10 29 09 Sloan C

1

Influence of Instructor Behaviors on Student Perceptions of the Online Learning Experience

Sheri Beasley, Ph.D. – Baker College

2

Agenda

• Study Introduction• Relevant Literature Findings• Theoretical Orientation • Baker College Online• Methodology• Sample• Variable Mean• Bivariate Correlations• Research Questions/Hypotheses• Study Findings• Implications & Implications for Practice• Future Research • Real-Use Benefits & Best Practices

3

Study Introduction

Study examined Student Perceptions in the Online Learning Experience (OLE)

Instructor Behaviors (IVs)• Extent of Interactions• Type of Interactions• Quality of Feedback

Perceived Student Learning (DV)General Course Satisfaction (DV)

4

Study Introduction (cont.)

IV and DV relationships also examined covariates

• Age• Gender• Number of online courses taken

(experience)• Class size/Course duration

5

Relevant Literature Findings

• Asynchronous discussion boards– Interaction is necessary and instructor

needs to have a presence

• Student perceptions of the OLE– Important to examine further

6

Relevant Literature Findings (cont.)

• Online instructor behaviors– Interaction is vital – Instructor has multi-faceted role– Feedback essential and needs to be timely

• Instructor-student interaction– Some controversy on types of interaction,

need for further research

7

Relevant Literature Findings (cont.)

• Covariates– No significance of gender in recent studies– Age groups – learners are diverse – some

studies found no differences– Experience with online courses showed some

contrasts– Class size showed discrepancies in literature,

need for further research– Course duration had scant literature for

online classes and inconsistent

8

Theoretical Orientation

• Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory– Introduced 1972 and recognized 1980– Relevant for distance learning– Systems approach that includes instructor-

student interaction

9

Baker College Online

• Online 1996• Curriculum – Student learning objectives are the

same in system (campus or online class)• 15,000 students taking online courses at any

one time• 70 staff/Online & Grad• 700+ Faculty (all but six/grad are adjunct)• Every 12 weeks offer 1,300 sections (two six-

week terms)• 600 sections are business

– 127 different business classes• 300+ courses between BUS/CIS/Health & Gen Ed

• Max class size 13

10

Methodology

• Non-experimental research design• Sample size 175 (203 participants obtained)• Validated survey instrument using Likert-type scale 1-7• Pilot study (14 valid responses)• Survey invitation provided link to Hosted Survey• SPSS software used to analyze data• Descriptive and bivariate analyses• Multivariate – hierarchical multiple regression (RQ1, RQ2, and

RQ3)– Perceived student learning, extent and type of interactions,

covariates– General course satisfaction, extent and type of interactions,

covariates– Perceived student learning, feedback, extent and type of

interactions, covariates – General course satisfaction, feedback, extent and type of

interactions, covariates• ANCOVA (RQ4) examined perceived student learning and class

size/course duration

11

Sample

CharacteristicUniversity 1 University 2

Class Size 15 students or less 30 students or less

Course Duration Six Weeks 10 Weeks

Average Student Age 33 34

Online Courses Instituted

1996 2000

Accreditation NCA & IACBE NCA

Two Universities Comprising Student Sample for Study

12

Sample (cont.)

Winter 2006/2007 survey via Hosted Survey

Sample - 203 undergrad business students• University 1 - 117 (58%)• University 2 – 86 (42%)• Female – 148 (73%)• Age group – 32 years or older – 131 (65%)• Attended school full-time – 126 (62%)• Worked full-time – 158 (78%)• Taken 7 or more online courses – 72 (36%)• Associate – 91 (45%)• Bachelor’s – 112 (55%)

13

Variable Mean Results

– Likert-type scale 1-7 (1= strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree)

– Variable Mean• Perceived student learning & general course

satisfaction (M = 6 “agree”)

Positive response for both• Extent of interactions (M = 6 “agree”)• Type of interactions (M = 5 “slightly agree”)• Individual Instructor Feedback (M = 6 “agree”)

All three instructor behaviors showed a positive response on survey scale

14

Bivariate Correlations

– Statistically significant relationships• 56% shared variance between levels of perceived

student learning and general course satisfaction– If student satisfied reasonable to believe experience

good

• 35% shared variance between levels of perceived student learning and extent of interactions

• 29% shared variance between levels of perceived student learning and type of interactions

• 27% shared variance between levels of perceived student learning and individual instructor feedback

– All three instructor behaviors account for perceived student learning

15

Bivariate Correlations (cont.)

