THREE CONSTRUCTS EXAMINED: THEORETICAL FORCES THAT COULD AFFECT
RETENTION IN ONLINE COLLEGE CLASSES
By
Ruth Jay Shillair

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media- Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
THREE THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS EXAMINED: THEORETICAL FORCES THAT
COULD AFFECT RETENTION IN ONLINE COLLEGE CLASSES
By
Ruth Jay Shillair

Online education appears to meet the need of providing educational opportunities for a
growing proportion of the population in a way that is economical and scalable. It has become
strategic for many institutions of higher education, especially community colleges. These
colleges often serve populations who are often at greater risk of attrition from classes. Therefore,
understanding theoretical forces that affect student persistence is important to guide policy
decisions in all aspects of administration, design, and teaching of these classes. Previous studies
showed strong connections between the theoretical constructs of self-efficacy, usability, and
social presence and its correlation to student persistence in online classes. However, massive and
rapid changes in technology acceptance, Internet accessibility and student expectations call for a
need to reexamine these constructs to see if indeed these are still key factors in student
persistence. The online writing and English classes (N=706) of a large urban community college
were invited to participate in a survey and the completed surveys (N=49) were analyzed to look
for correlations between self-efficacy in online education, usability of the Learning Management
System, and social presence in students who persisted in the classes (N=43) and those who
dropped (N=6). Little difference was found between persisters and non-persisters in all of the
constructs studied, which was in contrast to previous research. Qualitative analysis of comments
found varying frustration levels in all three areas, even among students who were persisting. The
decision to drop or persist appears to be closely tied to strategic choices made by the students.

Copyright by
RUTH JAY SHILLAIR
2013

DEDICATION
To my patient and supportive husband Tom:
thank you for all you do, and most of all for who you are.
Also, to my children and their spouses as well as my grandchildren:
thank you for your prayers and encouragement.
Hugs to all-

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a great deal to my advisor, Dr. Johannes Bauer. Despite his incredibly busy schedule and
global travels, he always is so kind to take the time to share great insights into my research area,
and discuss upcoming trends. I am thankful how he has taught me that economic philosophies
and issues underlie almost all decisions, especially in education. I am grateful to Dr. Carrie
Heeter, who while being amazingly gentle and encouraging, gave me a passion for understanding
usability and seeing the power of deep qualitative analysis. Also, I am very grateful to Dr.
Constantinos Coursaris, who helped me to understand the potential of analyzing data in multiple
ways to tease out previously unseen connections. Also, thank you to Rachel Iseler, she always
seems to know exactly who to talk to, and what to do at each step of the way.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of this research .............................................................................................................................................................1
Background of the Issue .............................................................................................................................................................3
Growing need for higher education........................................................................................................................ 3
Strategic Nature of Online Education .................................................................................................................... 4
Promise and Problems with Online Education .................................................................................................. 5
Importance of Student Retention ...........................................................................................................................................7
Past research on persistence in online classes .................................................................................................................9
Questions for Research ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Basic Factors for Measurement ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Student Self-Efficacy in the Online Educational Environment .................................................................. 17
Usability of the Educational Interface ................................................................................................................. 19
Social Presence in the Virtual Classroom ........................................................................................................... 21
Common Theories of Student Persistence ....................................................................................................................... 22
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Design .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Choice of Institution.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Choice of Sample Population ................................................................................................................................... 27
Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Survey Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Human Subjects approval ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Overall Demographic Information ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Demographics of all participants .......................................................................................................................... 32
Demographics and Persistence ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Grade Point Average- ................................................................................................................................................. 35
Ethnic/ Racial Background ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Gender .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
First Person .................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Distance............................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Class Enrolled ................................................................................................................................................................ 36
vi

Self-Efficacy in Online Classes ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Usability of the Learning Management System (LMS) .............................................................................................. 39
Social Presence Measures ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
Overall Satisfaction Levels...................................................................................................................................................... 44
Student Reported Reasons for Dropping ......................................................................................................................... 45
Qualitative Analysis of the Comments............................................................................................................................... 45
Demographics of Commenters ............................................................................................................................... 45
Comments about Social Presence of the Instructor (Communication) ................................................. 50
Comments about Self-Efficacy (or expressing concern about lack of efficacy) .................................. 52
Comments about Usability of the System as utilized by the instructor and Comments about
Usability of the LMS .................................................................................................................................................... 53
Comments about Support Services....................................................................................................................... 55
Comments about Social Presence of fellow students .................................................................................... 56
Other Findings .............................................................................................................................................................................. 57
LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................................ 59
DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................................... 61
Persistence and Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................................................. 62
Persistence and Usability of Instructional Interface .................................................................................................. 62
Persistence and Social Presence .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Further Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Suggestions for further research ......................................................................................................................................... 66
Final Remarks............................................................................................................................................................................... 67
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX A: COPY OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.................................................................................................. 70
APPENDIX B: COPY OF THE CODEBOOK ......................................................................................................................... 95
WORKS CITED .................................................................................................................................................... 127

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Approximate GPA of all participants ............................................................................. 32
Table 2 Ethnic/ Racial Background of Participants .................................................................... 32
Table 3 Citizenship ...................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4 Gender of Participants .................................................................................................... 33
Table 5 First person in family to attend college .......................................................................... 33
Table 6 Still Enrolled in class ...................................................................................................... 33
Table 7 Distance from College .................................................................................................... 34
Table 8 Class Enrollment ............................................................................................................. 34
Table 9 Self Efficacy in Online Classes bivariate correlations..................................................... 38
Table 10 Usability of the LMS Questions Correlations............................................................... 40
Table 11 Usability per instructor's utilization of the LMS .......................................................... 41
Table 12 Social Presence of Fellow Students Correlations .......................................................... 43
Table 13 GPA of Commenters ..................................................................................................... 48
Table 14 Gender of Commenters ................................................................................................. 48
Table 15 Mean Distance in Miles from Commenters by category .............................................. 48
Table 16 Categories of Comments ............................................................................................... 49
Table 17 Satisfaction with Instructor's Social Presence ............................................................. 52
Table 18 Commenter's Self-Efficacy Scores ............................................................................... 53
Table 19 Comments About Usability of the System ................................................................... 54
Table 20 Satisfaction with Instructor's Utilization of the LMS ................................................... 54
Table 21 Satisfaction with Student Services (Computer Help, Tutoring, and Writing Center) .. 55

viii

Table 22 Code for Quantitative Analysis of Responses .............................................................. 97

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Computer Mediation Points ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 2 Shannon-Weaver Theory Applied to Online Education ................................................. 16
Figure 3 Approximate GPA ......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4 Ethnic/ Racial Background ............................................................................................ 32
Figure 5 Citizenship ..................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 6 Gender of Participants ................................................................................................... 33
Figure 7 First Person in Family to Attend College ...................................................................... 33
Figure 8 Still Enrolled in Class ................................................................................................... 33
Figure 9 Distance from College in Miles ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 10 Class Enrollment of Participants ................................................................................. 34
Figure 11 Social Presence of the Instructor ................................................................................. 42
Figure 12 Class Satisfaction Levels ............................................................................................. 45
Figure 14 Gender of Commenters................................................................................................. 48
Figure 15 Distance in Miles of Commenters ................................................................................ 48
Figure 13 GPA of Commenters .................................................................................................... 48
Figure 16 Satisfaction with Instructor's Social Presence ............................................................. 52
Figure 17 Commenter's Self-Efficacy Scores ............................................................................... 53
Figure 18 Comments About Usability of the System ................................................................... 54
Figure 19 Satisfaction with the Instructor's Utilization of the LMS ............................................. 54
Figure 20 Satisfaction with Student Services (Computer Help, Tutoring and Writing Center) ... 55
Figure 21 Students Who Use a Mobile Device to Access Online Class ....................................... 57

x

Figure 22 Students Who Use Mobile Devices Also Use ............................................................. 57
Figure 23 Number of Devices Used to Access Class ................................................................... 58
Figure 24 Desired Instructor Response Time ............................................................................... 58

xi

INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this research
The growth and ubiquity of computers and the digital revolution has made profound
changes in almost every aspect of daily life. As a result of growing mechanization and use of
robotics during the mid to late Twentieth Century, the labor force shifted from production
positions in manufacturing to professional, technical and service workers. This change
accompanied a massive investment by businesses in Information and Communications
Technology (ICT). The growth of computers, information technology and software were in the
double digits throughout the period of the 1950s to the late 1990s. For example, in 1996,
business expenditures for ICT were $29,200 per worker in the telecommunications industry; this
compares to an investment of only $7,600 for real estate and office space per worker during the
same time (Fisk, 2003). By1999, the professional, technical, and service workers sector
employed 78% of all workers in the United States (Fisk, 2003). Mechanization, computers, and
robotics continue to further change the modern workplace. As discussed by Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's (MITs) economists Acemoglu and Autor, the rapid diffusion of new
technologies has produced a tremendous shift in the demand for certain jobs, with low-skill
workers suffering loss of opportunities, and the remaining positions have experienced
"significant declines in real wages" (Acemoglu & Autor, 2010). As machines replace even more
low-skilled positions, it is of growing importance to find ways to improve education to better
utilize human capital. Therefore, having a populace that is well-educated is strategic not only to
the individuals that are otherwise facing a lifetime of limited opportunities, but also to the future
of a community or a nation (Means et al, 2010; Beerkens, 2003). As a result, a larger percentage

1

of the population is entering into the higher educational system, including those who were
demographically, or academically, not traditionally college-bound.
At the same time that educational institutions are faced with meeting this burgeoning
population, they also are facing challenges in controlling costs. Institutions are often meeting
these dual challenges by offering classes in the online environment; however, the very students,
the non-traditional college students, who need to negotiate these innovative learning spaces, have
the lowest retention rates in online classes (Herbert, 2006). Therefore, it is important to closely
look at ways to better understand how to 1) develop systems that attract and engage students, 2)
design interfaces that not just enable, but enhance learning, and 3) direct educators towards
effective pedagogical practices in online education.
To better understand the forces that affect student retention in online classes, a
measurement instrument was developed to ascertain the impact of three theoretical constructs
that correspond to each of the three major foci of development, design, and direction. To better
develop systems that attract and engage students, it is essential to understand their levels of
confidence and comfort in working on educational materials in an online format; therefore, selfefficacy in online learning will be measured as part of this research. Secondly, in finding ways
to design an interface that enhances learning, the students’ evaluation of the usability of current
learning management system, as well as the usability of the instructors’ choices in the utilization
of that interface will also be measured. Thirdly, the students’ perception of direction and
communication, otherwise known as social presence between the students and the instructor as
well as the students and their classmates will be measured. Hopefully, by evaluating these
relationships new insights can be gleaned, and new innovations and policies that help improve
persistence in online classes can be developed.

2

Finding solutions to meet the critical needs in education by utilizing technological
innovation will require cross-discipline cooperation and thorough research. Institutions and
government entities should be careful to make policies that are founded on solidly researched
principles, to assure that while harnessing the power and potential of Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) in education crucial learning objectives are still met. The
first step in this multi-faceted process is to examine the forces that encourage student retention in
online classes.
Background of the Issue
Growing need for higher education
With business and industry facing the growing need of a population who has advanced
educational skills, this means a projected increase in the number of students enrolling in college
level classes. Enrollment in institutions of higher education increased by 37% in the period of
2000 to 2010, by 2010 there were 21 million students enrolled in colleges and universities (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in
the 2009-2010 academic year over 940,000 bachelor's degrees were granted in the United States
and they project that by 2021 that number will increase to 1,160,000 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2011). To meet this increase in demand would normally require a massive
investment in expanding the basic infrastructure of universities across the nation. Yet at the
same time that higher education is more crucial than ever, most governmental entities are cutting
funding. A study by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators found that
even though enrollments in higher education had grown by 12.5% during 2008-2012, state and
local funding had dropped by 7% in 2010, and a further drop of 3.7% in 2011 ("State and local",
2012). These rates of declining support along with the increases in enrollment combine to

3

reduce the rate of state and local support for the equivalent of each full time student to the lowest
that it has been in 25 years ("State and Local", 2012). Reductions varied across states, but the
draconian cuts in some areas came as a result of declining state revenues. As an example,
funding in the state of Minnesota was reduced by 35% from 2000-2010, while the national
average was a 20% decline (Hawkins, 2012). This puts a greater burden on the student to cover
the increasing gap between governmental support and the actual costs of providing an education.
Strategic Nature of Online Education
In an era of tight budgets and decreasing governmental support, efficiency and optimal
utilization of resources is key to being able to offer higher education to an increasing percentage
of the population at a reasonable price. According to a report sponsored by the Bill and Melinda
Gates foundation, to meet the projected needs of an additional 1,000,000 more college graduates
by the year 2020 at today’s level of degree productivity, the government should be investing at
least $52 billion more in higher education per year (Auguste et al, 2010). However, in this era of
tight budgets, even though higher education is a critical and strategic investment, the increases
needed to just barely keep the status quo are not likely. Therefore, it is imperative for institutions
to find ways to improve productivity, as Auguste et al (2010) emphasize, the goal is to, “to
produce more graduates for the same total expenditures without compromising the quality of
degrees awarded or reducing access” (Auguste et al, 2010). A potential key to this improvement
in productivity could be more extensively utilizing online classes, the analysis sponsored by the
Gates foundation found that online education could be up to 48% more cost effective than the
traditional classroom counterpart (Tutty & Ratliff, 2012)
To meet the increased student load many educational institutions are already putting more
classes into the online environment. The online format is scalable and flexible. It allows more

