online course satisfaction

Slide 1: 

Method Discussion Online Course Satisfaction Hanna Keith, Lizzie Moses, Katie Mann, Sarah-Gayle Galbreath Azusa Pacific University: Research Methodology 2010 A team Chart #1 References Literature Review Results A team Participants Data were collected from 16 volunteer graduate students at Azusa Pacific University who were recruited via e-mail. Due to the limited sample size no demographic data was requested. Put a thumbnail version of your second chart here, along with a brief title. You will put the larger version on its own ppt slide after the Results section Mean and standard deviation for each question are listed in Table 1. Question one answers resulted in the highest median score and a low standard deviation (M=1.5, SD=.7303) in support of this study’s hypothesis. Students did agree that when “expectations are clearly outlined in an online course “I am more satisfied with online learning.” Our study results provided support for our original hypothesis but contributed more to confirming the problems associated with online courses. Students having a clear understanding (clarity of expectation) was associated with more online satisfaction; but the lack of clarity and low overall satisfaction scores indicated that this is not part of their experience with online learning (see table 1). Arbaugh, J.B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64 (4), 42-54. There has been a lot of research done on online classes and their effectiveness and overall ability to achieve course outcome. A lot of schools are moving towards online classes because of the benefits and convenience involved with online learning. Students are able to take the classes and still work and have their own life apart from school. Students also have more freedom with online classes when the learn and do homework. However, a draw back can be that because they are not in a learning environment with other peers and a professor that they are not learning as much as they would in a classroom environment.

Slide 2: 

Literature Review There has been a lot of research done on online classes and their effectiveness and overall ability to achieve course outcome. A lot of schools are moving towards online classes because of the benefits and convenience involved with online learning. Students are able to take the classes and still work and have their own life apart from school. Students also have more freedom with online classes when the learn and do homework. However, a draw back can be that because they are not in a learning environment with other peers and a professor that they are not learning as much as they would in a classroom environment. Research has found that a perceived social presence in online classes made students feel that that were learning more than those online classes in which they felt as if they were taking the class alone (Richardson, 2003). This perceived social presence included feeling that others in the class were highly involved in the process and that the teacher was available when needed. Research has also found that perceived social support and a social environment increased perceived learning in online classes as well as increased the student’s motivation to learn the material (Swan, 2001). Specifically, active discussions with other students in the course increase course satisfaction as well as interaction with the professor. Finally, Swan, 2001, also found that clarity in the course material increases student satisfaction and perceived level of learning. Research done by Arbaugh, 2001, looked at immediacy behaviors and perceived learning with students taking online classes. Immediacy behaviors include the professor’s attempts to increase closeness of the students despite the class being distant/online. Immediacy also refers to communication behaviors that reduce social and psychological distance between people. The study found that immediacy behaviors do increase the perceived level of learning as does haven taken an online class in the past. Those students who feel socially close to their professor and other students in the class and have previously taken an online class are more likely to perceive that they have learned more and are more satisfied with the class (Arbaugh, 2001) . Arbaugh, 2001, takes the research a step further and actually outlines immediacy behaviors that help make online classes more successful. Behaviors include ongoing professor feedback, using first names to address other students, using humor and videos, and providing an outlet for students to engage one another throughout the course. Other research is also interesting in that it looks at student personality traits and characteristics as a possible determining factor in online class success. One study found that students with higher GPA’s and attendance in a classroom orientation session had the most success in their online business class (Wojciechowski and Palmer, 2001). It is also important to note that students who were older, had taken online classes before, and had a low drop out rate of prior classes also had more success in online classes. Some of these factors may also have to do with certain personalities have a higher motivation level which is sometimes needed for online classes Findings suggested that when teachers were responsive to student needs that were the most important variable. The study also showed that students who were most likely to complete their online course were the ones that had expectations that

Slide 3: 

Literature Review were consistent with their actual experience online (Herbert, 2006). When both the online class completers and the students who did not complete their online class were asked about their satisfaction, they both actually reported that they were not satisfied with their overall experience (Herbert, 2006).   Research discusses three additional factors that are important for students to feel satisfied when taking online courses. Clear communication policies were one important factor. It was important that the professor stayed consistent to the syllabus and arranged times for communication. Consistency was more significant than the frequency of communication. Secondly, a regular schedule was important, as most students did not like self-paced courses. Lastly, updated grades were very important so there would not be any surprise disappointment at the end of the course (Kelly, 2007). Finally, research has been done to describe the characteristics of hybrid and online courses, the students' positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online courses, and what can be done to improve hybrid and online courses (El Mansour, and Mupinga, 2007) and . Flexibility in the class schedule and the instructor's availability were positive experiences for the hybrid course. Convenience, instructor availability, and online interactions were cited as positives for the online course while the negatives were technology hiccups and a sense of feeling lost in Cyberspace (El Mansour, and Mupinga, 2007).

