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