4

classes to be added within a fairly short time, and with little capital outlay, yet it also allows
college administrators to reduce capacity quickly if demand drops. For example, the
administrative nightmare of having to consolidate several traditional sections of classes because
of low enrollment that meet at various places and times is simplified if the sections are online.
Also, since with online education, students study the material when they want and where they
want, scheduling classes for optimal times or locations becomes a moot point. Therefore, many
universities see online classes as having high strategic importance. The Babson research group
found that 65.5% of the institutions surveyed agreed with the statement, "Online education is
critical to the long-term strategy of my institution" (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Most universities
now offer online classes, the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 89% of fouryear public universities offer online classes and 91% of 2-year private and public colleges offer
online sections (Taylor, Parker, Lenhart & Patten, 2011). Online education is also growing in
acceptance by students, in 2010, in the United States, there were "over 6.1 million students
taking at least one online course... an increase of 560,000 from the previous year" (Allen &
Seaman, 2011).
Promise and Problems with Online Education
For some students, especially those who work part time or have family responsibilities,
the online environment offers many advantages. Students can go over lecture material and do
assignments during times that are convenient to them. Also, the computer mediated learning
environment allows students to repeat lecture points as needed for personal review. Often the
same professors teach both the traditional face-to-face classes and the online sections, so the
students have the opportunity to learn from the same instructor and cover the same material
without the difficulties and inconveniences they may face in coming in to a traditional class.

5

Younger undergraduate students usually feel comfortable with technology; they are
sometimes called digital natives, since they have grown up with the Internet, computers, smart
phones, and other forms of computer mediated communication (Prensky, 2001). It is estimated
that by the time students graduate from college they have spent about 10,000 hours of their lives
playing video games and only 5,000 hours reading; one might conclude that these students may
actually learn better in the digital environment (Prensky, 2001).
The other tremendous opportunity that online education brings is that it can reach beyond
geographic boundaries and allow students to continue their studies even if they are physically
located far away from the institution. This medium can therefore offer the potential for
institutions to reach new market segments. Especially given the need to offer continuing
educational opportunities to large portions of the population, using technology to provide
information in the online environment can help bring solutions that have the potential to be
effective, economical, and scalable (Kenney, Hermens, & Clarke, 2004).
Given that online classes offer scalability, economy of delivery, the possibility to control
costs, and the ability to reach students who have time restraints or other commitments, it seems
as though online instruction would be welcomed and embraced by institutions and students alike.
Especially since careful meta-analysis of studies shows that the potential for learning outcomes
from online or hybrid sections is the same as that of traditional face-to-face classrooms (Corey et
al, 2012). Furthermore, direct studies also found that outcomes could be similar to that of
traditional classroom instruction (Fortune, Spielman & Pangelinan, 2011). Yet, despite the
potential advantages for online classes, outcomes are often rather disappointing, with online
students much more likely to drop classes (McFadden, 2009). The rate of attrition can be
significantly high, a four-year study of 51,000 students in the state of Washington attending a

6

community college found a 8% lower completion rate for online sections; this rate rose to a 15%
gap if the student took remedial courses (Brown, 2011) Other studies show retention rates down
to only 20% of those originally enrolled, with college administrators surveyed estimating that
online sections have retention levels 10-20% lower than the similar face-to-face sections (Tutty
& Ratliff, 2012). This phenomenon occurs at all levels of higher education, surprisingly even at
the graduate level. For example, a study of MBA students at a major university found that some
sections had a drop rate four times that of the same face-to-face class (Patterson & McFadden,
2009).
Importance of Student Retention
Student retention and completion is a serious concern; the National Center for Education
Statistics reports that only 36% of enrolled college students at four year institutions complete
their bachelor's degree by four years, even if that is extended to six years only 57.5% are able to
graduate (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). The non-completion rates grow even
worse when those entering two year institutions are counted in the analysis. These institutions
tend to serve the non-traditional students: returning adults, minorities, and the disadvantaged;
approximately 42% of their student body are the first in their family to attend college, so their
mission to bridge the gap and help make education accessible is crucial (Clay, 2012). A report
published by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center in November of 2012, in an
analysis of over 600,000 students across the nation found that of those who started in a two-year
institution, after six years, only 23.9% had completed an associate’s degree at that institution,
and only an additional 9.4% had completed at a four year institution after getting an associate's
degree (Shapiro et al, 2012). This issue has sparked concern in both public and private arenas to
the point that the 2010 U.S. Department of Education budget included a $2.5 billion dollar

7

program over five years called the Access and Completion Incentive Fund to help find and
support new initiatives that help students, particularly the disadvantaged, to complete college
(The White House, 2010).
Student attrition is not only problematic at the national and regional levels; at the
institutional level it can also cause serious financial loss. Many institutions have enrollment
levels at which they will run a class, if the class is below that threshold it is not profitable to run
and the class will be cancelled (McDonald, 1995). If students enroll in online sections and
commitments are made to run the class, and subsequently a significant number drop the class
within the drop/add period the institution must refund the students' money and the institution will
have to run the section at a loss. Another consequence of the last minute shuffling and
cancellation of classes is that students are unable to complete their degrees in two years or even
three years. There are concerns that the cancellation of classes might be a contributing factor to
community colleges' low graduation rates (Schneider & Lin, 2012). It is to every educational
institution's advantage to encourage students that enroll in classes to stay enrolled and be able to
successfully complete the academic goals within that class. By discovering some of the key
characteristics of the experiences of students who persist in online classes, interventions could be
put in place to help the students persevere (Parker, 1999).
Also, for the individual who chooses to drop an online class there are multiple levels of
"cost". If they enroll in an online class and then choose to drop it before they complete the
material they may face lost tuition, fees, or even more importantly, time. They may have to wait
until the next semester to attempt to take a required class again, "The longer they wait to
graduate and get a job, those are extra years of their careers...not making money" (Lukerson,
2013). Logically, it would seem that if a student faces high frustration levels in attempting to

8

complete their degree, as well as a longer time elapsed until completion, the more likely they are
to drop out entirely from any educational program. Those with incomplete degrees face a harder
time competing for jobs or getting a better position.
Past research on persistence in online classes
Since college completion is a serious issue, and that of particular concern is the students
from non-traditional backgrounds, finding ways to help improve retention and completion of
coursework is of importance. Also, since online classes are strategically significant for many
institutions, it is of particular concern to improve retention and learning outcomes for all
students. There are many studies done on the macro-level, looking at societal trends, cultural and
pedagogical changes, demographic, and economic changes that are influencing overall college
retention rates ( Shachar & Neumann, 2010; Thomas, Cooper & Quinn, 2003; Hermanowicz,
2003; Moxley, Najor-Durack, & Dumbridge, 2001; Crosling, Thomas, & Heagney, 2008; Welsh,
2007; Mancuso, 2008). However, the pool of research looking specifically at examining online
classes and the reasons why certain individuals persist and why others in the same class will drop
is much smaller. Even more difficult to find is research examining the students facing the
highest risk on dropping out, the community college student taking online classes (Muse, 2003).
Research in this area is important because community college students are at the highest risk of
attrition, and online sections have a lower rate of persistence (Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler,
2012). Also, another reason for the need to research online student retention at the community
college level is because about 50% of all online college classes are offered through community
colleges (Johnson & Berge, 2012). Therefore, focused research on this demographic of students
and how to improve student retention is needed. Yet looking at simply the demographic risk
factors for student retention in online classes gives an incomplete picture of possible solutions to

9

improve retention and learning. There is also the need to research aspects the students’
perceptions of the design and usability of the online system itself, and how the system is utilized
in practice.
Online education, in its infancy, was simply treated as a new mode for delivery of
distance education, where lessons and learning material were mailed to the student and the
student would complete the materials individually and mail the results back to the instructor
(Shachar & Neumann, 2010; Bramble & Lu, 2011). The initial advantage of the online mode
was simply the speed of delivery and response time was shorted from weeks and days to hours
and minutes. The basic pedagogy of most instructors didn't change using online systems, a series
of lessons was prepared and posted in the students' content management system and then the
student would work through the checklist of activities to complete the class (Steinbronn, 2007).
Additionally, early systems for delivering online educational content were often designed by
universities primarily as an efficient way to simply offer traditional class material for retrieval by
students in an online environment (Coates & Baldwin, 2005). Later these systems were expanded
for use as entire class delivery systems. Yet, even something that appears as straightforward as
this scenario can have complex implications when serving a critical function, such as working as
a conduit for higher education (Coates & Baldwin, 2005).
Some of the early reported points of frustration with and attrition from online learning
classes was reported to be difficulties with the technology and the inability to easily access
information (Shrank, 2009). However, as computers have become more ubiquitous and Internet
access improved, these problems of basic access should be re-examined, particularly to see if
these issues are still barriers to at-risk students since students’ skills, comfort with, and
expectations from technology have changed rapidly (Roberts, 2005).

10

A further possible factor affecting student retention in online classes is the pedagogical
practices of the instructors. Even with massive changes in the availability of technology the
growth of adoption and the changes in the capabilities of the online environment, there is often
little overall change in how most online classes are administered from the point of the instructor
(Ray, 2009). They commonly use pedagogical practices that have been used for millennia in
traditional instructional spaces, rather than radically alter the design of their instruction to a new
paradigm. For example, an andragogically based format that would give more responsibilities to
learners in online environments (Gibbons & Wentworth, 2001). These lack of pedagogical
changes are often not neglect on the part of the instructors, but due to the fact that training for
teaching in online environments usually consists of purely the technological “how to use” the
interface, rather than instruction on effective pedagogy in these new environments (Gerard et al,
2011; Ray, 2009; Bailey & Card, 2009). Also, a growing body of researches in Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) studies are starting
to better understand how humans interact in these spaces, and how computer mediated
communication (CMC), even though in many ways is the same as more traditional forms of
communication, is fundamentally different (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Olson & Olson,
2003).
The different aspects of student demographics and preparation, design of the interface,
and usability of the computer system utilized for class delivery should be carefully examined to
look for ways to improve usability and "bake in" effective pedagogical practices in the design
and implementation of the systems used to develop and administer online education. This is even
more crucial for the disadvantaged or non-traditional student as they may be less familiar with
educational expectations, and with improved design they could potentially not only be able to

11

persist in classes, they may be able to flourish and succeed. Another growing issue that needs to
be carefully examined is the increased use of mobile devices by students. These devices
radically change the visibility and usability of systems designed for desktop use. Designing
learning and content management systems that work robustly on mobile devices could better
engage students and greatly improve retention, even among at-risk student populations.
Therefore, this research attempts to fill that gap by looking holistically at students as they
come in to the online class, their interaction with the computer interface, their interaction with
the instructor, and their interaction with each other. Most previous research has looked primarily
at one aspect at a time, such as student demographics (Welsh, 2007; Patterson & McFadden,
2012; Hart, 2012), satisfaction levels (Muse, 2003; Auguste et al, 2010), engagement levels
(Saltmarsh & Sutherland-Smith, 2010; Sundar & Marathe, 2010; Artino, 2009), or student
motivation and preparation (Mancuso, 2008; Huckabee, 2010; Welsh, 2007). This research
attempts to not only include these important aspects, especially students’ sense of being capable
to handle the online learning environment, often defined as self-efficacy, as well as measuring
students' sense of usability with the interface, and their sense of connection with other classmates
and the instructor. The findings have the potential to help build bridges as both computer
interface developers and educators work cross-discipline to generate solutions that truly enhance
and facilitate online education.
Questions for Research
After a review of relevant researches in this area, several basic constructs were found to
frequently be a factor in student retention, yet these constructs were not studied in conjunction on
the same test population to look for similarities. These three theoretical constructs revolve
around self-efficacy, usability, and social presence. The specific research questions are: 1) if

12

students have a higher sense of self-efficacy in online learning, will they be more likely to persist
in online classes; 2) if students feel that the computer interface is favorable in usability are they
more likely to persist in the class; 3) if students feel the instructor has integrated their course
materials in a usable format are they more likely to persist; 4) if the students feel a sense of
social presence with their instructors are they more likely to persist; and 5) if the students feel a
sense of social presence with their fellow classmates, apart from their instructor, are they more
likely to persist? Other issues examined in this research are demographic information, (e.g.,
gender, GPA, and type of device used to access the class) and how these aspects may also be
factors in student retention.
To answer these questions current literature was carefully reviewed to incorporate both
current research findings, classic measurement instruments were utilized and adapted to develop
a measurement tool, and a location was chosen to attempt to measure these forces on the target
population. The hope is to be able to reach a population that is often overlooked in research
studies, the community college student, in order to gain insights to design solutions and develop
policies that will enhance the learning process and improve retention levels of even the most atrisk student populations.
This research seeks to examine the following basic hypotheses:
H1: Students with a high sense of self-efficacy will be more likely to persist in the class
H2: Students that feel the Learning Management System (LMS) is usable are more likely to
persist in the class.
H3: Students that feel the instructor has utilized the affordances of the LMS are more likely to
persist in the class.