• 34% shared variance between levels of general course satisfaction and extent of interactions

• 23% shared variance between levels of general course satisfaction and type of interactions

• 18% shared variance between levels of general course satisfaction and individual instructor feedback

– All three instructor behaviors account for general course satisfaction

16

Bivariate Correlations (cont.)

– 58% shared variance between extent of interactions and type of interactions

– 52% shared variance between extent of interactions and individual instructor feedback

– 59% shared variance between type of interactions and individual instructor feedback

• Tone of feedback and way it is personalized could be very important to the student’s online learning experience

– Little if any correlation • No significant relationship for covariates

17

Research Question 1

RQ 1: Do levels of perceived student learning in the OLE vary with respect to the extent (extent of interactions) and manner (type of interactions that are of a personable demeanor) in which instructors interact with students in asynchronous discussion boards? Does this relationship vary with respect to: (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) class size/course duration controlling for (d) experience with online courses?

18

RQ1/Hypotheses

– Reject null in favor of alternate hypothesis– H1a1 There is a significant relationship between

perceived student learning in the OLE and instructor interaction with students.

36% of the variation in levels of perceived student learning can be predicted by two instructor behaviors, extent of interactions (largest unique contribution) and type of interactions

As ratings of instructor behaviors increased, levels of perceived student learning increased

19

RQ1/Hypotheses (cont.)

– H1b0 There is no relationship between perceived student learning in the OLE and instructor interaction with students with respect to (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) class size/course duration and controlling for (d) experience with online courses.

Cannot reject the null hypothesis because none of the covariates were statistically significant

20

Research Question 2

RQ 2: Does general course satisfaction in the OLE vary with respect to the extent and manner in which instructors interact with students in asynchronous discussion boards? Does this relationship vary with respect to: (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) class size/course duration, controlling for (d) experience with online courses?

21

RQ2/Hypotheses

– Reject null hypothesis in favor of alternate– H2a1 There is a significant relationship between

general course satisfaction in the OLE and instructor interaction with students in asynchronous discussion boards.

35% of the variation in levels of general course satisfaction can be predicted by one instructor behavior, extent of interactions

As extent of instructor interactions increased, general course satisfaction increased

Note: Only extent of interactions was statistically significant

22


– H2b0 There is no relationship between general course satisfaction in the OLE and instructor interaction with students in asynchronous discussion boards with respect to (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) class size/course duration and controlling for (d) experience with online courses.

Cannot reject the null hypothesis because none of the covariates were statistically significant

23

Research Question 3

RQ 3: Does the relationship between levels of perceived student learning in the OLE and the extent and manner in which instructors interact with students in asynchronous discussion boards vary with respect to the perceived quality of individual instructor feedback? i.e., Does the perceived quality of individual instructor feedback have a greater effect on levels of perceived student learning and general course satisfaction than the effect of instructor interactions (extent and type) in the asynchronous discussion forum?

24

RQ3/Hypotheses

– Reject null hypothesis in favor of alternate– H3a1 There is a significant relationship between levels

of perceived student learning in the OLE and the extent and manner in which instructors interact with students in asynchronous discussion boards with respect to perceived quality of individual instructor feedback to the student.

37% of the total variation from Stage 1 (26%) to Stage 2 (11%) in levels of perceived student learning can be accounted for by the perceived quality of individual instructor feedback and extent of interactions

25


– Reject null hypothesis in favor of alternate– H3b1 There is a significant relationship between

general course satisfaction and the extent and manner in which instructors interact with students in asynchronous discussion boards with respect to perceived quality of individual instructor feedback to student.

