in the course.
Study Strengths and Limitations– Limitations• Sample size• Convenience sample• Response rates• Cross-sectional design
– Strengths• Natural, non-reactive,
representative sample• Important and powerful
theoretical constructs– 3 dimensions of course/instructor
interaction– Students’ expectations met – Locus of instructional interaction
Future Research Designs
• Investigate comprehensive models of online learning processes that include interaction/communication expectations and locus of instructional control.
• Increase external and internal validity: Use longitudinal research designs.
• Increase survey response rates by offering respondents substantial participation incentives.
• Analyze and model data with structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine simultaneous causal relationships.
Theoretical Implications• Afford prominence to the
communication and interaction processes of instructors and learners.
• Attend to the effects of met (and unmet) student expectations upon online learning processes and course outcomes.
• Locus of instructional control for nontraditional online students moderates their communication, course interaction satisfaction, and overall student learning.
Practical Implications• Co-creation of students’ and
instructors’ expectations regarding the nature, scope, and intensity of students’ interactions with their instructors and with the course content.
• Students’ expectations of interaction with course content privileges course design expertise, if material is grounded in subject matter expertise.
• Stress and redefine the importance of the instructor’s role. “Guide on the side” is too laissez-faire and passive to meet online students’ expectations.
Thanks!
• This research was supported by a National University Presidential Scholar Award
• Thank you for your interest
Please contact Joan Van Tassel for a copy of this presentation or our manuscript at: http://www.visualcv.com/joanvt