13

H4: Students that have a high sense of social presence with the instructor are more likely to
persist in the class.
H5: Students’ sense of social presence with their fellow students will not be significant in their
choice to persist in the class.
Basic Factors for Measurement
The first step to creating designs that will enhance, not just allow, online education is to
understand current reasons why students are dropping online classes and why students persist in
these same classes. By looking at the differences, hopefully areas can be pinpointed where
changes can be made to help improve student retention. Students who enrolled and dropped an
online class at any point in the process will be surveyed; additionally, students who are persisting
in those same classes will be surveyed to measure how they perceive their experience in the
class. The answers to the surveys will be closely examined to look for the different factors that
might be indicative of persistence or dropping.
There are several key points where ICT is used to interact with the student. These are the
critical points where communication and interaction are strongly affected by the computermediated environment, the design of the interface, and utilization of that environment.
Specifically, these are the interfaces between: the student and the instructional material, the
student and the instructor, the student and other students, the instructor and the instructional
material, the instructor and the students, and the other students with both the instructional
material and the instructor. These interfaces are the points where any weaknesses in
communication will cause the process of learning to be less than optimal.

14

Figure 1
Computer Mediation Points
For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to
the electronic version of this thesis

Instructor

Instructional
Activities

Student

Classmates

These points closely correspond to Shannon and Weaver's classic model of
communication, where "noise" is the points where the encoding and decoding process of
communication is most likely to be degraded (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). In Shannon and
Weaver’s model, the encoding and decoding concept were dealing with telecommunication
issues and the loss of data in the transmission of the telephone signals. In the online classroom
environment there are similar points of “noise” or interference where communication is likely to
break down and the student is more likely to disengage from the class. Using this medium, the
online class, takes extra effort to overcome the “noise” and maintain the communication link to
learn the material. In this research, three critical points where the student is likely to face

15

frustration and there may be an increase in student attrition are closely examined using the
theoretical constructs that are the basis of this research. These critical measurement points
include: the student self-efficacy in the online environment as they come in to the class; the
usability of both the interface itself and how the instructor has utilized this technology; and the
social presence or connections between the student and the instructor as well as the student and
their fellow students.
Figure 2
Shannon-Weaver Theory Applied to Online Education

Self-Efficacy
of Taking Online
Education:
Confidence in the
abilty to do online
education/ ability to
work with the
technology

Student

Noise

Usability: The ability
to perform tasks
associated with the
class work

Computer
Mediated
Learning
Management
System

Social Presence: The
connection to the
instructor/ fellow
students

Noise

Instructor/
Fellow
Students

In designing an instrument for this research that could effectively measure the critical
forces affecting retention in online environments, current literature and research in this area were
carefully examined. Indexed peer-reviewed materials were gathered to look for thematic insight
into potential causes of attrition and find potential solutions for improving retention.

16

Student Self-Efficacy in the Online Educational Environment
The initial point of possible “noise” or difficulty to overcome for the online student is the
initial use of technology for the purpose of education. The student might face difficulty in
utilizing the technology; this is potentially problematic for non-traditional college students or
those from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are concerns about the digital divide, where those
from different societal backgrounds have widely different skill sets in utilizing the Internet and
technology for gathering information, and that this divide might further marginalize those who
need access to educational material (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010). Even with rapid changes
in access to the Internet across all spectrums of society, there still are significant differences in
strategic Internet access skills, especially among those with lower educational levels (Van
Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010). Research into generational differences of being able to navigate
Internet usage for gathering information found that after initially learning basic skills, such as
email and search, there was little conclusive differences between those who grew up using
digital devices and those who learned usage later in life (Salajan, Schonwetter, & Cleghorn,
2010). These findings, along with other research, hint that difficulties in access are complex and
often related to educational background and economic conditions (Van Deursen & Van Dijk,
2010; Salajan, Schonwetter, & Cleghorn, 2010; Prensky, 2001). Therefore, the student who
enrolls in an online class faces the need for a special skill set that is able to utilize all the
technology needed to successfully interact in the class, which would include: the computing
device, Internet access, navigating the content management system, and logging into any
necessary components of the class.
Previous research in overall student retention has discovered that one of the key elements is
the student’s sense of self-efficacy (Wang & Newlin, 2001; Hodges, 2008; Yi & Im, 2004).

17

Wang and Newlin's (2001) meta-analysis found that there was a strong correlation with selfefficacy and student persistence, even when studied at different achievement levels, different
topics or different models of research. Additionally, more focused literature overview that
addressed persistence in online and distance education at tertiary levels found several key
indicators of persistence: comfort with online course work, the flexibility of the online
environment, commitment to goals, GPA, feedback and interactions that felt meaningful, a
relevance of course material to the student's life, self-efficacy, social presence, and support (Hart,
2012). Of all of these factors, the one most commonly mentioned in the literature reviewed was
that of self-efficacy. Research specifically looking at the community college student
demographic also found that self-efficacy, which was closely correlated to students' overall
GPA, was a key predictor to student retention (Nakjima, Dembo, & Mosler, 2012). Even though
self-efficacy is obviously important in student retention, it is a broad concept that needs to be
carefully defined and operationalized in order to measure it for this particular research.
According to Bandura’s (2006) definitions of self-efficacy, a student who felt they were
capable of handling the technical skill set needed for functioning in the class would have selfefficacy in this area. This is not a measure of actually doing something; it is rather the selfperception that the subject feels they have the capability to achieve a task (Bandura, 2006).
Therefore, to guide in designing a tool that would measure self-efficacy in an accurate way,
Bandura's guidelines (2006) for constructing self-efficacy scales was utilized with questions
being specifically tailored toward self-efficacy with online education and the specific challenges
that would be faced in that environment. However, even though the impact of self-efficacy in
online environments is well proven, it is not usually combined with other constructs to see if this
attitude is significant in persistence when measured at the same time as other crucial constructs.

18

Usability of the Educational Interface
The second key point of interaction and potential for “noise” is the computer interface
itself and how the instructor utilizes this interface. The computer interface that educational
institutions commonly use to manage educational content is often called either Content
Management Systems (CMSs) or Learning Management Systems (LMSs). Some researchers are
rather adamant about the basic design differences in that CMSs simply facilitate the instructor’s
ability to place course materials online, monitor student performance, and set a framework for
communication between the student and the instructor as well as the student and his or her
classmates (Watson & Watson, 2007). On the other hand, LMS systems are geared more for
closely following the learning process with monitors to measure if individual or institutional
goals are being met in the learning process (Watson & Watson, 2007). However, in the general
literature these terms are used interchangeably and even major systems such as Blackboard,
while referred to in academic literature as a LMS, identifies themselves as a CMS in their own
literature (Watson & Watson, 2007). No matter how it is defined, most institutions use some sort
of CMS or LMS for students to access class content information for all of their classes:
traditional, hybrid, or online. This system is the default, and sometimes, the only, system used
by both faculty and staff to post class content and monitor student activity.
The usability of the system itself is one of the keys to the ease with which the student can
access the information that they need to succeed (Shrank, 2009; Minocha, 2009). The use of
information and communications technology (ICT) for accessing educational material is essential
to the ability to participate in online education. However, usability is key for lowering frustration
levels, a Nielsen Norman group study (2010) using college students from selective universities
around the world, measured their ability to utilize web sites for specific tasks. They found that

19

even these highly educated users were likely to pass over cumbersome or difficult to use sites
and lost patience quickly. Even though the college students were very goal oriented in their use
of the Internet, when faced with a site that was difficult to “decode”, they would move on
(Nielsen, 2010). Additional research on usage of LMSs in online education for those not so
adept at dealing with ICT was done, their findings concluded that students with limited ICT
backgrounds were able to learn the LMS if they had personal help to get past critical error points.
However, overall, a lack of ICT skills, especially in dealing with the LMS, was seen as an issue
that could potentially hamper efforts to more be more inclusive in online education (Pretorious &
Van Biljon, 2010).
Therefore, another important factor that needs to be operationalized in order to be
measured in determining is the usability of the LMS interface itself. Since all of the interactions
that normally take place within a classroom or between classmates are done in a computer
mediated environment, the ease of using that interface would affect student frustration levels and
potentially contribute to a decision to drop a class. However, determining clear measures for
usability is challenging, because there are many aspects to consider when examining a particular
LMS or CMS product (Joo & Lee, 2011). Yet despite the wide variety of possible aspects to
consider in usability, some of the most universally adopted measures are those developed by
Jakob Nielsen (1994) in explaining the basic heuristics that are essential for ICT usability. His
specific publication that guided the usability design of the measurement instrument for this
research study is his work on college students and the Web (Neilson, 2010).
Yet, measuring the usability of the LMS or CMS system itself is not sufficient in
understanding its effectiveness in learning, because even the best designed systems are not
effective if their affordances are not used as designed, or if the organization of the class is not

20

developed to the level where it is useful for the target audience. Several research studies have
looked at how the LMS affects the pedagogical choices of the instructors. One team of
researchers said, “LMS are not pedagogically neutral technologies, but rather through their very
design, they influence and guide teaching. As the systems become more incorporated into
everyday academic practices, they will work to shape and even define teachers’ imaginations,
expectations and behaviors” (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005). These researchers are concerned
about the tendency of institutions and instructors to simply adapt their teaching pedagogies to the
already developed systems, rather than to take pedagogical “best practices” and design systems
that enhance the learning process. Furthermore, the technologies used within the discipline of
teaching deeply affect institutional policies, “these kinds of technologies are productive of the
cultural practices, institutional ethos and broader educational discourses within whose terms the
academic self is in turn produced” (Saltmarsh, Sutherland-Smith, 2010). Many students have
been enrolled in more than one online class; therefore, some have experienced how instructors
effectively or ineffectively utilize the LMS to better optimize the affordances of the environment.
Therefore, several questions on the research instrument probe the student’s perceptions of
usability as pertaining to the usability of the instructor’s use of the LMS for the class.
Social Presence in the Virtual Classroom
The concept of social presence in the online class environment is one that is of great
interest in recent studies and well-proven to be a very important construct as a factor in student
retention (Swan et al, 2012; Russell and Curtis, 2012; Crimm, 2006; Gunawardena & Zittle,
1997; Huckabee, 2010; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Daniels & Stupnisky, 2012; Mckerlich et al,
2011; Brinthaupt et al, 2011). Social presence, or immediacy, can either be fostered through
interactions with the instructor (e.g. e-mail, responses to communications) or through

21

interactions with fellow students. As for the social presence or immediacy with the instructor,
this has been frequently seen as a critical factor in student satisfaction and engagement in online
classes (Johnson & Card, 2007; Crim, 2006; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). The sense of
"temporal immediacy," the response within a timely manner to questions, comments and
assignments is seen as key to a connection that goes beyond the actual words or feedback
exchanged (Johnson & Card, 2007). In respect to the student-to-student interaction, an instructor
can design a learning environment that encourages and supports student-to-student discussion,
they can help guide by example and act as a facilitator to build an overall sense of social
presence (Ng, Cheung, &Hew, 2012). On the other hand, the social presence that could
potentially be built between students, according to research by Ke (2012), has not been found to
be a strong factor in “student knowledge construction,” therefore, following the SelfDetermination Theory this aspect of social presence would probably not be a significant factor in
student persistence. Yet, however it is measured, the sense of social presence in computer
mediated environments, such as online classes, are seem as about 60% of the variance affecting
student satisfaction (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997).
Common Theories of Student Persistence
In looking at theories of student persistence, the most commonly used constructs are
Bean's Model of Student Departure and Tinto's Student integration model (Cabrera, Castaneda,
& Nora et al, 1992; Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Wilging & Johnson, 2004; Osborn,
2000). From Bean's model, the four primary variables that predict student attrition are: poor
academic performance, often closely connected to low achievement levels in high school; intent
to leave, often determined by low satisfaction levels, and lack of utility; background, which
includes demographic variables such as age, gender, enrollment status; and environmental

22

variables, such as finances, outside work responsibilities, and family responsibilities (Bean &
Metzner, 1985). Additionally, many student retention policies are developed around Tinto's
Student Integration Model which sees the importance of student integration, positive social
interactions with staff and fellow students, as well as positive institutional experiences to
strongly contribute to student retention (Cabrera et al, 1992; Wilging & Johnson, 2004; Welsh,
2007; Achiles et al, 2011, Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012; Muse, 2003).
Two of the constructs under study in this research are closely tied to elements of Bean's
model, self-efficacy and usability. A student's prior academic performance, completing classes
in an online environment, will give a measure for the perception of self-efficacy. Also, usability
of the LMS interface and how it is utilized by the instructor are closely tied to the psychological
outcomes that influence the "intent to leave" (Bean & Metzner, 1985). The third construct under
examination, social presence, is closely tied to Tinto's model which includes social integration
and positive interactions with both faculty and fellow-students (Achiles et al, 2011, Herbert,
2006). Other factors such as academic performance (GPA), distance from the college, gender,
and first person in family to attend college will be examined.

