Download as a PDF

J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 40(2) 171-182, 2009

AND NEVER THE TWO SHALL MEET?: STUDENT VS. FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE COURSES

RANDALL E. OSBORNE Texas State University–San Marcos PAUL KRIESE Indiana University–East HEATHER TOBEY EMILY JOHNSON Texas State University–San Marcos

ABSTRACT

The education literature is blossoming with work on perceptions of distance education, online teaching, hybrid courses, and the like. Although this literature is important for helping faculty to understand the costs and benefits for teaching in these newer formats, little attention has been paid to documenting potential differences between student expectations for taking and faculty perceptions about teaching online courses. The current project gathered perceptual data from students and faculty about online courses. Findings suggest that differences between student and faculty perceptions of online courses might create barriers that diminish the effectiveness of the teachinglearning environment in such courses.

Research on the effectiveness of online teaching, the reasons for the increase in online courses and programs, and the relationship between teaching and learning in online environments has been mixed at best. McAlister, Rivera, and Hallam (2001), for example, suggest that web-based programs are positive tools 171 Ó 2009, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/EC.40.2.b http://baywood.com

172 / OSBORNE ET AL.

institutions can use to expand their reach. But being “able” to develop and offer online programs does not, necessarily, mean that those programs will be pedagogically sound (e.g., Care & Scanlan, 2001). Barley (1999) shows that few faculty have any formal training in teaching via online formats while Adler (2001), Hatfield (2006) and others show that students are powerfully motivated to take (and are increasingly demanding) such courses because online courses offer greater flexibility than face-to-face courses—especially for those who live in remote locations in comparison to the campus. Other issues that arise involve the various technological formats and instructional tools for offering distance education (e.g., Northover, 2002; Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Warger, 2003), the relationship between faculty teaching styles and online teaching methods (e.g., Barrett, Bower, & Donovan, 2007), how to assess the relationship between instructional methodologies and learning outcomes (e.g., La Pointe & Gunawarndena, 2004), and the relationship between student characteristics and use of the instructional methodologies incorporated into distance education and online courses (e.g., Spiliotopoulos & Carey, 2005). What emerges from an analysis of these studies (and literally dozens of others along these same lines) are several paradoxes that may interfere with (or at least seriously challenge) the ability for an effective teaching-learning environment to be created in online courses. First, faculty untrained in and unfamiliar with online teaching formats may simply “post” what they prepare for face-to-face instruction and consider that sufficient for online teaching (e.g., Allen & Seaman, 2006; Levitch & Milhelm, 2003) while, at the same time, students may not be adequately prepared to learn via online formats either (e.g, Berge & Cho, 2002). Current work by Jackson and Helms (2008), however, does offer some hope for alleviating this tendency by encouraging faculty to develop and teach “hybrid” courses that utilize online teaching and occasional face-to-face meetings. Second, faculty seem unsure as to when to “step in” to online courses and online discussion (e.g., Mazzolini & Maddison, 2007) while students appear to often wait for faculty to “lead the way” before diving into the course or the discussions themselves (e.g., Northover, 2002). Third, students appear to choose online courses predominantly for ease (e.g., Adler, 2001), whereas research suggests that success in learning online requires a definitive set of skills that students may not always bring to the online environment (e.g., Volery, 2001). In other words, many faculty may be creating substandard online courses (e.g., Allen & Seaman, 2006; Carr-Chellman, 2006) and many students without the skills that predict success in online courses may be taking those courses (e.g., Mungania, 2004). Before offering our own course online, we realized that we had one motivation and one motivation only for doing so—our university wanted faculty to develop online courses. Despite this less than pedagogically sound reason for offering our course (on the Politics and Psychology of Hatred) online, we strove to avoid the paradoxes outlined above and to pull from the same literature the “best practice” methods for online teaching and to incorporate those into the

