i.e.

: inquiry in education
Volume 4 | Issue 2 Article 5

2013

The Perceptions of Students toward Online

Learning at a Midwestern University: What are
Students Telling Us and What Are We Doing
About It?
John A. Huss
Northern Kentucky University, hussj@nku.edu

Shannon Eastep
Northern Kentucky University, easteps1@nku.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie

Recommended Citation
Huss, John A. and Eastep, Shannon. (2013). The Perceptions of Students toward Online Learning at
a Midwestern University: What are Students Telling Us and What Are We Doing About It?. i.e.:
inquiry in education: Vol. 4: Iss. 2, Article 5.
Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5

Copyright © 2013 by the author(s)

i.e.: inquiry in education is published by the Center for Practitioner Research at the National College of Education, National-Louis University, Chicago,
IL.
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

The Perceptions of Students Toward

Online Learning at a Midwestern
University

What Are Students Telling Us and What Are We Doing

About It?

John A. Huss and Shannon Eastep

Northern Kentucky University, USA

Introduction
There is little argument that online education, once considered a novelty, or at best, an alternative
delivery method aimed primarily toward an idiosyncratic population of students, has moved
aggressively into the mainstream of higher education. For eight years (2003-2010), the Sloan
Consortium conducted a nationwide survey that tracked the nature and growth of online learning.
During the fall of 2009, 5.6 million students, representing 29% of the total college and university
enrollment, took at least one online course. This percentage represented an increase of 21% over
the previous year, the largest annual increase in the eight years of the survey. It is important to
recognize that the large increase occurred when overall enrollment growth in higher education
was less than 2% (Allen & Seaman, 2010). To further substantiate these findings, a 2011 study
by the Babson Survey Research Group at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts found that
more than six million students—nearly a third of total enrollment at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions—were taking at least one online course in 2010. That's an increase of
560,000 students over the prior year (Allen & Seaman, 2011).
A similar pattern of growth has taken place within our university as we have witnessed an
expansion from 1,130 students taking at least one online course in 2005 to a total of 4,695 in the
fall of 2012. The number of online courses offered has likewise burgeoned from 82 in 2005 to
481 in 2012 (Educational Outreach, 2013). We have had the opportunity to be a part of this web-
based movement and have designed and taught foundational courses in education, at each of the
undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels.

Admittedly, when our online education experience was in its infancy, much of our focus and
preoccupation dealt with the efficiency of the technological platforms from which the course
modules were stored and launched, the “mechanics” of actually creating the courses themselves,
and the sheer logistics of dispensing the instruction. The advancement of technological tools,
coupled with an increasing confidence in our practices, has served to ease these early procedural
and structural entanglements. We are no longer concerned only with the simple act of getting the

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 1

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

course online and into cyberspace, but also with the manner by which we interact with students
and create an environment for learning that is active, innovative, and challenging. With data
provided by traditional student course evaluations being rather limited, we felt the need to more
systematically examine the medium from the perspectives of those who actually take the courses.
Without performance metrics and quality assurance to guide future course development and
delivery, retention in online courses and programs becomes more problematic and uncertain,
especially as universities—including our own—compete for new enrollments. Our classes must
now be “sold” to students as commodities and we must cater directly to the consumer who
requires the flexibility of web-based instruction. After all, institutions in higher education
consider student satisfaction as one of the major elements in determining the quality of online
programs in today’s market (Yukselturk & Yildirim, 2008; Calli, Balcikanli, Calli, Cebeci, &
Seymen, 2013).

The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes and We were committed
perceptions of students at a Midwestern university who were to uncovering the
enrolled in at least one online-only course during the fall 2012
semester. We were committed to uncovering the concrete issues
concrete issues that
that are important to our students and using the explicit feedback are important to our
to strengthen our course design and course delivery. We relied students and using
on the work of Argyris, Putnam, and Smith (1985), who
emphasized the importance of moving from describing a the explicit feedback
phenomenon and determining what can be done about it to to strengthen our
“action science” (p. 36), which involves acting in a real-life
context to bring about needed change. Therefore, the study course design and
focused on student perspectives toward web-based instruction course delivery.
and what these students consider to be their expectations and
experiences in the areas of course format, technological support, interaction with faculty and
peers, course flexibility and pace, assessment and feedback, and overall communication.

These characteristics were inspired by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) theoretical framework
(Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005), which was developed in the context of the literature on
teaching and learning in higher education and is becoming increasingly influential for explaining
and prescribing the effective conduct of online learning. The framework consists of three
dynamic interdependent elements: teaching presence, cognitive presence, and social presence, all
of which are of interest to us because they serve to define a successful learning climate in terms
of open communication, cohesion, and inter-personal relationships. Indeed, the aforementioned
components of CoI address such issues as instructor clarity, the creation of an online community,
and the instructor’s ability to provide information from a variety of sources (Arbaugh, 2008).
We embraced the key components of action research as described by McCutheon and Jung
(1990), which include systematic inquiry, reflexivity, and a focus on the practical. Our objective
was to initiate a study that gathered as much information as possible about the diversity of the
online phenomenon at our university so that we could seek improvement as online designers and
professors and subsequently share our findings with other instructors on campus who teach
students within the targeted population. We were deliberate about emphasizing the collaborative
nature of action research as we drew on Shannon Eastep’s expertise as Distance Learning

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 2
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

Coordinator and purposefully sought participation from prominent shareholders in Educational

Outreach.