23

METHODOLOGY
Research Design
In designing this research study, there were several key elements to choose in order to get
a better understanding of how the constructs of self-efficacy, usability, and social presence affect
student retention in online instruction. Previous studies in online education were primarily done
on traditional students attending four-year research institutions; these institutions often have
different student demographics than community colleges, so their data may not represent the
special needs of the non-traditional student (Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012). These studies
may have biases in that the student populations given that these institutions have already had
high enough academic achievement and self-efficacy to be able to matriculate in a selective
institution. Also, these institutions would probably have a student population that was very
comfortable with technology, so usability would not be such a crucial hindrance for student
retention. Finally, previous studies were frequently done at residential institutions, so the element
of online social presence would not be as critical to help the student feel connected to both the
institution and the class (Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012). Therefore, even though it would
be more challenging to get access to a student population from a non-research institution,
selecting a community college for the sample population provides a test group to examine that
might not have high levels of self-efficacy.
Along with the importance of getting an institution that would have the student
population that is both more likely to find online classes challenging, it was important to find
specific classes to study that would have a diverse student population. Previous studies that are
focused on the interaction of one or two classes in highly specialized fields might deal with
student populations that are very familiar with working with various computer environments and

24

they would not be as deeply affected by usability as the students who are not as familiar with
using ICT for education. Therefore, sampling student experiences from a general education class
that is required of all majors would get a diverse and representative sample from the entire
student body. Another advantage of using a class that is required for all majors is that it would
avoid majors that have a built in sense of community and social presence that goes beyond the
actual classroom because of a shared interest in a particular field. It was determined that the best
selection of classes for research would be the online Writing and English classes. These are
required for all majors and needed to transfer to any four-year institution. These also are highly
interactive classes that benefit greatly from a sense of social presence as students revise papers
based on feedback from the instructor and peer review.
Choice of Institution
A large Midwestern community college in Michigan was selected for this research. This
institution is ideal for research targeting a diverse student body for many reasons: it is located in
a city that had large numbers of people formerly employed in auto manufacturing, many of these
plants closed and adults are returning for education in different fields; and it is in an urban area
and has a significant minority population, 17.7%; at an enrollment of approximately 20,000
students in 2012, has a large student body (Michigan Department of Treasury, 2012). Since this
community college has a high number of students who are non-traditional, they often face the
challenges of working to support a family, caring for children or other family members, and
living a significant distance from the college. All of these factors make the availability of highquality online classes even more strategic, and the need for insights on student experience more
imperative.

25

This college over the years has instituted many proactive measures to help aid in student
retention and success. They have a computer help desk to help with technical issues that include
access to the Learning Management System (LMS). This service is accessed by phone.
Additionally, there are tutoring services available to give the students a resource for regularly
scheduled help in many specific topics. Finally, there is a writing center to give one-to-one
interactions with trained writing assistants. Also, before signing up for online classes there is a
simple questionnaire for the student to self-assess their ability to succeed in an online class. This
is to help students understand the demands an online class will take in both time and task
management. Finally, it is required for all instructors have all taken basic training in how to use
the institutional LMS (Desire 2 Learn); however, this training is simply in how to utilize the
system and not special pedagogical training for working in online educational environments.
Along with many other public educational institutions, this institution has had to face
many challenges to endeavor to provide a quality educational experience for students. These
include declining revenues, a student population that is increasingly diverse and needing
preparation and support for succeeding at college level classes, and most importantly for online
education, a faculty that often struggles to be fully engaged. About 80% of the faculty is adjunct,
and there are very limited funds for professional development (Bergeron, 2012). Since adjunct
faculty often either works at another job or at multiple institutions, it is very difficult to have the
interaction that promotes communication of online pedagogical standards, or informs instructors
of the latest research findings on how to improve the student learning process.
All of the factors mentioned: student demographics, institutional policies for improving
achievement levels, financial pressures, and diversity in faculty, combine together to make this

26

college a choice that could offer insights into how the constructs under consideration affect
student retention in online classes.
Choice of Sample Population
The online Writing and English classes in the spring semester of 2013 were selected for
this research. The classes surveyed included all the online sections of: Class A --Pre-College
Writing (remedial writing to prepare students for college level writing); Class B --Composition I
(basic college level research writing); Class C --Composition II (writing an academic argument);
Class D --Writing about Literature (basic writing class using English literature as a source for
topical analysis); Class E--Writing about Literature & Ideas (literature analysis and
argumentative writing); Class F --Honor’s Composition I; Class G --Honor’s Composition II.
However, there were no online sections for Class D, Class F or G during the time examined. For
the face-to-face sections of these classes, 2,630 students were enrolled and 177 dropped, for an
attrition rate of 6.73%. The online sections of these same classes had 706 students enrolled with
70 dropping for a drop rate of 9.92%.
Instrumentation
There are many methods to effectively sample the opinions and gain insights from the
experiences of students. Given that the goal for this research was to get a sample from online
students, who might live at various distances from campus and have busy schedules, the method
that would be least intrusive on the students would be an online survey. This method, although
very easy to complete, often suffers from non-response, or that those who participate are selfselecting because of strong opinions about a particularly bad or exceptionally good experience
(Groves et al, 2009). In order to get better participation and more even representation, as found

27

by research to increase participation, an incentive was offered of the possibility of winning one
of two $25 gift certificates from a local general merchandise store (Groves et al, 2009).
To avoid ineligible responses, survey links were sent only to all the community college
students who had enrolled at any time in the classes under consideration in the Spring of 2013,
both the students who had dropped and those who had persisted in the class were sent the survey
link. Also, to avoid oversampling, the IP addresses and email address of the respondents were
screened to look for duplication, then deleted to protect privacy after the prize announcement
was made. The computerized self-administered questionnaires (CSAQ) allowed privacy so the
students could respond honestly to their experience without worrying about their grades being
affected. The survey instrument was sent the end of March, about 75% of the way through the
class. By this point in the semester, all the students who are going to drop the class would have
probably already done so. Also, by this point the student would be able to report on their
interactions with fellow classmates and the instructors in a knowledgeable way. However, there
is the likelihood that students who had issues with the usability of the interface might have
forgotten their early frustration. A little over a week after the first email was sent out telling the
students about the survey, a second email was sent out as a reminder. The initial email link was
sent out on March 28, 2013 with a response of 30 completed surveys and 2 incomplete surveys.
The second email was sent out on April 8, 2013 with an additional response of 19 more
completed surveys, which was an increase of 63% valid surveys. The two incomplete surveys
were simply agreeing to the consent form and no additional answers were given. These two
surveys were discarded and not included in any of the totals. Overall, of the 706 students invited
to participate, 49 valid surveys were completed for a participation rate of almost 7%.

28

Survey Questions
To assure that the questions truly measure the constructs under consideration, tested
instruments were used with only minimal modification. The questions assessing self-efficacy in
online education were adapted from Bandura's "Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales"
(Bandura, 2006). The questions for assessing utilitarian usability come from Jakob Nielsen's
usability measures (Nielsen, 1994). The bipolar terms using "semantic differential adjective
pairs" assessing feelings of satisfaction with the overall online class have been used by Ajzen &
Fishbein (1977), Spreng et al (1996), and Coursaris et al (2007, 2012). The measures for social
presence are adapted from researches by Johnson and Card (2007) on the effect of student
immediacy behavior and by Coursaris et al (2012) on the Integrated Model of User Satisfaction
(Johnson & Card, 2007; Coursaris et al, 2012). Also to increase validity, several questions were
included that either rephrased the same question, and also a question that incorporated reverse
scoring. Demographic questions were taken from the college’s admission questionnaire. A
question was added to determine what types of devices the students were using to access their
class materials. This allowed the users to select all of the types of devices that they used to
access online class content to better discover future class design implications.
Human Subjects approval
The study was submitted to Michigan State University for evaluation and approval by the
Human Research Protection Program, Institutional Review Board (IRB) (application #i042417)
in the fall of 2012 and was assigned number x12-1302. It was determined exempt and once
wording for the consent form was modified, full approval was granted. Before the study was run
at a Midwestern Community College, I met with the executive director of their Institutional

29

Effectiveness, Research, and Planning department and also received approval for running the
research study with the selected students. All approval documentation is in the appendix
Data Analysis
The survey answers were downloaded into an Excel sheet. The survey into data that
could be easily analyzed using Excel and SPSS. Each section of questions evaluating one
particular construct included space for comments to gather qualitative data from the students.
Several students gave detailed comments that expressed their feelings about their experiences in
the class and their suggestions for future improvement. A codebook was developed to closely
analyze these comments according to the aspects of the three theoretical aspects under
consideration. The coding process for the comments is discussed in more detail in the Qualitative
Analysis of the Comments section. The data was analyzed using Excel and SPSS. The codebook
is included in the appendix.

30

RESULTS
Overall Demographic Information
The basic demographic information from all of the completed and valid survey
participants (N=49) is in the following tables. It shows that the mean GPA was in the 3.00-3.49
bracket with a standard deviation of .957. A significant percentage of students, 34%, were the
first person in their immediate family to attend college. The zip codes showed that most of the
participants were from the same area as the college, 63.3% live less than twenty miles away from
the college; however, 4% report their home as being more than 50 miles away from campus. One
of those students reported they were taking the classes from Detroit, a distance of 81 miles. The
overall average one-way distance for the students was 15.1 miles. Females were 67% of the
respondents and 86% were white. By the time of the survey 12% of the respondents had dropped
the class.

31

Demographics of all participants
Table 1
Approximate GPA of all participants
Approximate GPA
1.50-1.99
2.00-2.49
2.50-2.99
3.00-3.49
3.50-4.00
Prefer Not to Answer

Frequency Percent
1
2.0%
2
4.1%
4
8.2%
16 32.7%
22 44.9%
4
8.2%

Figure 3
Approximate GPA

Table 2
Ethnic/ Racial
Background of Participants

Frequency Percent

Frequency Percent
Black or African
American
White
Two or more races
Prefer Not to
Answer

3
42
1

6.1%
85.7%
2.0%

3

2% 6% 6%

15

U.S. Citizen
Prefer
Not to
Answer

0

86%

Black or
African
American
White
Two or
more races
Prefer Not
to Answer

32

98%

1

2%

Figure 5
Citizenship

2%
U.S.
Citizen

10
5

48

6.1%

Figure 4
Ethnic/ Racial Background

25
20

Table 3
Citizenship

98%

Prefer
Not to
Answer

Table 4
Gender of Participants

Male
Female
Prefer Not to
Answer

Table 5
First person in family to attend college

Frequency
15
33

Percent
30.6%
67.3%

1

2.0%

Figure 6
Gender of Participants

Yes
No
Prefer Not to
Answer

Frequency Percent
17 34.7%
30 61.2%
2

Frequency
43
6

Yes
No

Percent
87.8%
12.2%

4.1%

Figure 7
First Person in Family to
Attend College

Male

2%

Table 6
Still Enrolled in class

Figure 8
Still Enrolled in Class

4%

Yes

Yes

4%
31%

Female

35%
67%

Prefer
Not to
Answer

61%

No

Prefer
not to
answer

33

35%

No

61%

Prefer
not to
answer

Table 7
Distance from College

Table 8
Class Enrollment
# of Students
Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D

4
25
4
16

prefer not to…

> 60.0

50.1-60.0

40.1-50.0

30.1-40.0

8.2%

20.1-30.0

4

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10.1-20.0

Percentage
49.0%
14.3%
14.3%
10.2%
0.0%
2.0%
2.0%

0-10

Miles
0-10
10.1-20.0
20.1-30.0
30.1-40.0
40.1-50.0
50.1-60.0
> 60.0
Prefer not to
answer

# of
Students
24
7
7
5
0
1
1

Figure 9
Distance from College in Miles

Figure 10
Class Enrollment of Participants

Percent
8.2%
51.0%
8.2%
32.7%

8%
Class A

33%

Class B
51%
8%

34

Class C
Class E

The questions dealing with the different constructs under analysis: self-efficacy, usability
(of the LMS as well as the instructor’s utilization of the LMS), and social presence were checked
using Cronbach’s Alpha to assure for reliability. Then each set of questions was further analyzed
for Correlation using Pearson’s Correlation for Significance. Then the groupings that were
shown to have reliability and significance were further tested against the direct variable of
dropping or persistence in the class using an Independent Sample t Test. In light of what was
already found in previous research published in the literature reviewed, the surprising results
reflected the tremendous speed at which achievement, attitudes, and expectations are changing in
online education.
Demographics and Persistence
Grade Point Average- A t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between
the mean GPA in the students who persisted in the class (M = 6.20, s = .992) and those who
dropped (M = 6.60, s = .548), t(43) = .879, p = .384, α = .05. The mean GPA of those dropping
the class was actually slightly higher than those who persisted.
Ethnic/ Racial Background- A t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference in
the ethnic or racial background in the students who persisted in the class (M = 4.90, s = .632) and
those who dropped (M = 5.00, s = .000), t(44) = -.384, p = .703, α = .05. The ethnic composition
of the students who persisted was more diverse than the students who dropped.
Gender- A t test failed to find a statistically reliable difference between the mean Gender
in the students who persisted in the class (M = 1.64, s = .485) and those who dropped (M = 2.00,
s = .000), t(46) = -1.787, p = .080, α = .05. All of the students who dropped and participated in
the survey were females; however, because of the small sample size of those who dropped, this
cannot be reliably deemed as a factor.