STUDENT VS. FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE COURSES /

173

course. Interestingly enough, we came to the realization, after-the-fact, that our course actually seems better suited to online teaching than a face-to-face format due, primarily, to its exploration of sensitive and controversial topics (for more discussion of this issue see Osborne, Kriese, Tobey, & Johnson, in press). A goal of our course was to foster and enhance critical thinking in our students. Once again, the online teaching and learning literature is blossoming with excellent work in this regard. For theoretical guidance, we turned to such well known views as Kuhn’s (1999) developmental model, Paul and Elder’s (2002) work establishing a relationship between student thoughts, feelings and desires, and Smith’s (2002) characteristics of critical thinkers. For a more thorough discussion of how we incorporated these theoretical views into the development of our online course, see Osborne, Kriese, and Tobey (2008). When it came time to incorporate these theoretical views of critical thinking into actual course design, we turned to the more presentational and hands-on work of MacKnight (2000). This work offers advice on how to teach critical thinking skills through online discussions and we utilized this advice as we developed and constructed our course assignments. MacKnight spells out what students and faculty must be prepared to do in order to facilitate critical thinking with online discussions. In particular, MacKnight (2000, p. 39) suggests students must have a clear understanding of the assignment and the social skills necessary to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9.

ask the right questions; listen to each other; take turns and share work; help each other learn; respect each other’s ideas; build on each other’s ideas; construct their own understanding; and think in new ways.

MacKnight (2000, p. 39) offers additional practical advice for faculty. Faculty must support disciplined discussions by: 1. maintaining a focused discussion; 2. keeping the discussion intellectually responsible; 3. stimulating the discussion by asking probing questions that hold students accountable for their thinking; 4. infusing these questions in the minds of students; 5. encouraging full participation; and 6. periodically summarizing what has or needs to be done. We also wanted our course to be collaborative despite the distance (both physical and perceptual) between our students and each other and between our students and ourselves. Finding positive role models in the literature for how to


develop collaborative assignments into an online course, however, was difficult. This lack of work on collaboration in online teaching appears to be due to what Chapman (2006) cites as primary faculty objections to collaborative online learning. Although Chapman’s list comes from an online PowerPoint presentation and not a research article, we still found the list instructive. In particular, Chapman (2006) notes the 10 most commonly cited reasons why faculty claim they avoid collaborative learning in online courses include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

it takes too long; it takes too long to organize; few students will do all the work; too hard to assess fairly; team management is too hard; content is too important to sacrifice any of it; it is not the faculty member’s job to focus on “soft” material; collaboration is not valued; group work encourages mediocrity; and it would change the faculty member’s class role.

To understand further the potential barriers to developing the collaborative spirit we wanted in this online course, we turned to the work of noted expert in assessing the impact of technology on teaching and learning, Christopher Dede. In work on “scaling up”—the process of moving an institution from program implementation (in terms of online teaching technology) to full implementation— Dede and others (e.g., Dede & Coburn, 2007; Dede & Honan, 2005), we discovered a process that focuses on stages of implementation. These stages of depth, sustainability, spread, shift, and evolution (Dede & Honan, 2005) seemed to fit nicely with our thoughts about how student and faculty collaborations could be encouraged and implemented within the course. As we developed this online course, then, we kept reflecting back on the objections to developing collaborative assignments in online courses, the excitement of our students to the development of online courses, and our belief that effective teaching should be possible in any format. For a further exploration of this “stage” approach to constructing the course and assignments within the course, see Osborne et al., (in press). At this point, we felt that we had most of the information that we needed to build an effective teaching-learning environment in our online course. But we also realized that we still were missing one part of the picture. We knew Chapman’s (2006) work showing the difficulties to developing collaborative methods into online courses. We knew our students wanted more online courses and we knew our institutions wanted more faculty to offer such courses. We were also being encouraged by our institutions to encourage other faculty to teach via online formats and to assist them in developing online courses. It seemed premature to encourage faculty to develop and/or offer online courses, however, without


