online student cohorts’ experiences of interaction dr. mary lou kata

ONLINE STUDENT COHORTS’ EXPERIENCES OFINTERACTION

Dr. Mary Lou Kata

ONLINE STUDENT COHORTS’ EXPERIENCES OFINTERACTION

Does the online format alter cohort students’ experiences of engagement through faculty-student and student-student interaction in a way that may affect learning and persistence?

Framing the Issue

Concern for two student-centered issues:– Quality of learning experiences– Low rates of retention

Framing the Issue

Online students -increased number of outside obligations compared to traditional students

– Tend to be older– Have more family responsibilities– Have more employment responsibilities

A greater likelihood to feel dissatisfied with the quality of their learning experiences and have higher rates of dropping out of college

(Allan & Seaman, 2006)

Framing the Issue

Increase in online enrollments– 3.9 million students, representing nearly 20% of

all enrolled students, were reported to be enrolled in an online class in the fall of 2007 (Allen & Seaman, 2008).

Framing the Issue

Appropriate and adequate faculty-student and student-student interaction can address both issues.

– Increase student persistence to complete a course or program of study

– Deepen the quality of the student’s learning experiences.

(Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2004; Dorn, Papelweis, & Brown, 1995; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Maher, 2005; Tinto, 1997, 1998)

Framing the IssueAppropriate Interactions

Interactions that positively affects persistence:– Words of encouragement and support from peers

and instructors– Adequate levels of interaction helps students form

a bond with instructors and peers

(Carini et al., 2004; Dorn et al.,1995; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Maher, 2005; Tinto, 1997, 1998)

Framing the Issue Appropriate Interactions

Interactions that positively affects learning:– Prompt feedback– Communication of high standards– Content-related discussions

(Carini et al., 2004; Dorn et al.,1995; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Maher, 2005; Tinto, 1997, 1998)

Role of Learning Communities and Cohort Groupings

Provide a framework that supports higher levels of faculty-student and student-student interaction.

– Higher retention rates– Higher GPAs– Deeper, more meaningful, quality of learning experiences

(Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2004; Dorn, Papelweis, & Brown, 1995; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Maher, 2005; Tinto, 1997, 1998)


Creation of a learning community or cohort is not enough to ensure adequate and appropriate interaction.

– Faculty play key role in creating positive learning environments within the groupings.


Students who perceived the learning community was a negative experience felt that:

– Faculty were not interested in giving extra help or engaging with them

– Faculty didn’t have an understanding of how to create a positive learning environment

– There was little or no linkage between the classes they were taking

(Lichtenstein, 2005)


Students who were in a learning community that they perceived as a negative experience:– Had lower retention rates and lower GPAs than

students enrolled in a positive learning community– Had lower retention rates and GPAs than

students who had not been part of the freshmen learning communities

(Lichtenstein, 2005)

Unique Qualities of Online Interaction

Major differences between interactions in an online environment compared to interaction in a traditional classroom– Not sharing the same physical space– Method of communicating– Course discussions that are stored and expanded

over time– Blindness to the usual nonverbal cues


Sharing physical space and time– Traditional students’ conversations can naturally

unfold in a face to face environment– Online students post messages and wait to hear

back


Method of Communicating– Students in traditional classrooms speak and listen to

interact (nonverbal cues-facial expressions).– Online students write and read to interact with each other.

Visibility to Instructor– Students who are not active in a traditional classroom are

still visible– Students who “lurk” in an online classroom are not visible


Course discussions – In a traditional classroom, a question is posed, discussions

occur, and then the next question is posed. Three or four may answer

– In an online environment, a question is posed, it stays written in the discussion board allowing students time to think and reflect, to come back to, to click on the associated discussion, review the discussion, and to add to it at any point.

Everyone may be expected to answer


“Blindness” to the nonverbal cues such as appearance, age, gender, race, and style of clothes that in traditional classrooms is part of the identity of the student who is speaking.– Traditional classroom students view these

students through the filter of these nonverbal cues


Learner Empowerment– Anonymity provided by online discussions can

help some students feel more capable of expressing themselves (McKee, 1999)

– Shy, introverted students or those who feel discriminated against as members of ethnic groups or for other reasons (Moore, 2002)


Do these differences in the way online students interact with their peers and instructors affect the types of faculty-student and student-student interaction that positively affect learning and persistence in traditional classroom settings?

Population and Participants

Data collected over a two-year period– Education Specialist Degree Program was first

offered online.– Program standards and goals for learning

outcomes were the same for both formats.

Population and Participants: Secondary Quantitative Analysis

Sample population consisted of 139 students– 92 students (5 traditional cohorts)– 47 students (3 online cohorts).