A Look at the Literature on Student Satisfaction

With the unremitting growth of web-based instruction as a significant form of content delivery in
higher education, the body of existing literature is likewise moving from sporadic to steady,
especially in the area of student satisfaction, which can be defined as, “the perception of
enjoyment and accomplishment in the learning environment” (Sweeney & Ingram, 2001, p. 57),
and the sum total of a student’s behavioral beliefs and attitudes that result from aggregating all
the benefits that a student receives from participating in the experience (Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia,
2010). Previously, the literature had converged narrowly on the differences in student
achievement between traditional and online courses. As recently as 2006, Tallent-Runnels,
Thomas, Lan, Cooper, Ahern, Shaw, and Liu reviewed 76 studies detailing online education
and reported that few studies actually probed the teaching-learning experience in the online
environment and what students thought of the online environment.

Student Characteristics and Student Satisfaction

A significant relationship was reported between the degree to which students feel comfortable
using the Internet and their overall feeling of satisfaction with the online experience (Stokes,
2003). Specifically, Chu and Chu (2010) looked at adult learners over the age of 45 and found a
positive correlation between Internet self-efficacy and satisfaction. Interestingly, Rodriquez-
Robles (2006) conveyed that Internet self-efficacy is not a significant predictor of student
satisfaction in a study involving undergraduates and graduates who attended a web-based
distance education course from a university in the United States. Liaw (2008) found that self-
efficacy in general is an important dimension of student satisfaction. According to Liaw (2008),
an online student must believe in his/her capabilities to achieve the outcomes within a
nontraditional delivery system.

Bolliger and Halupa (2012) focused on the anxiety levels of 84 students who were taking an
inaugural online course in a health education doctoral program. An 18-item anxiety tool with
domains in computer, Internet, and online learning was administered in the first and last weeks
of an educational research course. A 24-item satisfaction tool with domains regarding the
instructor, technology, setup, interaction, outcomes, and overall satisfaction was used at the end
of the course. A significant negative correlation was discovered between anxiety and student
self-satisfaction.

Instructor Characteristics and Student Satisfaction

In an early study, Arbaugh (2001) surveyed 25 web-based sections in an MBA program at the
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, and reported that the instructor's use of immediacy behaviors,
including use of humor or emoticons, referring to the student by name in written communication,
prompt feedback, and sharing of personal examples, are better predictors of student satisfaction
than an instructor's mastery of the online technology.

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 3

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Herbert (2006) employed the Noel-Levitz Priorities Survey for Online Learners™ (PSOL) to
inspect the quality of online instruction for undergraduates and graduates at a medium-sized
Midwestern university and found that the most important variable in student satisfaction was
responsiveness of the faculty to student needs. Hodges and Cowan (2012) captured 52
undergraduate pre-service teachers’ views of instructor presence in online-only courses at a
research university in the southeastern United States. The participants were enrolled in an online
technology integration course consistent with their education specialization of early childhood,
middle grades, special education, consumer science, or health and physical education. The
largely asynchronous course design included weekly readings, discussions, and projects. Using a
mixed- methods online survey approach that blended quantitative data with open-ended content
analysis, the findings suggested that timely responses, clear instructions, instructor availability,
and overall course design were the most telling factors. Sheridan and Kelly (2010) applied a
cross-sectional survey design via a questionnaire administered online to 249 graduate and
undergraduate students enrolled in several online courses offered by the education departments at
either of two large universities in the Midwest. The prominent indicators deemed most important
to students dealt with making course requirements clear and being responsive to students’ needs.
Students also valued the timeliness of information and instructor feedback. While students
generally placed high value on communication and instructor’s responsiveness, they did not
place as much importance on synchronous or any face-to-face communication.

A total of 291 undergraduate and graduate students from the disciplines of psychology, special
education, instructional technology, and physical education responded to an online survey during
the summer session at a Western university. The survey included questions on demographics,
five predictor variables, and student satisfaction. The researchers concluded that both instructors
and course designers need to pay critical attention to content design and organization, given that
learner-content interaction contributes significantly to student satisfaction. Moreover, instructors
must provide feedback to students in a timely fashion and encourage students to ask questions
through different mechanisms (Kuo, Walker, Belland, and Schroder, 2013).

Shen, Hiltz, and Bieber (2006) presented results of a field experience of virtual teams that took
online examinations. Using data from 485 students, Shen et al. explained that collaborative
examinations enhance interactions and the sense of an online learning community, resulting in
significantly higher levels of perceived learning and student satisfaction. These collaborative
exams were facilitated through online asynchronous conferences in which anonymous students
and the instructor discussed the exam design, questions, and grades.