35

First Person- A t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between the mean
First Person in their family to attend college in the students who persisted in the class (M = 1.72,
s = .549) and those who dropped (M = 1.50, s = .548), t(47) = .942, p = .360, α = .05.
Distance- A t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between the mean
Distance from the college in the students who persisted in the class (M = 17.19, s = 17.05) and
those who dropped (M = 11.27, s = 9.58), t(43) = .826, p = .413, α = .05.
Class Enrolled- A t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between the
mean of the class enrolled for those who persisted in the class (M = 2.91, s = 1.461) and those
who dropped (M = 3.50, s = 1.64), t(47) = .919, p = .363, α = .05. Of the participating classes,
only Class C and Class E had students who dropped the class.
Overall, none of the demographic variables produced a significantly reliable measure to
predict the likelihood to persist in a class.
Self-Efficacy in Online Classes
The Previous Experience scale (2), previously enrolled in a class or previously
completing a class, were strongly correlated, α=.950, and a Chronbach’s Alpha of .974.
However, a t test failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between the mean of Previous
Experience with the students who persisted in the class (M = 1.28, s = .554) and those who
dropped (M = 1.25, s = .418), t(47) = .148, p = .883, α = .05.
After the questions about previous experience in an online class there was a set of
questions that dealt with self-efficacy in the online class environment. Within this set of
questions are measures for both the Self-Efficacy in Computer Comfort (2) (Chronbach’s alpha
.765), as well as questions that deal specifically with Self-Efficacy with Online Classes (3)
(Chronbach’s alpha .826). The Self-Efficacy in Computer Comfort examined with a t test failed

36

to reveal a statistically reliable difference of the mean with the students who persisted in the class
(M = 6.51, s = .736) and those who dropped (M = 6.83, s = .418), t(47) = 1.04, p = .303, α = .05
The measures for Self-Efficacy in Online Classes in a t test also did not produce a statistically
reliable difference of the mean with the students who persisted in the class (M = 6.05, s = .981)
and those who dropped (M = 6.28, s = .574), t(47) = .542, p = .590, α = .05.
When all of the self-efficacy measures were combined and analyzed using a Pearson’s
correlation, overall, the questions were found to be correlated to each other with one exception
(comfortable with computers and able to get homework done on time).

37

Table 9
Self Efficacy in Online Classes bivariate correlations

Feel comfortable
working with
computers
Can access
Information that I
need from
computers
Feel I can finish
homework by
deadlines
Feel I can get
myself to do my
assignments
I know where to
go for help if
needed

N=49
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

Feel comfortable
working…

Can access
information …

Feel I can finish
homework …

I know where
to go…

1

.681**

0.256

.403**

.365**

.681**

0
1

0.076
.353*

0.004
.557**

0.01
.472**

0.013
1

0
.696**

0.001
.728**

0
1

0
.610**

.610**

0
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

0
0.256

.353*

Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

0.076
.403**

0.013
.557**

.696**

Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

0.004
.365**

0
.472**

0
.728**

Sig. (2-tailed)

Feel I can get
myself …

0.01
0.001
0
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

38

0

These scale questions for Self-Efficacy in the Online Environment (5) had a Chronbach’s
alpha of .814. However, when this scale was examined with a t test, it failed to reveal a
statistically reliable difference between the mean of the students who persisted in the class (M =
6.24, s = .775) and those who dropped (M = 6.50, s = .414), t(47) = .809, p = .422, α = .05. The
students overall showed a high level of self-efficacy. The mean for self-efficacy of those who
persisted in the class was 6.23

.77 out of a possible 7. The mean for those who dropped the

class was 6.5 .41.
Usability of the Learning Management System (LMS)
The survey instrument contained questions both about the usability of the LMS and the
usability of the class material as a result of the instructor’s utilization of the LMS. These are two
distinct aspects of usability when dealing with the online class interface. The LMS itself has
certain affordances and specific limitations. Students who are new to the LMS system might
have trouble negotiating how the interface works while those who have worked with it before
might be able to effortlessly negotiate the space. The other measures deal with student
perception of utilization of the system by the instructors. Technically savvy instructors can either
take advantage of the potential affordances of the system or find ways to work around its
limitations. On the other hand, the instructor’s use of the LMS or organization of materials may
actually detract from the usability of the LMS.
When looking at the usability measures of the LMS there was a significant correlation
between the various questions even at the .01 level. These questions also had a Cronbach’s alpha
of .828.

39

Table 10
Usability of the LMS Questions Correlations
Pearson’s Correlation

Learning
how …

Course's
LMS …

Because of
how…

Learning how to access class material
was easy
Course's LMS helped me complete my
class assignments

1

.666**

.496**

The
course's
LMS …
.794**

.666**

1

.309*

.604**

Because of how the LMS works I often
struggle with accessing what I am
supposed to do (reverse scored)

.496**

.309*

1

.554**

The course's LMS features the
professor used in the class were easy to
use

.794**

.604**

.554**

1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The usability of the LMS had a wide range of survey answers, even though the mean was
“somewhat easy” to use, the variance was 2.8 and the standard deviation 1.68. However, when
this scale was examined with a t test, it failed to reveal a statistically reliable difference between
the mean of the students who persisted in the class (M = 5.18, s = 1.66) and those who dropped
(M = 4.94, s = 1.02), t(47) = .316, p = .754, α = .05.
The questions dealing with the instructors’ utilization of the LMS were also found to be
closely correlated with the Pearson’s results in Table 10 and a Cronbach’s alpha of .907.

40

Table 11
Usability per instructor's utilization of the LMS
Correlations – Instructor’s Utilization of the LMS System
The instructor The instructor's Because of how
utilized …
organization … the instructor …
The instructor utilized
1
.718**
.718**
many features of the
LMS
The instructor's
.718**
1
.868**
organization of the class
materials is effective
Because of how the
.718**
.868**
1
instructor utilized the
LSM I can efficiently
access my online class
material
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Yet again, when this scale was examined with a t test, it failed to reveal a statistically
reliable difference between the mean of the students who persisted in the class (M = 5.10, s =
1.29) and those who dropped (M = 5.71, s = 1.61), t(47) = 1.037, p = .305, α = .05. So neither
the usability of the system, nor the instructors’ utilization of the LMS alone was correlated to
persistence in an online class.
Social Presence Measures
There were two aspects of social presence measured, the social presence of the instructor
and the social presence of the fellow students. The questions to measure the social presence of
the instructor (2) were checked for correlation and found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .795 and
Pearson’s Correlation of .660 and significant at the .01 level. These questions, however, when a t
test was run were not found to have a statistically significant reliable difference between the
mean of the students who persisted in the class (M = 4.17, s = 1.79) and those who dropped (M =
4.33, s = 2.16), t(47) = .199, p = .843, α = .05. Several of the students were highly dissatisfied
with the immediacy of the instructor, even though these students were persisting in the class.
41

This contributed to the result of social presence not being a significant factor in predicting
persistence.
Figure 11
Social Presence of the Instructor

8
7

Frequency

6
5

4
3
2
1
0

Satisfaction Levels

However when the means of the social presence of the instructor was compared with the
bipolar adjectives using a t test that indicated student satisfaction there was a significant
correlation. The mean of the students who were satisfied with the class (M = 5.0, s = 1.77) and
those who were not satisfied (M = 3.4, s = 1.77), t(47) = 3.48, p = .001, α = .05. This showed the
power of social presence in determining satisfaction, even if the student continues to persist in
the class.
The questions to assess the students’ sense of social presence with their classmates were
also tested for correlation and found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .853 as well using Pearson’s
and found to correlate as shown in Table 11.

42

Table 12
Social Presence of Fellow Students Correlations
When I posted …

When I posted
a comment my
classmates
responded to
me in a
reasonable time
I enjoyed
interacting with
my online
classmates
I have shared
personal
information
with my online
classmates
My classmates
share personal
information
about
themselves
My classmates
express their
agreement or
disagreement
with what I post

My
classmates
share …

My
classmates
express…

1

I enjoyed
I have
interacting… shared
personal
…
.625**
.422**

.518**

.577**

.625**

1

.479**

.432**

.515**

.422**

.479**

1

.850**

.431**

.518**

.432**

.850**

1

.545**

.577**

.515**

.431**

.545**

1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

When the social presence of fellow students questions, were examined with a t test, they
were not found to have a statistically significant reliable difference between the mean of the
students who persisted in the class (M = 4.85, s = 1.25) and those who dropped (M = 4.43, s =
1.33), t(47) = .753, p = .455, α = .05. This finding supported H5, that the social presence of
peers would not be a significant

43

Overall Satisfaction Levels
When examining the students’ responses to the Bipolar Adjective Pairs that evaluate their
emotional responses to the class first the adjective pairs were examined for their correlation. The
Cronbach’s alpha is .972 and the Pearson’s correlations are shown in Table 12. The measures
were examined with a t test, the adjective pairs were not found to have a statistically significant
reliable difference between the mean of the students who persisted in the class (M = 4.47, s =
1.73) and those who dropped (M = 3.83, s = 1.47), t(47) = .865, p = .391, α = .05. The overall
spread of the bi-polar adjectives show a slightly better than neutral overall feeling towards the
class.
Figure 12
Class Satisfaction Levels

6
5

Frequency

4
3
2
1
0

BiPolar Adjectives

44

Student Reported Reasons for Dropping
Overall, each of the constructs measured was found to be not statistically significant
alone in determining if a student was persistent in the class. Therefore only the last hypothesis
was supported by the data: the social presence of fellow students would not be significant in
persistence. The other hypotheses were surprisingly not as robust as in earlier researches. In
examining the reasons given by the six students who dropped the class, two were dropped
administratively –which could be a number of reasons such as a class being cancelled or nonpayment of tuition. However, since all of the students reported that they had accessed the
material for the class and had formed opinions about organization and satisfaction levels, this
indicated that they decided to drop after the period where students could freely add or drop
classes and had to get administrative assistance to drop the class. This means that they would
have lost probably a significant portion, if not all of the tuition they paid towards the class. One
student indicated they no longer needed the class and another stated they could not keep up with
the assignments as their schedule had changed. One commented they asked to be dropped and
made statements indicating the decision was a result of feeling the instructor was not competent.
The remaining students who dropped the class did not indicate why they dropped, but they did
fill out all the other questions dealing with the constructs being measured.
Qualitative Analysis of the Comments
Demographics of Commenters
After each section with questions measuring one construct under examination, there was
an open area for the students to add their comments. Each section usually gathered a few
comments that were closely related to the questions just asked. Overall, the response for each
section was fairly modest with only two or three comments. However, the comment section after

45

the bipolar adjectives probing how the class made the student feel, "Overall, this online class
made me feel..." had a very intense response with 13 students, almost 27% of the total
participants in the study, and these commenters sometimes gave fairly detailed and insightful
comments. In the entire survey there were 29 different comments from 17 students recorded.
These were analyzed and coded in respect to the constructs under construction: self-efficacy in
the online class, usability of the interface, the instructor's utilization of the interface, the social
presence of fellow students, and the social presence of the instructor. After breaking each
comment down into smaller units of concerns that the students mentioned, these were rated using
the same seven-point scale as the survey questions: 1) very dissatisfied; 2) dissatisfied; 3)
somewhat dissatisfied; 4) neutral; 5) somewhat satisfied; 6) satisfied; and 7) very satisfied.
Therefore each comment often produced several measurable factors and the factors could be
analyzed to look for patterns and relationships. This process provided 97 measurable factors.
The demographics of the students commenting were 71% female and 23% male of those
who chose to share their gender. Even though 18% reported being the first person in their family
to attend college, those who left comments were fairly successful in their studies, their selfreported an average GPA of the 3.00 to 3.49 range. However, not all the students were high
achievers, several reported a GPA below 3.00. As can be expected in this type of survey, those
who have had extremely good or extremely bad experiences will be more likely to add additional
comments. Yet, the comments seemed fairly restrained, clear and thoughtful given the
opportunity to vent. They were all clearly written and shared their insights without using
derogatory terms or profanity. The students discussed a wide range of aspects about the class,
their struggles with the interface, their appreciation of the opportunity to study online, their

46

satisfaction with the instructor, their frustration with fellow students, or their frustration with the
instructor.
The distance that the students who made comments were from campus was fairly
consistent with the overall enrollment of the class as shown, with many of them living fairly
close to campus. This would imply that distance from campus was not a major factor in their
decision to enroll in the online class. These distances are shown in Table 15 and Chart 11.