Slide 4: 

Method Participants Data were collected from 16 volunteer graduate students at Azusa Pacific University who were recruited via e-mail. Due to the limited sample size no demographic data was requested. Design and Procedure First, we considered legal and ethical issues in an IRB (Institutional Review Board) role play where our classmates commented on our proposed topic of online satisfaction. Sixteen graduate students were then invited to complete a ten question online survey about online and classroom learning at surveymonkey.com, after we received approval from the OIRA (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment). The first eight questions were measured on a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from 1- strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-undecided, 4- agree, and 5-strongly disagree. The final two questions were open ended and had type in response areas for participants to self report. These sixteen surveys were compiled and analyzed for percentage, mean and standard deviation. The last two open ended questions (9 and 10) left space for personal responses. Question 9 was “Please describe one thing that you feel is lacking when taking online courses”. Question 10 was “Please describe your favorite thing about online courses”.

Slide 5: 

Method These responses were informally reviewed for descriptive or consistent language regarding Likert- type scale responses and previous literature. A blog page, http://a-team-onlinelearning.blogspot.com/2010/04/graphs-and-chart.html, was used as a source of communication between the conductors of the study throughout the entire course of the study.

Slide 6: 

Results Mean and standard deviation for each question are listed in Table 1. Question one answers resulted in the highest median score and a low standard deviation (M=1.5, SD=.7303) in support of this study’s hypothesis. Students did agree that when “expectations are clearly outlined in an online course “I am more satisfied with online learning”. Professor interaction (question 7, M=1.75, SD=1.5) was the single highest score in regard to student online learning being more satisfying. “Communication with other students in my online course” (question 6, (M= 2.6875, SD= 1.53704), which might have been assumed to contribute in the same way to satisfaction had little impact. There was almost an inverse relationship between being “typically clear” for question 8 “on campus course(s)”, (M= 1.444, SD=.51131), and “typically clear” for question 5 “online courses” (M=3, SD=.88506); and the smaller standard deviation in question 8 added significance to this contrast. Satisfaction with online courses was low, (question 2, M= 3.375 SD .88506) and responses clustered at the undecided or disagree indicator. Question 4 about “independent learners” showed an almost 50% divide between responses (M=2.5625, SD=1.095354). Finally the high mean of question 3 for preference of “on campus courses over online courses” (M=1.444, SD=1.06458), when combined with the high mean and low standard deviation of question 8 “being typically clear with on campus courses” (M=1.444, SD=.51131) speaks to the possibility that on campus

Slide 7: 

Results course preference might be related to a higher perception of clarity with face to face learning. Question 2 low satisfaction score for online courses (M=3.375, SD=1.06458) and question 3 high preference for on campus courses (M=1.75, SD= 1.06458) suggest that problems exist and improvements still need to be made before students will rank preference for or satisfaction with online courses as equivalent to on campus courses.

Slide 8: 

Table #1

Slide 9: 

Table #2

Slide 10: 

Table #3

Slide 11: 

Discussion Our study results provided support for our original hypothesis that student’s understanding of the expectations of an online course will increase student satisfaction. Although, results contributed more to confirming the problems associated with online courses. Students having a clear understanding (clarity of expectation) was associated with more online satisfaction; but the lack of clarity and low overall satisfaction scores indicated that this is not part of their experience with online learning (see table 3). Study scores that were high for clarity of expectations and preference for on campus courses were in line with the problem we identified between online and on campus courses needing to be equivalent in learning and satisfaction. Student self responses for question 10 were consistent with previous research that cited the benefits of online courses as convenient and flexible. The drawbacks to online learning repeated in personal responses for question 9 were also cited in previous research as; lack of connection, interaction, dialogue and feedback (see introduction to lit review). Our study confirmed previous research that much of the responsibility for clarity, interaction and satisfaction falls to the professor for on line courses (see table 2).

Slide 12: 

Discussion Previous research identifies professor behaviors that are needed to increase student satisfaction: ongoing feedback, use of first names to address students, using humor and videos, and providing an outlet for students to engage with one another throughout the course (Arbaugh, 2001). High dissatisfaction scores with online courses appear in previous research and were repeated in our study suggests that students are not happy with their online experience (Herbert, 2006). Our study was extremely limited in its sample size and scope so questions about consistency of syllabus, arranged session times, and updated grades for preventing surprise disappointments at the end of an online course mentioned in previous research were not addressed (Kelly 2007). But it appears that these are not outside of our less in depth inquiry regarding clarity of expectations, communication and satisfaction (see table 2 and 3). The overall implications of this study and previous research are that online courses have some benefit but are faced with documented problems that prevent them from being equivalent to on campus courses in learning and satisfaction. Although our findings were not significant when compared to more sophisticated research they did not fall outside of or contradict it.

Slide 13: 

References Arbaugh, J.B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64 (4), 42-54. Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the Course: A Study in Online Student Satisfaction and Retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4).   Kelly, R. (2007). Three factors in online student satisfaction. Online classroom.   El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242-248.   Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online course. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306-331.

Slide 14: 

References Richardson, J.C. (2003). Examining, social presence in online courses in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Distant Education, 7 (1), 68-86.