Social Presence and Student Satisfaction

Richardson and Swan (2003) explored the notion of social presence in online courses and
concluded that the construct of social presence affected student outcomes, student satisfaction,
and possibly instructor satisfaction. In the same vein, Lowenthal and Dunlap (2011) explored
students’ perceptions of instructional strategies utilized to establish social presence in online
learning environments. They found that simple strategies, such as one-on-one emails and detailed
feedback, are more successful methods for creating social presence than more cutting-edge
technology strategies. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh (2004) used a qualitative approach and

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 4
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

found that students in an online course were apprehensive about a lack of community in an e-
learning environment.

Multiple Factors and Student Satisfaction

Based on 295 responses from students enrolled in 16 online learning courses at two public
universities in Taiwan, Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, and Yeh (2007) identified seven critical factors
that influence online learners’ satisfaction instructor attitude, computer anxiety, course
flexibility, perceived usefulness, course quality, perceived ease of use, and diversity of
assessment. Sun et al. revealed that course quality is the most important concern and that
technological design plays an important role in students’ perceived usefulness of a course.
Moreover, Sun et al. claimed that the assessment strategy of any online course should include
peers and/or students in addition to the instructor’s evaluations of student performance.

Lim, Morris, and Kurpitz (2007) compared the learning outcomes of online and blended learning
delivery. A program evaluation course with 125 undergraduate students at the University of
Tennessee completed a close-ended and open-ended
Learners seemed to questionnaire using terminology taught in the course. Among
the 125 students, 59 were enrolled in an online course and 69
value those learning were enrolled in the same course taught in a hybrid modality.
activities wherein they Data analysis revealed that the course format did not
significantly affect students’ learning application. However,
could apply learned within the two groups, various instructional activities were
knowledge and skills to deemed more important than others. That is, learners seemed to
personal situations. value those learning activities wherein they could apply learned
knowledge and skills to personal situations.

Summary

Assessing student satisfaction can be valuable in terms of program and course improvement. As
with any course, immediacy, comfort, strong interactions, and feedback are critical to student
satisfaction. The majority of existing studies in the literature have been limited to small samples
or confined to specific disciplines or courses. What makes this study particularly unique is that
we sought to extend our investigation of student perceptions of online experiences to a larger
sample size than in prior studies (as was recommended by many of the previous works). In
addition to a large sample, this study included an entire university campus, comprising several
distinct colleges and content areas.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The university at which this study was conducted services more than 16,000 students in a tri-
state region. The university has 2,000 faculty and staff. The Associate Director of Educational
Outreach for the university provided email addresses for the 4,695 students who were enrolled in
at least one online course for the fall 2012 semester. The electronic survey was piloted with a

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 5

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

small sample of online students at a branch campus, as well as faculty within our college. The
electronic survey and subsequent reminder email were then disseminated to each of the potential
respondents during weeks 12 and 14 of the fall semester. Approximately 75% of the respondents
were undergraduates. Table 1 displays the numbers of students who responded from the various
colleges across the university.
Table 1
College Affiliation

College Response
(n = 1,085)
College of Arts and Sciences 255 (23.5%)
College of Health Professions 224 (20.6 %)
College of Informatics 200 (18.4%)
College of Education and Human Services 198 (18.2%)
College of Business 138 (12.7%)
College of Law 0 (0%)
Undecided 70 (6.5%)

Of the total number of students, 44% identified themselves as being 30 years of age or older,
with 32% between 18 and 22 years-old, and approximately 24% between 23 and 29. Nearly 80%
of the students who responded were female. Seventy percent had taken one or more online
courses but also took face-to-face courses, while 30% identified themselves as “online-only.”

Instrument
The electronic survey was a researcher-generated instrument, which blended a quantitative
component in the form of 23 fixed response items (five of which were demographic in nature)
with a distinct qualitative element accomplished through two narrative response questions that
encouraged detailed and personalized answers. The domains used within the survey were
influenced by the typology of online interaction by Moore & Kearsley (2005) and therefore
included: learner-content interaction, learner-instructor interaction, and learner-learner
interaction. In addition, learner-technology interaction, as identified by Hanna, Dudka & Runlee
(2000) and Palloff & Pratt (2001), was incorporated, along with overall satisfaction. These were
the questions we felt would best inform our practices. A synopsis of the essential questions asked
on the questionnaire (minus the demographic items) is displayed in the Appendix.

Design
The blended (concurrent collection) approach employed in this study favors the triangulation
design described by Creswell (2013). Within the triangulative model, quantitative and qualitative
data are gathered simultaneously and integrated in order to clarify and better understand student
responses (Creswell & Plano, 2007). Despite the large population size, we believed that
exclusivity was not advantageous to gathering the most comprehensive data pertaining to the
attitudes and experiences of online students throughout our university. Variation in data
collection can lead to greater understanding while answering questions from different
perspectives, thereby eliminating potential gaps.