47

Table 13
GPA of Commenters
Alpha value (for
confidence interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range

0.02
16
6.3125
0.7625
0.87321
0.2183
4.
7.
3.

Figure 13
GPA of Commenters
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Table 14
Gender of Commenters

Male
Female
Prefer Not to Answer

Table 15
Mean Distance in Miles from
Commenters by category
All who enrolled
Those who persisted
Those who dropped
Those who commented

4
12
1

Figure 14
Gender of Commenters

6%

Male
23%

Female

Prefer Not
to Answer

71%

48

16.4
17.29
11.27
15.35

Figure 15
Distance in Miles of Commenters

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Apart from a few comments about fellow students, “group projects for online classes
doesn’t work” or the very supportive comments about tutoring services, the computer help
services, and the writing center, “I have used tutoring and the resources at the writing center and
it was always helpful!” almost all of the comments were about the instructor or the LMS. The
particular LMS system used, was only in its second semester of use at this college, therefore it is
not surprising that there were usability issues and that not all of the instructors have had
extensive experience in utilizing the possible affordances it may offer, and since the system is
constantly being upgraded, hopefully the serious issues reported, such as incompatibility with
Windows 8, and frequent outages will be improved. By far, most of the comments were about
the communication (social presence) and organization (usability) issues that were a result of the
instructors’ choices in pedagogy.
Table 16
Categories of Comments
Types of Comments
Comments about Social
Presence of the Instructor
(communication)
Comments about Self-Efficacy
(or expressing concern about
lack of efficacy
Comments about Usability of
the System as utilized by the
instructor
Comments about Usability of
the LMS
Comments about Support
Services
Comments about Social
Presence of fellow students

Number of Comments

Percentage of Total

24

32.0%

22

29.3%

13

17.3%

9

12.0%

6

8.0%

1

1.3%

49

Comments about Social Presence of the Instructor (Communication)
By far the most frequently mentioned factor in the comments was the instructor. They
ranged from, "My instructor was terrible," "my instructor is not on top of things," "...is the worst
instructor I have had…," to "my professor makes it easy to use," and "my teacher is fantastic."
Since the range of classes surveyed were all fairly similar in theme and process, and the LMS
used was identical, the ultimate factor to the satisfaction with striving to learn from the class
appears to be the utilization of the affordances of the online format by both the instructor and the
student. For those who left comments, many expressed their efforts in trying to communicate and
achieve learning goals, yet felt left dangling by the instructors. One student put rather succinctly,
“Some instructors I have had do not give feed back in a timely manner and are
rather lazy about the fact that it is an online class. I don't feel they give it the same
respect they do a face-to-face class. They think that just because they don't see me
twice a week I don't need to hear from them. I think that instructors should be held
to the same kind of deadlines I am held to when giving feedback. They need to
make sure that I am given the information I need long before it is too late to be
useful.”
This student had previously completed online classes and reported a GPA in the 3.49-4.00 range,
so they obviously had experience to judge what could be done in the environment, and had seen
a range of responses. They commented that “some instructors,” realizing that this was not “all”
instructors, were not as effective in teaching online and they realized there is a range of
dedication in instructors.
On the other hand, there were also comments that gave great praise to instructors, “My
teacher is fantastic. She has kept everything extremely organized and communicates with fast

50

responses.” This particular student had never taken an online class before, so she got a new
laptop specifically for the class and then discovered that her new Windows 8 laptop was not
compatible with the new LMS, Desire2Learn (D2L). She ended up having to go to her parent’s
house or access her class material on her smart phone since she was having so many
compatibility problems with the version of D2L and Windows at that time. So even though her
ratings of the usability of the system were understandably very low, her overall comments and
satisfaction with the class were high because of the quick responses from her instructor and the
instructor’s organization of the class material.
Yet despite the few positive comments about instructors, overall most comments dealt
with frustration over what students felt were slow response times. After evaluating the
comments on how strongly the student expressed their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
social presence of the instructor the overall comments showed extremely high levels of
frustration with poor communication and a lack of response or accessibility to the instructor.
Comments included, “My instructor has poor communication skills. She did not return emails or
post grades in a timely manner,” and “This class has been a real struggle what with my
instructor…not responding when I have emailed her. Her average response time is about two
weeks, which is usually after an assignment is due.” Even considering the few comments that
praised the instructor’s response, the overall consensus was that the speed sense that the students
could communicate with the instructor was the key issue for the students commenting. When
coded, most of the comments were very dissatisfied (1), and even though some were neutral (4),
or very satisfied (7), the mean was dissatisfied (2.17).

51

Table 17
Satisfaction with
Instructor's Social Presence
0.02
24
2.17
4.49
2.12
0.43
1.
7.
6.
1.

20
Number of Students

Alpha value (for confidence
interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mode

Figure 16
Satisfaction with Instructor's Social
Presence

15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Score

Comments about Self-Efficacy (or expressing concern about lack of efficacy)
Students who left comments often showed a great deal of efficacy in working in the
online environment. Their comments indicated that they were looking for efficiency,
professional communication levels, and timely feedback. Comments were coded as follows,
very low sense of self-efficacy (1), low self-efficacy (2), somewhat low sense of self-efficacy
(3), neutral (4), somewhat high self-efficacy (5), high self-efficacy (6), and very high selfefficacy (7). Statements such as, “professors should be held to a timeframe just as I am,” show
the student’s own sense of efficiency. One wrote, “My instructor is not on top of things! She
often displays poor grammar…” which would show the student’s own command of grammar and
effective strategies, especially in an online writing or English class. This student’s comments
were coded as “very high self-efficacy”. Some students who had ended up persisting in the class
started out with very low sense of self-efficacy, yet were able to self-organize and persist, “I was
very nervous at first about an online class, but once I located and printed out all my information

52

and kept it organized in a binder it got easier.” This comment was coded as “somewhat low selfefficacy”. The overall self-efficacy of the commenters was coded at a mean of 6.32 or “high
self-efficacy”.
Table 18
Commenter's Self-Efficacy Scores
Alpha value (for
confidence interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mode

Figure 17
Commenter's Self-Efficacy Scores
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

0.02
22
6.32
0.89
0.95
0.2
3.
7.
4.
7.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Value

Comments about Usability of the System as utilized by the instructor and Comments about
Usability of the LMS
In analyzing the comments that referred to the usability of the online class, the comments
that dealt strictly with the LMS interface, such as, “My biggest complaint has to do with D2L
technical problems this semester” were separated from, “…my instructor not knowing how to
use D2L…” and, “The teacher didn't organize the assignments the best she could,” if the
comments mentioned the LMS specifically it was coded as Usability of the Interface. If the
comments discussed specifically usability levels due to the affordances or problems caused by
the instructor’s utilization of the LMS, then the comments were coded for Satisfaction with
Instructor's Utilization of the LMS. Overall the comments on the usability of the system reflected

53

both extremes of high satisfaction with the LMS and great frustration with the LMS. Specific
operating systems seem to have had serious functionality issues that caused problems, while for
others with different systems there seemed to be no problem at all. Because of the wide range of
experiences the mean for LMS usability was a neutral 4. On the other hand, even though there
was high praise for some instructors, a majority of the comments dealt with dissatisfaction of the
instructor’s utilization of the system. This produced a mean of 2.15, or dissatisfied.
Table 19
Comments About Usability of the System
0.02
9
4.56
5.78
2.4
0.8
1.
7.
6.

Number of Students

Alpha value (for
confidence interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range

Figure 18
Comments About Usability of the System

3
2
1
0
1

Table 20
Satisfaction with Instructor's Utilization of
the LMS

2

3

4 5
Value

6

7

8

Figure 19
Satisfaction with the Instructor's
Utilization of the LMS

0.02
14
2.07
4.69
2.16
0.58
1.
7.
6.
1.

Number of Students

Alpha value (for
confidence interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mode

4

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1

54

2

3

4 5 6
Value

7

8

Comments about Support Services
Student’s comments about student support services, such as the computer help desk,
tutoring services, and the writing center were either very positive or they expressed that they
were going to use the service soon. Comments such as, “The Writing Center is a great
resource!” and, “I have used tutoring and the resources at the writing center and it was always
helpful!” were both coded as very satisfied. The latter comment was coded as positive both for
the tutoring services as well as the writing center since both were mentioned. Since according to
the student’s zip codes, some of the online students live far away from campus, coming in to
campus for personal help might be very difficult and would show a great deal of dedication.
There were only a few comments, but overall the mean of the comments was a 6, or satisfied.
Students who commented that they were having an appointment soon, but had not yet utilized the
service were not coded.
Table 21
Satisfaction with Student Services
(Computer Help, Tutoring,
and Writing Center)

4

0.02
4
6.
4.
2.
1.
3.
7.
4.
7.

Number of Students

Alpha value (for
confidence interval)
Count
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Error
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Mode

Figure 20
Satisfaction with Student Services
(Computer Help, Tutoring and Writing
Center)

3
2
1
0
1

55

2

3 4 5 6
Rating of Service

7

Comments about Social Presence of fellow students
There was only one comment about the social presence of classmates and it was fairly
neutral, “our discussion boards were very assignment based, not much chit chat,” therefore, it
was coded a “4”. However, since there was only one comment, there are no averages to report
for it.
The comments revealed a great deal about the students’ experiences and gave further
insight into the overall survey results. They also showed that there have been massive and rapid
changes in student’s technological comfort and expectations in the past few years. Generally,
most of the students showed comfort in working in the online environment. Some indicated their
preference for online classes because of the convenience that it offers. Yet, the majority of the
comments dealt with dissatisfaction over the online class simply because of slow or poor
response from the instructor. The pedagogical choices that instructors make in terms of response
times, organization, instruction, and clearly communicated expectations seems to make a huge
difference between the “My instructor was terrible” from a student who dropped the class to,
“My teacher is fantastic.” The key is the rest of the statement from the student with a “fantastic”
teacher, “She has kept everything extremely organized and communicates with fast responses.”
Even more surprising is that this statement came from the student who had the most usability
difficulties, having gotten a brand new computer with the latest operating system specifically for
this class and then finding out that the LMS was not compatible with her computer. This shows
the tremendous power of the personal connection that a student develops when they feel they can
communicate quickly and easily with their instructor. Further analysis of the comments and how
they gave further insight into the answers from the rest of the respondents will be in the
discussion section.

56

Other Findings
Institutional initiatives to improve student learning and experience seem to be very
successful. Those seeking help from the writing center, tutoring services, and the computer help
desk appear to be overall very satisfied and the qualitative feedback showed a high level of
student appreciation.
One very interesting finding is the high percentage of students who access their online
class via their mobile devices. Almost half of the students (45%) used a mobile device
(smartphone) to access their online class materials. They also used multiple devices to access
their class materials. All of the students who used a mobile device to access class materials also
used other devices such as laptops, desktops or computers at the college’s computer labs.
Figure 21
Students Who Use a Mobile Device to
Access Online Class

Figure 22
Students Who Use Mobile Devices
Also Use
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

0%

45%
55%

Yes
No

57

Figure 23
Number of Devices Used to Access Class
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

The students were also asked to give feedback on what they felt were a reasonable time for
getting a response from their instructor when they asked a question. The results showed overall
expectations from the students were 24 hours, which is fairly consistent with best practices for
online instructors (Reed, 2013).
Figure 24
Desired Instructor Response Time
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Less 6
12 18 1 day 2
than hours hours hours
days
6
hours

58

LIMITATIONS
One of the major limitations to this survey is the small number of students who dropped
that class that participated in the survey (N=6). Proportionally, they are fairly representative of
the entire population surveyed, but the number that voluntarily dropped the class is very small.
Because of the sample size only bivariate correlations were examined. These cannot deduct any
casual relations; there are potential interactions between the variables that could be examined
through correlation analysis, but more elaborate statistical analysis of the data was not seen as
meaningful given the small number of participating students who had dropped the class.
Also, the students who had extremely low self-efficacy in online education or that had
usability issues might not even check their student email or feel comfortable responding to an
online survey. Therefore, to capture the insights from the most vulnerable students a short
survey might be integrated into the drop process. These students have much to gain from
furthering their education, and the flexibility of online education offers great potential, yet these
students are difficult to reach –especially through the medium that they find challenging.
An additional limitation, the issue of self-selection, is also always an issue with any
voluntary survey; because the students had particularly bad or especially good experiences will
most likely respond. The element of having a potential reward appears to have helped bring in
students who had more temperate opinions, since the means of many questions are fairly
moderate. Additionally, the students from each class surveyed (e.g. Composition 1, English 122)
did not equally respond, so there is overrepresentation of some of the classes.
There are always many limitations to data collected by an online survey. Some of these
issues, such as sampling ineligible units, or duplication were reduced because only those who

59

were enrolled in the classes were sent links to the surveys and IP addresses as well as email
addresses for the contest entries were checked to help prevent duplication.
One of the greatest limitations of any research in online education is trying to measure
theoretical constructs and their effects, while so many elements that pertain to online education
are changing at a tremendous speed. It is like trying to carefully describe something that is
morphing in front of our eyes. New LMSs are becoming available, smart phones and tablets are
replacing students’ PCs and desktops, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are
becoming the topic du jour. Also, students’ abilities and expectations appear to be changing
rapidly (Kim & Bonk, 2006). Surprisingly, even though many of the students who responded to
the survey reported very low levels of satisfaction, they were mostly still persisting in the class.
From the comment of one who had dropped and offered comments, stated she specifically
dropped because, “my instructor was terrible”. She also indicated that she intended to take the
class again with a different instructor. That particular student had a GPA of 3.00- 3.50 range;
therefore, the drop could have been strategic to protect their overall GPA.