175

understanding their perceptions of internet courses, student perceptions of internet courses, and, most importantly, the overlaps and differences between student and faculty perceptions of online courses. We felt that these overlaps and differences were crucial to document so that efforts could be made to address them as we and other faculty worked to implement sound pedagogy into online courses. If student and faculty perceptions of online courses differ in substantive ways, these differences could become barriers to faculty developing and offering internet courses, barriers to designing pedagogically sound online courses even if faculty are “forced” to offer them, and justifications by students to not take online courses despite how they might benefit them in terms of flexibility. METHOD To determine student-faculty perceptions of online courses, we developed a survey of online courses with questions pulled from the literature on distance education. In particular, we used Chapman’s (2006) work on the 10 most cited faculty objections to teaching collaboratively in courses online, and MacKnight’s (2000) work on how to foster critical thinking in online courses to develop a survey instrument to assess perceptions of online teaching and learning. By gathering survey responses from students who have and have not taken an internet course and from faculty who have and who have not taught an internet course, we are in a position to answer several questions of interest: 1. are the assumptions that students and faculty make about internet courses similar or different?; and 2. if there are differences, do these differences disappear once a faculty member has taught an online course or a student has participated in an online course? The survey was administered to 152 students and 24 faculty members at a large public university in Texas. A copy of the survey is included in Table 1. RESULTS Our initial question involved potential differences in the perceptions of students and faculty toward internet courses. The means included in Table 2 illustrate patterns of differences in the perceptions of students and faculty. Independent samples t-test revealed significant differences between student and faculty perceptions of internet courses. Generally, faculty were more likely than students to agree with statements that: 1. students learn less in internet courses; 2. internet courses take more time;


Table 1. Perceptions of Internet Courses ____ student ____ faculty Taught/Taken an internet course? ___yes ___ no Use the following rating scale to assess your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements about courses on the Internet. 1 ———————— 2 ——–————— 3 —–—————— 4 ————–——— 5 strongly disagree

somewhat disagree

neither agree nor disagree

somewhat agree

strongly agree

_____ 1.) Internet courses are easier than face-to-face courses. _____ 2.) Students learn less in Internet classes than in face-to-face classes. _____ 3.) Students are less willing to “speak” their mind in an Internet class that they would be in a face-to-face class. _____ 4.) Students communicate more in an Internet course than they do in a face-to-face course. _____ 5.) Internet courses require more time for students to complete successfully than face-to-face courses. _____ 6.) Face-to-face classes provide better opportunities for students to interact than Internet classes. _____ 7.) Student and faculty interactions are more effective in face-to-face classes than they are in Internet classes. _____ 8.) More problems occur in Internet courses than in face-to-face courses. _____ 9.) More students withdraw from Internet courses than face-to-face courses. _____ 10.) Students who procrastinate should not take an Internet course. _____ 11.) Students take Internet courses because they think they will be easier than face-to-face sections of the same course. _____ 12.) Sensitive topics (such as racism) should not be taught in Internet courses.


177

Table 2. Patterns of Differences in the Perceptions of Students and Faculty Item

Students

Faculty

Internet courses easier

3.14

2.83

Students learn less

2.85

3.71a

Students speak less

2.64

2.29

Allows more communication

2.72

3.04

Internet takes more time

2.79

3.75b

Internet fewer interactions

4.27

4.04

Internet less effective interactions

3.26

4.08c

Internet more problems

2.83

3.58a

Internet students withdraw more

2.86

2.67

Procrastinate should not take

3.73

4.54a

Students take internet because easy

3.28

4.25b

Sensitive topics should not be taught

2.22

3.42b

ap = .001; bp = .000; cp = .005.

3. 4. 5. 6.

interactions in internet courses are less effective; internet courses have more problems; students who procrastinate should not take internet courses; that students take internet courses because they believe they will be easier; and 7. that sensitive topics (such as racism) should not be taught in internet courses. These perceptions on the part of faculty are likely to be significant barriers to the development and teaching of internet courses. The remaining question of interest, of course, is whether these differences in perceptions “go away” when comparing students who have taken internet courses with faculty who have taught them. If differences still exist, this disconnect can create conflicts between faculty and students and may warrant further investigation in order to develop course practices that minimize such differences. If differences have gone away, such evidence can be used to convince faculty to “take the plunge” and develop and teach internet courses. Ratings on the perceptions questionnaire for those students who have taken an internet course and those faculty who have taught an internet course were entered into an independent samples t-test analysis.