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 6
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

Data Analysis
Quantitative analysis was achieved through a simple description that condensed and refined the
raw data. A technical analysis was not sought for the purposes of this action-centered study,
which relied on nominal data. For the narrative responses, content analysis was the technique
employed to compress many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules
of coding (Weber, 1990). The overall process was adapted from the procedures outlined in
Haney, Russell, Gulek, and Fierros (1998), in which two people independently review the
material and establish a set of features that form a checklist. We then compared notes and
reconciled any differences that showed up on our initial checklists. Finally, we used a
consolidated checklist to independently apply coding. Because this descriptive “snapshot” study
utilized self-reporting and subsequently analyzed each item separately, a scale was not invoked,
and therefore, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability ratings were not viable. Credibility
and confirmability, or the capacity of a piece of research to provide a faithful description and
interpretation of a human experience (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), were enhanced through
independent corroboration from multiple informants. The use of quantitatively measured
attributes served to demonstrate what Wolcott (1973) conceptualized as the typicality of a
phenomenon, or the extent to which attributes may be compared and contrasted along relevant
dimensions with other phenomena.

Results
A total of 1,085 students returned the questionnaire. However, the response numbers varied for
individual survey items, with various students skipping particular questions.

Attitudes and Prior Experience with Online Education

Of the total number of participants, 68% rated their level of comfort with technology in the 8-10
range on a scale where 10 was the “most comfortable.” Table 2 reports on the reasons as to why
the students chose to take an online course.
Table 2

Reason for Taking Online Class

Reason Response
(n = 1,084)
Face-to-face did not fit schedule or was not an option 516 (47.6%)
Strictly convenience 399 (36.8%)
I learn best in online environment 83 (7.7%)
None of the above 86 (7.9%)

Learner-Instructor Interaction
The results in this section seek to present those elements of the online experience that involve
communication with and from the course instructor. As depicted in Table 3, the students were
asked to give their opinion as to the “promptness with which they believe an instructor of an
online class should respond to an email.”

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 7

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Table 3

Promptness Responding to Email

Promptness Response
(n = 1,056)
Within 24 hours 446 (42.2%)
Within 12 hours 299 (28.3%)
Within a few hours 226 (21.4%)
Within 1-2 days 85 (8.0%)

In Table 4, students were asked to consider how often an instructor should communicate with an
online class, beyond the initial communication necessary for making course content available.
Such additional communication might, for example, include updates and reminders.

Table 4
Frequency of Instructor Communication

Frequency Response
(n = 1,054)
Several times a week 500 (47.4%)
Weekly 489 (46.4%)
Daily 65 (6.2%)

Table 5 displays the responses to the question, “With respect to class updates and
announcements, how would students prefer to receive this information from their online
instructor?”
Table 5
Preference for Receiving Class Updates

Preference Response
(n = 1,055)
Email 751 (71.2%)
Announcements in course management system 221 (20.9%)
Text 42 (4.0%)
Audio messages 10 (0.9%)
Other 31 (2.9%)

A simple email was also the preferred method of communication when students were asked how
they would like to receive a response from the instructor in the event of a technical difficulty
with a component of the online course. They selected an email response (79%) over a phone call,
audio explanation, or video tutorial, even if the latter were sent via email. When asked if seeing a
video message or hearing an audio message from the instructor helped the student feel more

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 8
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

connected to the online professor, 62% of 1,055 students indicated that it did, 23% expressed that
it did not, while 15% noted that he/she had never experienced such messages.
Table 6 displays the student responses to “What type of feedback would you like to receive on
your work from your online instructor?”

Table 6

Type of Feedback Preferred

Feedback Preference Response

(n = 1,055)
Score and written overall feedback on the assignment 519 (49.2%)
Score and written specific feedback on individual items 422 (40.0%)
Just a grade/score is enough 72 (6.8%)
Score and audio/video feedback on the assignment, items missed 42 (4.0%)

Close to 50% of 1,053 students expected assignments to be graded within 4-7 days after
submission, with 46% expecting a grade to be returned within 1-3 days.

Learner-Content
The results in this section report on the aspects of online education that are associated with the
course elements and course delivery most preferred by students. From the students’ perspective,
what should be included in a typical online module? Their reactions comprise Table 7.
Table 7
Contents of an Online Module

Content Response
(n = 1,053)
Content, audio and visual messages from 611 (58.0%)
instructor
Content only 255 (24.2%)
Content and audio messages 187 (17.8%)

When considering the use of tutorials (voice-narrated “how-to” videos), 59% of 1,052
respondents expressed that such tools helped them better understand the technology or content
being taught in the modules. Students were asked about the pacing of an online course and felt
strongly (78%) that new content should be made available at the beginning of a week, but not
multiple times throughout the week. In addition, 75% of students indicated that they would like
the option of working ahead past the current week of material.
Table 8 exhibits the type of devices used regularly by students.
Table 8

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 9

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Devices Used on Regular Basis

Device Response
(n = 1,055)
Laptop 968 (91.8%)
Desktop computer 516 (48.8%)
Smart phone 395 (37.4%)
Tablets 244 (23.1%)
Other 14 (1.3%)
Note. Students could select more than one item.