60

DISCUSSION
It would be very easy to come to clear conclusions if there were the obvious “smoking
gun” of one or two clear constructs that could point to predicting student persistence. This would
allow policy-makers to implement programs or processes that would easily and predictably
improve retention. Yet, this research shows that there are many different factors effecting
students’ choices in staying in a class. The comments that the students gave who persisted in the
class were very enlightening. They tended to support and give more insight into the survey
questions that were derived from proven measures. Even though students are sometimes not
satisfied with their online class, many are persisting in it. This is probably strongly related to the
fact that a section from this set of classes is a required class for almost every major and for
transfer students. The strategic value of the completing the class might be a major factor for
student persistence, even when satisfaction is low and the constructs of self-efficacy, usability,
and social presence are also low or marginal. This research discovered the potential factor of
Strategic Value to predict student persistence. If the students feel that the benefit gained from
completing the class outweighs the difficulties encountered through the process, they will persist
even if they are not satisfied with the class itself. Also, this research helped show because of the
massive and exponential changes in technology acceptance and improvements in LMS design,
that the factors of self-efficacy in online environments and usability, which were strong in
predicting student persistence five to eight years ago are now no longer a major factor. The
details of how each construct was found to influence persistence are discussed in the following
sections.

61

Persistence and Self-Efficacy
Earlier studies predicted a major factor in persistence for this student body would be high
self-efficacy in online classes (Wang & Newlin, 2002; Yi & Im, 2004). Yet, in this case, the
mean scores of those who dropped the class (M=6.28) were actually higher than those who
persisted (M = 6.05) even though the findings were not statistically significant, this definitely is
not the difference expected. Most of the students who responded to the survey reported that they
felt confident in working with computers in an online environment (M=6.27) even though four
students did report that they were less than somewhat comfortable in the online environment. For
those who responded to the survey, the decision to drop the class did not appear to be related to
their own levels of self-efficacy either in using a computer but rather, according to comments
and their survey answers, strategic choices made to get a different instructor (2) or due to
changing external circumstances (2).
Persistence and Usability of Instructional Interface
The relationship between the usability of the interface and the instructor’s utilization of
the interface also did not have a statistical relationship with a student’s persistence. This also
was the area with a very range of variability in the satisfaction levels of the students. Some of
the students commented on how much they enjoyed the system and it worked well. Others had
tremendous problems with the LMS not working with their particular computer operating
system. The institution studied had just started using a new LMS the previous semester so the
initial technical issues should have been somewhat settled by the second semester of use.
However, one student wrote, “My biggest complaint has to do with D2L technical problems this
semester. Students are at the mercy of the system to complete their assignments and get
instruction.” The key to overall satisfaction when the student had any usability problems was

62

often either the instructor, or someone from the student services (help desk, tutoring services, or
the writing center) helped them through the difficulty.
Instructors’ choices seemed to have a major influence on student’s perception of
usability. One student commented that their instructor posted the same material in several ways,
which that student found very confusing. Additionally, some students commented and the
instructor didn’t seem to know how to use the LMS. This section was very revealing in the wide
range of experiences reported; this indicates that the instructors had probably inadequate training
for teaching in the online environment. Additionally, since almost half of the students accessed
class materials on a mobile device or tablet device, this shows the potential for new affordances
in online education, such as further developing immediacy or preparing learning modules that
can be accessed at any time. These potential innovations could allow students to make the
learning process something that happens throughout the day rather than just at a specific time
when they go to a desktop computer.
In looking at the differences found in this research from previous researches in usability,
students seem to have rapidly adapted to the use of technology in education. They have become
sometimes even savvier than their instructors. This is quite a change from studies based on data
from five to six years ago where usability standards were sometimes focused on keeping things
very simple to handle at modem speeds of 28.5 KPS (Mancuso, 2008). Since over 71% of the
students in this research study had taken classes online previously, they had experience in what
could be done with an online class. They were similar to experienced consumers, and were not
happy when the instructor showed low levels of competence using the LMS; the mean of the
comments dealing with instructor usability was 2.07 ± 2.16 which meant they were dissatisfied
with how the instructor utilized the LMS in teaching the class.

63

Persistence and Social Presence
Even though this construct was not found to be statistically significant in student
persistence, 32% of the comments were focused on issues dealing with the students’ attitudes
towards their instructor’s social presence and immediacy. There was an overall mean of 4.19 ±
1.81 for satisfaction with the instructor’s social presence, this compares to a mean of 6.29 ± .74
for self-efficacy, usability of the LMS having a mean of 5.14 ±1.68, fellow student’s social
presence of 4.79 ± 1.25, and the instructor’s usability of the LMS 5.17 ± 1.34. Issues dealing
with instructor immediacy, response time, and perceived expertise in the online environment
appear to be important to the students and they are significantly tied to student satisfaction levels.
As reported earlier, the mean of the students with high satisfaction of their instructor’s social
presence were also satisfied with the class (M = 5.0, s = 1.77) and those who were not satisfied
with the instructor’s social presence were not satisfied with the class (M = 3.4, s = 1.77), t(47) =
3.48, p = .001, α = .05. For the students who greatly enjoyed the class, they had very supportive
comments such as, “My teacher is fantastic. She kept everything extremely organized and
communicates with fast responses.” This student summed up the key points to social presence
that the students commented most strongly about, 1) communicate with fast responses, and 2)
extremely organized. Organization seems to give the students a feeling of order so they know
what to do, and fast answers provides immediacy to feel connected to the class. Social presence
definitely was the construct that brought the most deeply felt comments. And a key to improving
that social presence is giving instructors the training, as well as allowing the extra time that they
need to respond to questions and interact with students as part of their teaching time.

64

Further Discussion
Since many students who report being not happy with their online class experience are
still persisting, class persistence seems to be primarily a personal strategic decision. Given this is
a required class, and dropping would be a loss of time and money, they make a strategic decision
to persist. Going to college classes to gain personal advantage is probably a more purposeful
decision for the community college student. A traditional student might go to college because it
is just the “next” thing that is expected in a young adult’s life. They may spend several years
studying at the university before actually settling into a major or realizing just how strategic a
college education can potentially be. Community college students are often working while going
to school, returning adults, or students who have chosen to a community college for financial or
academic reasons. For them to persist, they may have to see the personal advantage that
continuing their education will bring, and see the value in persisting in a class.
With online education being such a strategic element for the future, it is imperative to
continue to investigate and evaluate what theoretical forces are affecting students and instructors
in this dynamic and constantly changing environment. I have done exploratory qualitative
interviews with three instructors who teach online. These interviews revealed a wide variety of
preparation for working in this environment. All of those interviewed had no formal training in
online methodologies, either by their institution or during the process of getting their degree.
They often were unsure of what methods would enhance the learning process for the student. A
research project on training and course development found that “large percentage of instructors
are not receiving any training in pedagogy or technology prior to instructing their first online
course” (Ray, 2009).

65

Adding to the frustration for some instructors is that certain standard pedagogies that
work well in face-to-face sections, such as scaffolding and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximity
Development, have the potential to work extremely well online, but when the instructor steps
back to let the students do more of the work in the traditional classroom, the students still see the
instructor watching and giving support through body language and attentiveness. On the other
hand, in the online environment, if the instructor “steps back” and does not post comments, the
students do not know if the instructor is even there. On the other hand, the danger of using every
technology possible and over-involvement by the instructor can also lead to frustration and
confusion to both the students and the instructor. This becomes a “cart-before-the-horse” type
situation where technology is used for its own sake and not for pedagogical purposes (Brinthaupt
et al, 2011). This research, as well as many other researches discussed in the literature review,
shows that examining the paradigm used for teaching, especially in the dynamically changing
online environment, needs to be reexamined.
Suggestions for further research
The choice of students to persist even when they are very unsatisfied with a class almost
suggests the type of strategic choices that might be analyzed using game theories. As University
of British Columbia professor Kevin Leyton-Brown (2012) said, "game theory is (important
in)...modeling self-interested participants and the ways that they strategically interact with each
other". Here, the participants are the students, the instructors, and even the degree granting
institution. Using models to analyze students' strategic decisions to drop or persist in classes
might help develop academic initiatives that communicate better to students the benefits of
completing their education. Additionally, since the students surveyed had a fairly high mean of
self-efficacy in online education, it would be good to also study the self-efficacy levels of

66

instructors in the online environment and possible correlations with student learning and
persistence. Some of the research indicates that instructors want to learn more about pedagogical
discussions and improved learning strategies for the online environment, yet they are uncertain
of the latest research findings (Ray, 2009). Development of mobile applications and ubiquitous
computing is changing the concepts of usability for education content. Research needs to be
done as to what methods and strategies bring effective learning with these new devices and
spaces. Also, the development of security and verification processes so that it can be reasonably
proven a student is honestly doing their own work. This is a continuing concern, as having
educational credentials is a valuable commodity; therefore, online education becomes a target for
falsification. LMSs learning efficacy also needs to be further researched. Social presence with
the instructor is a key issue in student satisfaction, yet LMSs often have clunky and tedious
interfaces for things as elemental as class discussions. Research and development should be
ongoing for new tools, designed by educators, for the use of educators, which can enhance and
facilitate social presence in a way that is delightful to use.
Final Remarks
Online education has tremendous potential in reaching populations that previously could
not access higher education. It also has the economic appeal of rapid scalability and reducing
expenses. Policy makers in institutions should continue to support systems that are working:
support services and usability improvements. Areas that have vast potential include ongoing
training for instructors in current trends and facilitating their engagement in online environments.
Obviously, many of the initiatives started even a few years ago, such as improving LMS
usability are starting to pay off in relationship to student persistence. Hopefully, as new

67

pedagogies are developed that are effective for achieving learning goals in online spaces,
persistence and college completion will increase.

68

APPENDICES

69

APPENDIX A: COPY OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Survey administered through SurveyMonkey with skip logic to avoid unnecessary
questions. Breaks in the page and the heading "Online Education Research" indicate these skip
logic points. The circular check points indicate a single choice and the square boxes indicate
multiple choices allowed.