35% of the total variation from Stage 2 (19%) to Stage 3 (16%) in levels of general course satisfaction can be accounted for by two instructor behaviors, perceived quality of individual instructor feedback, and extent of interactions

26


– H3c0 There is no difference in the effect of individual instructor feedback on levels of perceived student learning with respect to age group and/or gender.

– H3d0 There is no difference in the effect of individual instructor feedback on general course satisfaction with respect to age group and/or gender.

Cannot reject ‘c’ or ‘d’ null hypotheses because none of the covariates were statistically significant

27

Research Question 4

RQ 4: Is there a difference between class size/course duration (15 or fewer students in 6-week courses and 30 or fewer students in 10-week courses) with respect to levels of perceived student learning? Do differences between 6- and 10- week courses and perceived learning vary with respect to (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) number of online courses taken?

28

Research Question 4/Hypotheses

– H4a0 There is no difference between class size/course duration (15 or fewer students in 6-week courses and 30 or fewer students in 10-week courses) with respect to levels of perceived student learning.

– H4b0 There is no difference between class size/course duration (15 or fewer students in 6-week courses and 30 or fewer students in 10-week courses) with respect to levels of perceived student learning with respect to (a) student age group, (b) gender, and (c) number of online courses taken.

Cannot reject the ‘a’ null hypothesis because none of the variables were statistically significant

Cannot reject the ‘b’ null hypothesis because no statistical significant interactions were found among the variables

29

Study Findings

- Majority of students felt they benefited from the online learning experience (OLE), learned course material and are able to apply information

- Two universities (sample) are achieving objectives to prepare students for business world so the graduate is employable

- Majority of students very satisfied with OLE- Many online instructors at two universities are

utilizing ‘extent of interactions’

30

Implications

• Variable Mean– Highlights

• All three instructor behaviors are significant from student perspectives

• Extent of interactions and individual instructor feedback had a greater statistical significance than type of interactions

• Perceived student learning and general course satisfaction are equal and students were satisfied with learning and course

– Conclusions• Educators can determine best practices for faculty

teaching expectations• Educators can provide necessary training to faculty • Educators can understand the interaction components

most valuable to students

31

Implications (cont.)

• Correlations– Highlights

• Perceived student learning and general course satisfaction are both high/positive

• Extent of interactions, type of interactions, and individual instructor feedback are statistically significant for perceived student learning and general course satisfaction

• Extent of interactions have the greatest statistical significance of all three instructor behaviors for perceived student learning and general course satisfaction

• Each instructor behavior demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with the other two

– Conclusions • Logical that perceived student learning and general course satisfaction

would be dependent upon each other• Students satisfied with learning are likely to be satisfied with course• Instructor behaviors influence students perceived student learning and

general course satisfaction • The more instructor interaction, the higher the student’s perception of

learning• Instructor behaviors has an effect on online learning experience (OLE)• Need to humanize the OLE and create learning climate for students• Instructor sets the tone for the classroom

32


• Two-Step Hierarchical Regression AnalysisPerceived Student Learning (RQ1)– Highlights

• Extent of interactions and type of interactions predicted levels of perceived student learning

– Conclusions• Logical that extent of interactions and type of

interactions impact perceived student learning• Instructor interaction would help students

understand material

33


General Course Satisfaction (RQ2)– Highlights

• Only extent of interactions predicted general course satisfaction

– Conclusions • When instructor interaction increased, course

satisfaction increased• Instructor needs to have a presence in the virtual

classroom• Ties back to Moore’s transactional distance theory

34


• Three-Step Hierarchical Regression Analysis (RQ3)Individual Instructor Feedback– Highlights

• Perceived student learning and general course satisfaction can be predicted by individual instructor feedback in Step 2

• Perceived student learning and general course satisfaction can be predicted by extent of interactions in Step 3

– Conclusions • Feedback impacts learning and course satisfaction• Quality and timely feedback is important• Extent of interactions makes a greater impact on student

perceptions of the online learning experience and supersedes feedback

• Quantity (or extent) of interaction influences to students

35


• ANCOVA – Class Size/Course Duration (RQ4)– Highlights – no statistical significance– Conclusions