Several students clarified “Other” by including devices such as Kindle e-readers, iPod Touch,
and Chromebook.
When students were asked if they would prefer that more components of an online course be
designed for smart phones and tablets, a mixed reaction was drawn. Approximately 45% of the
aforementioned students acknowledged that they would indeed like to work on other devices in
addition to traditional laptops or computers, yet 44% stated that they prefer to work on a laptop
or desktop. The remaining students were unsure. When it came to the use of more cutting-edge
technology throughout an online course, 66% of 1,050 students considered such innovation to be
only “somewhat important.” Only 28% of the respondents wanted to see technology used to its
fullest, while 6% did not consider the use of cutting edge technology to be important at all.
Learner-Learner Interaction
The results in this section report on the dimension of online courses. Student attitudes toward the
importance of regular interaction with classmates within an online course revealed that 50% of
the students considered it “not very important” to interact with others in the class, with 40%
indicating it was “somewhat important.” A mere 10% of respondents expressed that regular
interaction with classmates in an online course was “very important.” As presented in Table 9,
students were then asked to indicate the type of interaction they do prefer with other members of
their online class.
Table 9
Type of Interaction with Classmates Preferred

Type of Interaction Response

(n = 1,050)
Small group discussion board 722 (68.8%)
Large class discussion board 596 (56.8%)
Small group projects 281 (26.8%)
Voice-generated discussions 109 (10.4%)
Real-time video interaction 86 (8.2%)
Video-generated discussions 38 (3.6%)
Other 120 (11.4%)
Note. Students could select more than one item.

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 10
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

Narrative Responses
Students were asked to describe one aspect of a very successful online class, and conversely, one
aspect of a very unsuccessful online class they had experienced. A total of 748 of the survey
respondents provided such narrative commentary. The “successful” and “unsuccessful” aspects
can be organized into several distinct categories:
Positive student feedback related to technology usage. The respondents described
several technological features of their online courses they felt were particularly helpful. These
included: tutorials, audio and video lectures, wimba, Tegrity, Voice Thread, and tools that
addressed multiple learning styles. For instance, one student remarked, “There were instructional
videos with audio lectures and PowerPoint slides. These are important to me as an audio/visual-
learner.” Another was supportive of “recorded lectures with a professor’s voice that can be
listened to at my own leisure.” A student pointed out how the professor “used video messages to
make my first online experience more humanizing; it was almost like being in class on campus.”
Positive student feedback related to the instructor. Student commentary concerning
their online professor generated praise in three specific areas: organization, promptness, and
communication. Said one respondent, “I think it’s important for the instructor to outline the
expectations we should have of him/her regarding feedback, forms of contact, and grading.”
Another summed it up by stating, “A professor’s organizational skills, to me, are the most
important aspect of a successful online class.” Another student shared, “I appreciated having my
assignments graded in a timely fashion so I could always gauge how I was doing in the class.”
Other students commented: “The professor sent out emails at the beginning of every week to
remind us of our assignments,” and “I think regular communication from the professor is
important; it lets me know he/she is there to help us.”
Positive student feedback related to miscellaneous factors. Students contributed many
general, positive comments regarding their online classes that ranged from course consistency
and detailed syllabi to flexibility and well-structured modules. Said one, “I like it when course
content is posted the same day every week and all assignments are due on the same day each
week.” Other students concurred: “I had one assignment due each week, on the same day and at
the same time. It allowed me to get into a routine” and “I like it when the classes are easily laid
out in week-to-week folders.” Others appreciated the convenience: “I live over 50 miles from
campus; these courses allow me to continue my education,” and “I can study when I want, and at
the pace I want.”
Negative student feedback related to technology. Many students were definitive in
their criticism of certain technological aspects of their online courses. Some complaints dealt
with the “mechanisms” of the class, such as difficulty opening files, compatibility issues with
Macs, inconsistencies with various browsers, and confusion with the course management system.
Other complaints, however, were focused on how the technology was utilized by the instructor:
“The professor never used audio or video presentations—just .pdf files to explain difficult
concepts.” “My professor used videos, but simply read the PowerPoint in a dry, monotonous
voice; the videos were not helpful at all,” and “the only technology used was regular
PowerPoints and links to resources. It was a very boring class. I was teaching myself.”