From this sample population– 63 participating cohort students were enrolled in

the traditional format (68%)– 30 participating cohort students (64%) were

enrolled in the online format

Population and Participants Population and Participants: Qualitative Analysis

30 students enrolled in the 3 online cohorts from the quantitative research for this study were asked to participate in the qualitative research. – 10 participating cohort students (33%) enrolled in

the online format

Description of Instruments

Program Evaluation Survey – Distributed at the end of each of the courses to

traditional and online cohort students

Interview with Online Students– Emailed at the completion of the program

Data Analysis

Secondary Analysis of Quantitative Data– T-test to compare satisfaction with interaction

across all classes and across all semesters– Factorial analysis of variance to compare

satisfaction with interaction by course– 6 wave repeated measures analysis to compare

satisfaction with interaction over time Qualitative

– Case Study of online students’ experiences

Secondary Quantitative Analysis

Do students in online cohorts differ significantly from students in traditional cohorts in their self-reported satisfaction with faculty-student and student-student interaction when examining evaluation assessments:

– Across the entire program– Between individual classes– By semester as students move through the program

Secondary Quantitative Analysis

Students enrolled in the traditional cohorts reported they were significantly more satisfied with their interaction experiences than the students in the online cohorts in every category.– Across the entire program– By individual classes ( 10 courses)– By semester as students move through the

program

Examining evaluation assessments across the entire program

Traditional OnlineCohorts Cohorts Mean Mean

Type of Interaction (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev) T-value

Student-student interaction 4.6 4.2 5.33*** (0.6) (0.7)

Student-faculty interaction 4.5 3.9 .57*** (0.8) (1.0)

*** p < .001

Examining evaluation assessments between individual classes

Overall, traditional cohorts reported a higher satisfaction with faculty-student interaction – 3.9 to 5.0 (average mean) traditional cohorts– 2.11 to 5.0 (average mean) of the online cohorts

Online cohorts - six courses lower than 3.9

Examining evaluation assessments between individual classes

Overall, traditional cohorts reported a higher satisfaction with student-student interaction – 4.2 to 4.8 (average mean) traditional cohorts– 3.5 to 5.0 (average mean) of the online cohorts

Online cohorts - six courses with a lower mean average than 4.2

Online cohorts - two courses with a higher mean response than the traditional cohorts

Comparing Online and Traditional Cohorts' Student-Student Interaction Over Time

Traditional OnlineCohorts Cohorts

Semester 1 4.75 4.15 Semester 2 4.75 4.60 Semester 3 4.75 3.80 Semester 4 4.40 4.00 Semester 5 4.60 3.75 Semester 6 4.75 4.25 Semester 7 4.25 4.75

Comparing Online and Traditional Cohorts' Faculty-Student Interaction Over Time

Traditional Online Cohorts Cohorts

Semester 1 4.60 4.30 Semester 2 4.75 4.75 Semester 3 4.65 3.25 Semester 4 4.25 3.60 Semester 5 4.60 3.30 Semester 6 4.60 4.60 Semester 7 4.40 4.75

Qualitative Case Study

Do the students in the online cohorts’ perceive that the technology aspect of an online classroom negatively alters their ability to interact with their peers and their instructors?

Technology a barrier to interaction?

Peer Instructor

Interaction Interaction

Strongly Agree 0% 0% Agree 0% 10%

Neutral 10% 10% Disagree 40% 30%

Strongly Disagree 50% 50%


“Technology is not immune to the human element of commitment and sense of

responsibility.”


“The quality of experience in an online course is directly dependent on the quality of the instructor. – A quality instructor gives quality assignments and

a steady stream of qualitative and quantitative feedback in posts and assignments.”


“…most of the instructors were faithful about

interacting. For an online course to work there has to be some guidelines for instructors regarding the FREQUENCY and QUALITY of feedback given as well as the quality of the assignments.”

Online interaction experiences

What do students in online cohorts describe when specifically asked about their interaction experiences with other students and with faculty?

Faculty-student Interaction

“I would say that I have had a greater connection with online professors due to the amount and level of communication required to perform effective dialog. Often face to face communication assumes understanding of information conveyed.”

“I felt a connection with most instructors because was receiving feedback on a consistent basis. However, one instructor in particular was almost entirely absent.”

Student-student Interaction

“…Perhaps more so than in traditional classrooms. This could be because when you make posts EVERYONE reads them and therefore you communicate with 20 people at a time not just the person sitting next to you at a table.”

Student-student Interaction

“Definitely! I’m closer to colleagues/friends in this cohort than I ever have been in more traditionally-delivered courses.”

“We have developed a relationship. I think probably more of a connection since we were “forced” to talk to each other in the discussion boards.

“Felt no connection. Students did not increase my motivation to complete”

Online Interaction Experiences

Students enrolled in the online cohorts reported that these types of interaction did occur online:– Timely Feedback– Course-related conversations that deepened the

students’ learning experiences – Words of encouragement and support which

helped them persist in the program– Adequate communication – in most cases felt a

bond with their peers and instructors

Implications

When appropriate and adequate faculty-student interaction is absent from the online classroom, the online students reported instructors as “missing” from the classroom and expressed frustration with the limited faculty-student interaction.

online student cohorts’ experiences of interaction dr. mary lou kata

Documents

studentstudent interaction

role of learning communities

positive learning environments

adequate facultystudent

enrolled students

increase student persistence

cohort groupingsstudents

lenning ebbers