• Smaller or larger groups do not make a difference to students

• Length of class does not make a difference to students

36


Summary• All three instructor behaviors are significant• Extent of interactions had the greatest contribution to model,

followed by individual instructor feedback, and type of interactions

• Online instructors need to:– Have frequent interaction in discussion boards– Provide timely and quality feedback on work submitted by each

student– Be aware that extent of interaction is the most important element

that contributes to perceived student learning and general course satisfaction

• There is a strong connection between extent of interactions and quality of individual instructor feedback to students – these factors are important to the student’s online learning experience and have implications for online faculty, training, administrative functions, and policies and procedures in the online university

37

Implications for Practice

Instructors/Instructional Practices

Impact instructor behaviors can have on student’s perception of the online learning experience

- Extent of interactions and timely individual instructor feedback make greatest positive difference in perceived student learning and general course satisfaction

- Need for dialogue and communication- Type of interactions includes sharing real-life

expertise- Feedback templates and customize- Meaningful quality and timely feedback best

practice- Extent of interactions is most important – daily

interaction – instructor presence and visibility in the classroom

38

Implications for Practice (cont.)

Instructor Preparation/Training

- Professional development - Visibility and presence in classroom,

communications, timely and quality feedback- New faculty training and mentoring/peer

observation

39


Administrative Practices

- Extent of interactions and feedback requirements – best practices

- Recruit faculty who are willing to meet best practices

- Repeated training and professional development

40


Institutional Policies and Practices

- Extent of interactions required- Feedback requirements mandated

41

Future Research

Recommendations for Future Research– Replicate Study in Other Environments– Explore Extent of Interactions– Explore Individual Instructor Feedback– Explore Best Practices– Explore Exemplary Instructor Attributes– Explore Instructor Teaching Styles– Explore Instructor Personalities and Teaching

Disciplines– Professional Development– Student Learning Styles Compared to Instructor

Behaviors– Class Size and/or Course Duration Covariate From a

Faculty Perspective– Discussion Board Threads

42

Real-Use Benefits & Best Practices

• Faculty Bio– Be a ‘real person’ to your students– Warm and friendly

• Welcome Message– Sets tone of class

• Weekly Announcements– Wrap-up and introduction to new week– Grading completed & feedback available

43

Benefits & Best Practices (cont.)

• Utilize student nicknames they prefer• Discussion Board forums are locations

for discussion and interaction between the students and the faculty member

• Create templates to grade and customize for each student’s work

• Sandwich method feedback• Suggest ways students can strengthen

weak areas

44

Benefits & Best Practices (cont.)First Week of Class

• Check your class discussion boards AM and PM

• Initiate a new thread (warm and friendly response that reflects their personal interests) to welcome each student after they submit homepage (within 24 hours)

• Be active and visible in discussion boards – you set the class tone

• Use conversation starters, and use variety of ways/items to engage students on topic(s) covered in class week – keep your class interesting!

• Answer questions ASAP (within 24 hours)

• Grade assignment work ASAP so students know what you expect

Hello Students!

45

Benefits & Best Practices (cont.)Be Visible and Present in DBs

• Plan ahead! Be prepared!• Be visible daily!• Engage students!• Add value (ask questions to encourage

critical thinking and draw students out, share expertise, provide handouts, relevant Internet links to expand on topic, current events, YouTube or other videos, motivational thought or topic related quote, etc.)!

• Respond to Questions!

46

Benefits & Best Practices (cont.) Ideas to Engage Students

• Keep the class discussion boards interesting

• Interactive items are great (i.e., video, games, fun quiz, simulations, or a web field trip)

• Optional exercises can help to broaden perspective

• Add additional questions

47

Benefits & Best Practices (cont.) Ideas to Engage Students

• Use a motivational quote on topic • Incorporate relevant current events • Use a variety of topic items to encourage

critical thinking (i.e., handout)• Have something in the discussion board

daily students can comment on

48

Questions?

49

References

• Beasley, S.L. (2007). Influence of instructor behaviors on student perceptions of the online learning experience. (Doctoral Dissertation, Touro University International, 2007). (UMI No. 3282352)

10 29 09 Sloan C

Education

Transcript of 10 29 09 Sloan C