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 11

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Negative student feedback related to the instructor. As was the case in their praise of
instructors, students were likewise critical of professors in the categories of organization,
promptness, and communication. According to one student, “Not only was the professor just
generally unorganized, but he did not grade any assignments during the first three weeks of
class.” Another was equally frustrated by “professors who don’t respond to emails and don’t post
grades until weeks later.” One student claimed, “We didn’t know our grades until the class was
almost over.” Other students provided unfavorable comments concerning professors who were
“totally uninvolved in the course.” According to one, “I felt completely disconnected from the
instructor,” and “the instructor could have been anybody. She did not react to our posts and
contributed nothing beyond uploading the material once a week.”
Negative student feedback related to
miscellaneous factors. A sampling of negative student
While other “successes”
comments uncovered numerous areas of concern. Many
dealt with the use of group work: “Group projects should and “non-successes” were
never be done in an online class.” “Group projects are a provided by the students,
disaster in an online format.” “One class put us in groups of
4 or 5—really bad idea for an online course. Most people the critical themes that
take online classes for scheduling reasons.” In other emerged clearly spoke to
matters, a student commented that “the entire class grade
was based on tests—no discussion, no assignments, and no
the necessity for clear
feedback from the professor,” while another said, “The instructions, timely
class was vague and confusing, everything from how the responses, instructor
assignments were explained to the excessive number of
tabs in Blackboard.” availability, and a course
While other “successes” and “non-successes” were
design that integrates
provided by the students, the critical themes that emerged appropriate, not
clearly spoke to the necessity for clear instructions, timely overpowering, technology.
responses, instructor availability, and a course design that
integrates appropriate, not overpowering, technology.

Discussion and Implications

The results, both numerical and narrative, from the students who were enrolled in at least one
online-only course provided candid feedback that we can use for many purposes. It can inform
our own practices as we design and deliver web-based instruction to better meet the expectations
of students while, at the same time, providing a substantive academic experience.

Preparedness
The initial implication gleaned from the research bears upon the preparedness of students (and
instructors) for an online experience. Beginning with the motive for choosing an online course in
the first place, the largest percentage of respondents indicated they took an online course because
a face-to-face option was not available or did not fit their desired schedule. The second reason
was “strictly convenience.” Only a little more than 7% of students selected an online course
because they believed they learn best in that environment. As instructors, we need to be ever
aware that students often populate online courses for reasons other than “educational” or

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 12
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

scholastic ones. Put simply, a student who selected an online class because it was a last or only
resort, or was intrigued merely by the expediency of not having to drive to campus, may be quite
unprepared for the format, the technology, and the self-reliant nature of an online course.
Consequently, dropout rates in online courses are extremely high (Dietz-Uhler, Fisher, & Han,
2008).
As the findings from this study demonstrated, 68% of the respondents rated their comfort level
with technology at the highest end of the scale. Frequently, however, such ratings are delusions
of grandeur as students are quick to equate “social media” comfort with technological prowess in
general. Also, despite growing up with access to thousands of online sources, students still tend
to search only in the most familiar and accessible locations, such as Google or Wikipedia (Bair
& Bair, 2011). Instructional videos and tutorials received substantial positive feedback from
students and were considered indispensable for assisting students in maneuvering through a web-
based course. Otherwise, students may begin an online class and suddenly discover they are
overwhelmed by the course management system, the assignment submission process, the email
login, and the discussion board. A comment like “I am not technologically savvy; they assume
we are” was offered by a large number of respondents. To help counteract these deficits, we
created an “Introduction to Online Learning” tutorial that leads students through the entire
process, including necessary peripherals, such as printers, speakers, microphones, and so forth.
As noted earlier, students depend primarily upon laptop and desktop computers and exuded only
mild interest in seeing more components of their online classes designed for tablets and smart
phones. So, while they rate their technology comfort as high, they are not advocating for their
instructors to push the technological envelope at this particular time.

Communication
The importance of communication is the next essential finding drawn from the student feedback.
With students expecting prompt responses to email, audio or video messages, and multiple
correspondences within a given week, we need to be sure we are communicating clearly and
often with our students. While it is true that many students select an online option because it
affords them a large degree of self-reliance and autonomy, they also expect concise directions for
accessing course materials, completing and submitting their assignments, and receiving and
interpreting their assessments and feedback. Such an expectation is arguably a paradox, because
in many ways, the students are relying on the instructor to manage their time for them and
remind them of due dates, while simultaneously asking for more freedom (Bair & Bair, 2011).
Moreover, students insist that “communication” involve more than “technical” and dispassionate
instructions. Many students pointed out that their professor was “missing” from the educational
conversation. The ability, or willingness, of instructors to communicate online was perceived to
be a crucial component of online learning. Failure to be explicit when the course begins can lead
to much misinterpretation and disgruntlement on the part of students who may equate ambiguity
with incompetence or indifference. We immediately sought to counteract such a perceived lack
of communication on our part by specifically addressing in our syllabi our general methods of
procedure for responding, grading, and making ourselves accessible. Also, as a direct response to
the students’ desire for increased communication, we decided to send out a weekly review of the
course content each Thursday, which emphasizes the “Take-Aways of the Week” and
collaborated on an open source digital file program to provide succinct, informative audio

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 13

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

introductions to each course module. Remind 101, another open source tool, is now utilized to
send text messages to students in our classes to provide updates and additional “human” contact.