Although many of the differences in perceptions between faculty and students “go away” with experience, several key differences still exist. There is one difference that exists when looking at students who have taken an internet course that does not exist when looking at students as a whole; there is a marginal difference on opportunities to interact. Students are slightly more likely to endorse the statement that face-to-face classes offer students more opportunities to interact than internet classes when they have taken an internet course than when they have not. The differences that exist when comparing students to faculty that still exist when comparing only those students who have taken an internet course to those faculty who have taught an internet course are: 1. more time—faculty who have taught an internet course are more likely to endorse this comment than students who have taken such a course; 2. procrastinate—faculty who have taught an internet course are significantly more likely to endorse the statement that students who procrastinate should not take an internet course than students who have taken such a course; and 3. student ease—faculty who have taught an internet course are significantly more likely to agree with the statement that “students take internet courses because they believe they will be easy” than students who have taken an internet course. Four significant differences that exist when comparing student to faculty responses disappear when comparing only those students who have taken an internet course to those faculty who have taught them. The differences that go away are: 1. the perception that students learn less in internet courses; 2. the perception that internet communications are less effective; 3. the perception that more problems occur in internet courses than in faceto-face courses; and 4. the perception that sensitive topics (such as racism) should not be taught in internet courses. The findings comparing student and faculty perceptions for those who have taken or taught an internet course are illustrated in Table 3. DISCUSSION The data on student versus faculty perceptions of internet courses illustrates that more work needs to be devoted to the issue of creating effective communication methods in internet courses. The data above do not allow us to “compare and contrast” the internet courses taught by faculty so quality cannot be assessed. It seems wise, then, for further research to be devoted to delineating “best practices” in internet courses to enhance communication, to facilitate learning, to make it


179

Table 3. Comparing Students and Faculty Perceptions for Those Who Have Taken or Taught an Internet Course Item

Students

Faculty

Internet courses easier

2.65

2.25

Students learn less

2.51

2.38

Students speak less

2.56

2.00

Allows more communication

2.78

3.13

Internet takes more time

2.94

3.88a

Internet fewer interactions

4.07

3.38c

Internet less effective interactions

2.56

3.25

Internet more problems

2.64

3.00

Internet students withdraw more

2.79

2.75

Procrastinate should not take

3.66

4.75b

Students take internet because easy

3.40

4.38b

Sensitive topics should not be taught

2.19

2.75

ap = .03; bp = .02; cp = .08.

clear to students that internet courses are not easier, and to bring faculty and student perceptions of internet courses more in line. These findings are important for many reasons. Perhaps one of the most important reasons to be aware of differences in student-faculty perceptions of online teaching and learning is to avoid a repeat of the “digital divide.” In the past, such a divide was perceived as between those who have access to the technology (e.g., computers, etc.) and those who do not. In today’s world, it might be more a matter of who was “raised” with this access versus those who came to it later in life. Marc Prensky discusses this “new” form of social divide in his comparison of “digital natives vs. digital immigrants (Prensky, 2009). This means that faculty who are “coming on board” to teach online courses might have very different expectations from faculty who have “grown up” teaching such courses. Additionally, not all students in the online classrooms will be as comfortable and well versed in the technology as others. These create further divisions within the differences already noted between students and faculty perceptions. If faculty are aware of the perceptions that students have of internet courses (especially those that the faculty perceive differently), pedagogical choices can be made while designing the course to begin to address those issues. It is important to note, however, that faculty perceptions are not, necessarily, better or more


accurate. Nonetheless, the fact that faculty who have taught internet courses believe that: 1. such courses take more time; 2. students take such courses because they believe they will be easier; and 3. students who procrastinate should not take such courses, should be factored into how faculty teach the course. The syllabus, for example, might include this information so that students are aware of these perceptions. Faculty and students, alike, need to be educated about the benefits of internet courses and how aspects of such courses that might be perceived as negative can be minimized or eliminated. We are encouraged by these findings that the gaps between student and faculty perceptions of online courses can be bridged. It is our hope that in building those bridges, faculty will have more rewarding teaching experiences in online courses and students will have more effective learning experiences. But this perceptual data also suggests that not all faculty might be “right” for teaching online courses. Perhaps one effective way to deal with administrative pressure to increase online offerings and minimize the number of times that remote students must visit campus without engendering all of the pitfalls that do come from online teaching is to promote the use of hybrid or blended courses. Such courses combine distance technology and minimal seat time. Jackson and Helms (2008) provide some convincing data that such hybrids can be used effectively when constructed in such a way as to clearly delineate learner’s, educator’s, AND administrations’ responsibilities. Lastly, it is worth noting, again, the importance of addressing the perceptions and needs of faculty and students who come to the digital classroom from different realities. To use Prensky’s (2009) language, we should assess differences between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants.” If, for example, a faculty member is a digital immigrant—came to online teaching after having taught for a significant amount of time through more traditional methods—he or she may construct an online learning environment that is quite different than one who is a digital native. Likewise, students who come into the online classroom as natives, will respond differently to how the course is structured than those who are digital immigrants. Further research should assess the impact of these differences on teaching and learning in online classrooms. REFERENCES Adler, J. (2001). Long distance learning. Crain’s Chicago Business, 24(10), pSRI, 3p, 1c. Retrieved on December 11, 2008 from EBSCO Host Research Databases. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.