Other Findings
The very attributes of an online course that some students rated as positive and successful were
the same components rated by others as negative, unwanted, and unsuccessful. The two most
glaring examples involved the use of discussion boards and the requirement of group work or
group projects. A sprinkling of comments found discussion and other such assignments
involving their classmates to be valuable, yet more than 50% of the respondents revealed that it
was not very important to them to interact with classmates on a regular basis. Traditional
discussion boards, in particular, drew negative responses by the students as they described many
discussion activities as “busy work,” “of no value,” and “time consuming.” Small group
discussions, while still disparaged by many students, were considered preferable to the large or
whole group format.
Students were frequently adamant about the disdain for group projects, with respondents
pointing out that scheduling and availability are common limitations for online students and that
group requirements are not consistent with that consideration. Respondents expressed that it is
“easier to work alone,” “I’m taking an online course because I don’t have time for interaction
with classmates. It should never be a requirement,” and the not so subtle “I HATE group work!”
Such findings would challenge aspects of the existing literature that suggest students are seeking
“community” and interaction with peers.
Both of these findings have led us to incorporate programs such as Voice Thread (a totally web-
based application that allows students to have conversations and to make comments using any
mix of text, a microphone, a web cam, a telephone, or uploaded audio file) into our online
courses in lieu of traditional discussion formats. We have also limited group discussions to
small-group only.
Limitations and Future Research

The response rate for the questionnaire was approximately 23%, yet, because of the large
population to which it was sent, we would argue that data from more than 1,000 students is
reasonable for recognizing useful trends and patterns. As we instigated this study, we were aware
that low response rates are not atypical for surveys with large invitation lists (Hamilton, 2009).

Because our inquiry sought knowledge that could be applied directly to our own teaching
context, statistical generalizability was not a goal. However, we are in agreement with Williams
(2000) who used the term “moderatum generalization” to illustrate how “aspects of a particular
case can be seen to be instances of a broader recognizable set of features” (p. 131). While our
study was conducted to improve our own practices, many of our findings are consistent with the
published literature. In this way, instructors on and beyond our campus may find this student
feedback functional and practical for their own online endeavors. Therefore, they may transfer
knowledge to their situation if they make a reasoned decision that the students from whom we
collected data do not differ substantially from others to whom they might wish to generalize. To
this end, we have shared our discoveries within our own department and college as well as to a
consortium of regional universities.

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 14
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

When considering future research to compliment this inquiry, it could be beneficial for us to
devise a methodology in which various content areas are, in fact, isolated so as to determine if
certain disciplines appear to lend themselves better (or worse) to the online medium. We are
already making preparations to repeat this study at our university because we recognize that
student dynamics are fluid and we wish to reassess student experiences to determine if positive
changes have occurred as a result of the interventions we have introduced.

Conclusion

In total, this study confirmed and expanded upon the findings from much of the previous
research that suggested students have definite perceptions about online education and what they
believe to be the necessary components for their success in this environment. Closing the gap
between those perceptions and the realities they actually encounter within various online classes
will be instrumental in helping us (and perhaps many of our
Students have definite colleagues) develop courses that provide the flexibility
students desire while maintaining a necessary sense of
perceptions about online “connectedness” with our institution and our faculty.
education and what they Students did not directly express anxiety or apprehension
about online education in general, but chose rather to
believe to be the necessary emphasize course design, course organization, and
components for their instructor presence as the “make or break” aspects of
distance education. These will determine if the escalation
success in this
in online learning at our university continues to manifest,
environment. or if structural inadequacies ultimately send students back
to the hallowed lecture halls.

Dr. John Huss is an associate professor of education at Northern Kentucky University where he teaches
foundations of education and action research courses. His interests include middle level education,
pedagogy of humor in teaching, and online learning.

Shannon Eastep is an instructional designer, instructor, and distance learning coordinator for the
College of Education and Human Services at Northern Kentucky University. Her role is to design and
support online and hybrid classes for the college. She has been working in the field of instructional
design and technology for 11 years.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States.
Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States.
Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/class_differences.pdf

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 15

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and
learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online
MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
9(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/490/1045

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bair, D., & Bair, M. (2011). Paradoxes of online teaching. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5. Retrieved from
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v5n2/articles/PDFs/Bair_Bair. pdf

Bolliger, D., & Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online
doctoral program. Distance Education, 33, 81-98.

Calli, L., Balcikanli, C., Calli, F., Cebeci, H., & Seymen, O. (2013). Identifying factors that
contribute to the satisfaction of students in e-learning. Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education, 14, 85-101.

Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z. (2010). Multi-level analysis of peer support, Internet self-efficacy and
e-learning outcomes: The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency. Computer
and Education, 55, 145-154.

Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dietz-Uhler, B., Fisher, A., & Han, A. (2008). Designing online courses to promote student
retention. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(1), 105-112.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online

learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3),
133-148.

Hamilton, M. B. (2009). Online survey response rates and times. Retrieved from
http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_paper_response_rates.pdf

Haney, W., Russell, M., Gulek, C., & Fierros, E. (1998). Drawing on education: Using student
drawings to promote middle school improvement. Schools in the Middle, 7(3), 38-43.

Hanna, D. E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Runlee, S. (2000). One hundred forty seven practical tips
for teaching online groups. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 16
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and
retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9. Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.pdf

Hodges, C. B., & Cowan, S. F. (2012). Preservice teachers’ views of instructor presence in
online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28, 139-145.

Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student
satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Education, 14. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1338/2416

Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction behavioral intention, and

effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers and
Education, 51, 864-873.

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kurpitz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning:
Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 11(2).

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. (2011). Investigating students’ perceptions of various

instructional strategies to establish social presence. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Into
Practice, 29, 144-151.

Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system view. Belmont, CA: Thomson-
Wadsworth.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2003). An examination of social presence in online courses.
Learning, 7(1), 68-88.

Rodriguez Robles, F. M. (2006). Learner characteristic, interaction and support service variables
as predictors of satisfaction in web-based distance education. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 67(07). (UMI No. 3224964).

Ryan, M., Carlton, K. H., & Ali, N. S. (2004). Reflections on the role of faculty in distance
learning and changing pedagogies. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(2), 73-80.

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 17

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Shee, D., & Yang, Y. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e- learning system: A
methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers and
Education, 50(3), 894-905.

Shen, J., Hiltz, S. R., & Bieber, M. (2006). Collaborative online examinations: Impacts on
interaction, learning, and student satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and
Cybernetics, 36, 1045-1053.

Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to
students in online classes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4). Retrieved
from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/sheridan_1210.htm

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education,
7, 59-70.

Stokes, S. P. (2003). Temperament, learning styles, and demographic predictors of college

student satisfaction in a digital learning environment. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.

Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-
learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50, 1183-1202.

Sweeney, J. C., Ingram, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional web-based tutorials in marketing

education: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 55-62.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., &
Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Williams, M. (2000). Interpretivism and generalization. Sociology, 34, 209-224.

Wolcott, H. (1973). The main in the principal’s office: An ethnography. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Wu, H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-
learning system environment. Computers and Education, 55, 155-164.

Yukselturk, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Investigation of interaction, course structure and
flexibility as the contributing factors to students’ satisfaction in an online certificate
program. Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 51-65.

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 18
 Huss and Eastep: Perceptions toward Online Learning

Zsohar, H., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Transition from the classroom to the web: Successful
strategies for teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29, 23-28

Published by Digital Commons@NLU, 2013 19

 i.e.: inquiry in education, Vol. 4 [2013], Iss. 2, Art. 5

Appendix

A Copy of the Essential Questions Asked of Students

What is your reason for taking an online When taking an online class, how Outside of making course content
class? quickly should a professor respond to available, how often should a professor
Face-to-face did not fit my schedule or emails? communicate with an online class (class
was not an option Within 24 hours reminders, updates, etc.)?
Strictly convenience Within 12 hours Several times a week
I learn best in an online environment Within a few hours Weekly
None of the above Within 1-2 days Daily

For class updates, how would you most When having a technical difficulty with Does seeing a video message or hearing
like to hear from your online professor? a component of your online course, how an audio message from your instructor
Email would you like your professor to respond make you feel more connected to your
Announcement in Course Management to your question? online professor?
System Email Yes
Text Phone call No
Audio Message Audio message I have never experienced a video or
Other Video tutorial sent by email audio message from a professor

What type of feedback would you like to How quickly should assignments/exams What should be included in an online
receive on your work from your online be graded and scores posted back to learning module?
instructor? students? Content/audio and video messages from
Score and written overall feedback on Within 4-7 days instructor
the assignment Within 1-3 days Content only
Score and written specific feedback on Content and audio messages
individual items
Just a grade/score is enough
Score and audio/video feedback on the
assignment and items missed
In terms of pacing an online course, how As an online student, would you like the What devices do you use on a regular
often should new content be available? option to work ahead past the current basis for course work?
More than once per week week of material? Laptop
Weekly Yes Desktop
Every 2 weeks No Smart phone
Tablet
Other
Are you interested in more components How important is it to you that your How important is it to you to have
of an online course being designed for online course use cutting edge regular interaction with classmates?
tablets and smart phones? technology? Very important
Yes Very important Somewhat important
No Somewhat important Not very important
Not very important Not important at all
Not important at all
In an online class, what kind of Describe for us one aspect of a very Describe for us one aspect of an
interaction do you prefer with successful online class that you have unsuccessful online class that you have
classmates? experienced. experienced.
Small group discussion board
Large class discussion board
Small group projects
Voice generated discussions
Video generated discussions
Other

https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol4/iss2/5 20