181

Barley, S. R. (1999, March). Competence without credentials: The promise and potential problems of computer-based education. Retrieved on December 11, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Competence/section2.html Barrett, K., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N.C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college instructors. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 37-49. Berge, Z. L., & Cho, S. K. (2002). Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. Education at a Distance, 16(1), 16-34. Care, D. W., & Scanlan, J. M. (2001, Summer). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance delivery: Results from a qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(11). Retrieved on December 11, 2008 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/care42.html Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2006). Desperate technologists: Critical issues in e-learning and implications for higher education. Journal of Thought, 41(1), 95-119. Chapman, E. (2006). Is collaborative learning effective in internet courses? Retrieved on April 9, 2008 from http://www.sloan-c.org/conference/proceedings/2006/ppt/1146462543517.pot Dede, C., & Coburn, C. (2007). Exploring the process of scaling up. Threshold: Exploring the Future of Education, Spring, 16-17. Dede, C., & Honan, J. P. (2005). Scaling up success: A synthesis of themes and insights. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 227-239). New York: Jossey-Bass. Hatfield, M. (2006). Off campus online: Distance learning becoming more popular among students who work, have families. Thomson Dialog NewsEdge, retrieved on February 13, 2009 from http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/11/26/2113054.htm Jackson, M. J., & Helms, M. M. (2008). Student perceptions of hybrid courses: Measuring and interpreting quality. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 7-12. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16-26, 46. La Pointe, K. D., & Gunawarndena, C. (2004). Developing, testing and refining a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106. Levitch, S., & Milhelm, W. (2003). Transitioning instructor skills to the virtual classroom. Educational Technology, 4(2), 42-46. MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23(4), 38-41. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007). When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 49, 193-213. McAlister, M. K., Rivera, J. C., & Hallam, S. F. (2001). Twelve important questions to answer before you offer a web-based curriculum. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved on December 9, 2008 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/miller11.html Mungania, P. (2004). The seven e-learning barriers facing employees: Final Report. Retrieved November 13, 2008 from http://www.masieweb.com/external/701-e-learning-tops.html Northover, M. (2002). Online discussion boards—Friend or foe. In A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young, & T. Clear (Eds.), Winds of change in the sea of learning:


Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Australian Society for computers in learning in tertiary education. ASCILITE 2002 (pp. 477-484). Auckland, New Zealand: UNITEC Institute of Technology. Osborne, R. E., Kriese, P., & Tobey, H. (2008). Reflections on a decade of using the scholarship of teaching and learning. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 37-46. Osborne, R. E., Kriese, P., Tobey, H., & Johnson, E. (in press). Putting it all together: Incorporating “SoTL” practices for teaching interpersonal and critical thinking skills in an online course. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 4. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/FT Press. Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens Digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5. Retrieved February 17, 2009 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705&action=article Smith, R. (2002). Challenging your preconceptions: Thinking critically about psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Spiliotopoulos, V., & Carey, S. (2005). Investigating the role of identity in writing using electronic bulletin boards. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(1), 87-109. Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 77-92. Warger, T. (2003). Technology: Calling all course management systems. University Business, July 2003, Retrieved December 1, 2008 from http://www.universitybusiness.com/

Direct reprint requests to: Dr. Randall E. Osborne Psychology Department Texas State University–San Marcos San Marcos, TX 78666 e-mail: [email protected]