70

Online Education Research
1. Online Education Research Consent Form
The following is a survey of your online class experience. You are getting this survey because at some point you were enrolled in an online
class this semester. We would like to hear from you, even if you dropped the class before you started. The questions pertain to the online writing
class that you enrolled in this semester; if you enrolled and then changed sections we would like to hear about the last class you enrolled in.
This research is to help improve the delivery of future online instruction. Your feedback will be very helpful. Your participation in this
survey should take about ten minutes or less. You may stop at any time, but completing the survey will provide the most helpful information.
Your opinions, experience and any demographic information you choose to share with us will be compiled and used to help researchers understand
ways to improve online classes. If you choose to participate there will be two $25 gift certificates to Meijer’s to be awarded from the pool of
submitted surveys. Your contact information for awarding the prize will be kept separate from the survey answers. All of your responses are
confidential and will not be shared with your instructor.
This study is part of a master’s research project for Telecommunications, Information Studies and Media department at Michigan State
University. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Ruth Shillair, 434 Farm Lane Road, 300 Bessey Hall, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824, or email msuonlineresearch@gmail.com.
Again, participation is entirely voluntary and you may refuse to answer any questions or withdraw at any time without penalty.
By clicking accept, you indicate that you are at least 18 years-of-age and you agree to participate in the survey.

o Accept
o Decline
71

Online Education Research
2. Online class from the list below that I enrolled in this semester (if enrolled in more than one, select the last one enrolled in)

o WRIT 117
o WRIT 121
o WRIT 122
o ENG 121
o ENG 122
o WRIT 131
o WRIT 132
3. Have you ever enrolled in an online class before?

o Yes
o No
4. Have you ever completed an online class before?

o Yes
o No

72

Online Education Research
5. The following are a set of questions about how comfortable you are with computers and online education. Please check the box that most
closely matches how you feel about each statement
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Somewhat
Disagree

Neither Agree nor
Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

I feel comfortable
when working with
computers or a
mobile device
I feel I can access
information that I
need from computers
I feel I can finish my
homework
assignments by
deadlines
I feel I can get myself
to do my assignments

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

I know where to go
for help if I need
more help with my
assignments

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

73

Online Education Research
6. Did you stay enrolled long enough to log in to the class site?

o Yes
o No
7. What type of device(s) do you use to access your online class materials?

 mobile phone
 mobile tablet (iPad, Samsung Galaxy, MS Surface, etc.)
 laptop computer
 desktop computer (at home or work)
 LCC computers
 Other (please specify)
8. Did you have any trouble logging in to your online class?

o Yes
o No
9. Did you need any technical assistance in accessing your online class?

o Yes
o No

74

Online Education Research
10. How hard was it to get help?

o Very difficult
o Difficult
o Somewhat difficult
o Neutral
o Somewhat easy
o Easy
11. What the person you contacted able to help resolve the problem?

o Yes
o No
12. Comments

75

Online Education Research
13. Thinking about the online management system used in this online class (Desire2Learn).
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Somewhat
Disagree

Neither Agree nor
Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Learning how to
access my class
material was easy
The course’s online
learning management
system interface
helped me to
complete my class
assignments
successfully
Because of how the
online learning
management system
works, I often
struggle with
accessing what I am
supposed to do in the
class
I am able to find the
assignments easily

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

The instructor clearly
communicated his
expectations for each
assignment

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

76

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

The course’s online
learning management
system features the
professor used in
delivering class
material was easy to
use
Because of how the
instructor has utilized
the online learning
management system,
I can efficiently
access my online
class material

o

o

o

o

o

o

14. Overall the online class made me feelStrongly Agree Agree with first
with first choice choice

Somewhat
agree with first
choice

Neutral

Somewhat
agree with the
second choice

Agree with the
second choice

Strongly agree
with the second
choice

Terrible/
Delighted

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Frustrated/
Contented

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Unhappy/
Gratified

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

77

Sad/ Joyful

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Dissatisfied/
Satisfied

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Displeased/
Pleased

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

15. Comments

78

Online Education Research
16. In thinking of my online classStrongly
disagree
I feel that my
professor
responds in a
reasonable time
to comments
I would like it if
my professor
responded more
quickly to my
comments

Disagree

Somewhat
disagree

Neither
disagree nor
agree

Somewhat
agree

Agree

Strongly agree

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

17. How quickly would you feel is a reasonable time for your professor to respond to your comments and/or questions?
Time Frame

79

Online Education Research
18. In thinking about this online class and your interaction with your classmatesStrongly
disagree
When I posted
a comment on
our class site
my classmates
responded to
me in a
reasonable time
I enjoy
interacting with
my online
classmates
I have shared
personal
information
with my online
classmates
My classmates
share personal
information
about
themselves
My classmates
express their
agreement or
disagreement
with what I post

Disagree

Somewhat
disagree

Neither agree
nor disagree

Somewhat
agree

Agree

Strongly agree

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

80

19. Comments

81

Online Education Research
20. If I needed more help with my assignments I know where to go for help

o Yes
o No
21. Did you ever try to use tutoring services?

o Yes
o No

82

Online Education Research
22. Was it easy to get an appointment?

o Yes
o No
23. Was the session(s) helpful?

o Yes
o No
o Other

24. Comments

83

Online Education Research
25. Did you ever try to use the Writing Center service?

o Yes
o No

84

Online Education Research
26. Was it easy to get an appointment?

o Yes
o No
27. Was the session(s) helpful?

o Yes
o No
o Other

28. Comments-

85

Online Education Research
29. Are you still in the class?

o Yes
o No

86

Online Education Research
30. Were you administratively (either by the professor or the system) dropped for any reason?

o Yes
o No

87

Online Education Research
31. Did you drop the class before starting work on the material?

o Yes
o No

88

Online Education Research
32. Reasons for dropping the class (Select as many as apply)-

 I was able to get into a face-to-face section
 I didn’t need the class
 I was too busy
 I didn’t have the technical equipment I needed
 I heard negative things about the class from other students
 Other
33. Check the reason that most influenced your decision

o I was able to get into a face-to-face section
o I didn’t need the class
o I was too busy
o I didn’t have the technical equipment I needed
o I heard negative things about the class from other students
o I heard negative things about the professor from other students
o Other

89

Online Education Research
34. Did you drop the class before completing it?

o Yes
o No

90

Online Education Research
35. Reasons for dropping the class

 I was having technical problems
 I didn’t understand how the course was organized
 I couldn’t keep up with the assignments
 The professor didn’t give good feedback
 The other students were not very helpful
 My schedule changed and I was too busy
 Other
36. Select the reason that most influenced your decision

o I was having technical problems
o I didn’t understand how the course was organized
o I couldn’t keep up with the assignments
o The professor didn’t answer my questions
o The professor didn’t give good feedback
o The other students were not very helpful
o My schedule changed and I was too busy
o Other

91

Online Education Research
37. Any other comments you would like to offer about your online education experiences, either for this class or other online classes you have
been in.

38. Your Zip Code-

39. Are you the first person in your immediate family to attend college?

o Yes
o No
o Prefer not to answer
40. What is your approximate GPA?

o .00-.99
o 1.00-1.49
o 1.50-1.99
o 2.00-2.49
o 2.50-2.99
o 3.00-3.49
92

o 3.50-4.00
41. Gender

o Male
o Female
o Prefer not to answer
42. Ethnic/ Racial Background

o American Indian or Alaska Native
o Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
o Black or African American
o Asian
o White
o Hispanic Latino
o Two or more races
o Other
o Prefer not to answer
43. Citizenship

o U.S. Citizen
o Permanent Resident
o Refugee
o Immigrant
93

o Political Asylum
o Other (example H4, TPS, B2)
o Prefer not to answer
44. Thank you so much for your participation in this research. Would you like to enter in the drawing for a $25 gift certificate from Meijer?

o Yes
o No
45. Please enter your email. You will only be contacted if you win. Your email will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to distribute
the winning gift certificates. Thank you again for your help in this research.

94

APPENDIX B: COPY OF THE CODEBOOK

95

THREE THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS EXAMINED: THEORETICAL FORCES THAT COULD AFFECT RETENTION IN
ONLINE COLLEGE CLASSES
CODEBOOK

Ruth Shillair
Michigan State University

Presented to the faculty of Michigan State University, Communication Arts & Sciences, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Master’s Degree in Telecommunications, Information Studies and Media.

96

Table 22
Code for Quantitative Analysis of Responses
Original Question
or value name
RespondentID

Variable ID
RespondID

Unique Survey ID #

CollectorID

CollectID

Irrelevant- survey overall ID

StartDate

StartDate

Date Survey was started

EndDate

EndDate

Date Survey was ended

IPAddress

IPAddress

Irrelevant- but shows lack of duplication

Online Education
Survey Consent
Form
Online class from the
list below that I
enrolled in this
semester (if enrolled
in more than one,
select the last one
enrolled in)
Have you ever
enrolled in an online
class before?
Have you ever
completed an online
class before?

CnsntForm

Decline= 00
Accept =01

ClassName

WRIT 117= 01
WRIT 121= 02
WRIT 122= 03
ENG 121 = 04
ENG 122= 05
WRIT 131 = 06
WRIT 132= 07
Yes= 01
No= 02

Measuring Self-Efficacy with online
classes- experience

Yes= 01
No =02

Measuring Self-Efficacy with online
classes- experience

PrevEnroll

PrevCompl

Value Variable ID

97

Notes

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
I feel comfortable
when working with
computers or a
mobile device

Variable ID
CompCmft

I feel I can access
information that I
need from computers

InfoAccss

I feel I can finish my
homework
assignments by
deadlines

HmwrkDdln

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07

98

Notes
Measuring Self-Efficacy with online
classes- (computing devices)

Measuring Self-Efficacy with online
classes- (computing devices)

Measuring Self-Efficacy with Education

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
I feel I can get
myself to do my
assignments

I know where to go
for help if I need
more help with my
assignments

Variable ID
SelfMotiv

SelfDirect

Did you stay enrolled LogIn
long enough to log in
to the class site?
What type of
DevNumber
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?
(Cumulative
Number)

Value Variable ID

Notes

Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Yes =01
No =02

Measuring Self-Efficacy with Education

One device= 01
Two devices =02
Three devices =03
Four devices =04
Five devices=05

Question allows multiple device answers
to collect all devices used. The sum of
devices used

99

Measuring Self-Efficacy with Education

Filtering question to assess if dropped
before any interaction with class

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
What type of
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?
What type of
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?
What type of
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?
What type of
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?
What type of
device(s) do you use
to access your online
class materials?

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

DevMobile

Yes =01
No = 99

If the student accesses class materials on
a mobile phone

DevTablet

Yes =01
No = 99

If the student accesses class materials on
a tablet

DevLaptop

Yes =01
No = 99

If the student accesses class materials on
a laptop

DevDesktp

Yes =01
No = 99

If the student accesses class materials on
a Desktop (home or office)

DevMCCDktp

Yes =01
No = 99

If the student accesses class materials on
a college computer

100

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Did you have any
trouble logging in to
your online class?
Did you need any
technical assistance
in accessing your
online class?
How hard was it to
get help?

Was the person you
contacted able to
help resolve the
problem?
Comments

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

TechLgIn

Yes =01
No =02

Measuring Usability of Interface

TechUse

Yes =01
No =02

Measuring Use of Technical Assistance

TechEase

Very Difficult=01
Difficult= 02
Somewhat difficult=03
Neutral = 04
Somewhat Easy= 05
Easy = 06
Very Easy =07
Not applicable= 99
Yes =01
No =02
Not applicable= 99

Measuring Use of Technical Assistance

Not applicable=99
Technical Usability comment
reflecting some struggle with use
(somewhat difficult) =3

Question to encourage any qualitative
feedback about technical assistancelocated within this section to encourage
feedback about this specific topic.

TechHlpfnss

CmntTA

101

Measuring Use of Technical Assistance

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Learning how to
access my class
material was easy

Variable ID
UsblIntAccss

The course's online
UblLMSInt
learning management
system interface
helped me to
complete my class
assignments
successfully
Because of how the
UblLMSUse
online learning
management system
works, I often
struggle with
accessing what I am
supposed to do in the
class

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 07
Disagree =06
Somewhat Disagree = 05
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =03
Agree =02
Strongly Agree=01

102

Notes
Measuring Usability of Interface

Measuring Usability of Interface
(Learning Management System- LMS)

Measuring Usability of Interface
REVERSE SCORE- validity check for
all questions (checking for participants
just checking the same box)

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
I was able to find the
assignments easily

Variable ID
UblLMSOrg

The instructor
UblInsFeat
utilized many
features of the online
learning management
system

The instructor's
organization of the
class material is
effective

UblInsOrg

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07

103

Notes
Measuring Usability of Interface

Measuring Usability of Instructor
Utilization (Pedagogical choices for
online education)

Measuring Usability of Instructor
Utilization (Pedagogical choices for
online education)

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
Variable ID
value name
The instructor clearly UblInsComm
communicated his
expectations for each
assignment

The course's online
UblInsUtlz01
learning management
system features the
professor used in
delivering class
material was easy to
use
Because of how the
UblInsUtlz02
instructor has utilized
the online learning
management system,
I can efficiently
access my online
class material

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07

104

Notes
Measuring Usability of Instructor
Utilization (Pedagogical choices for
online education)

Measuring Usability of Instructor
Utilization (Pedagogical choices for
online education)

Measuring Usability of Instructor
Utilization (Pedagogical choices for
online education)
VALIDITY CHECK with previous
question to check if participants are
reading carefully- basically the same
measure, worded slightly differently

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Overall the online
class made me feelTerrible/ Delighted

Overall the online
class made me feelFrustrated/Contented

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

UsbSat01

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

UsbSat02

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

105

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Overall the online
class made me feelUnhappy/ Gratified

Overall the online
class made me feelSad/ Joyful

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

UsbSat03

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

UsbSat04

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

106

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Overall the online
class made me feelDissatisfied/ Satisfied

Overall the online
class made me feelDispleased/ Pleased

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

UsbSat05

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

UsbSat06

Strongly Agree 1st choice = 01
Agree with 1st choice = 02
Somewhat agree with 1st choice
=03
Neutral= 04
Somewhat agree with the 2nd
choice -05
Agree with the 2nd choice = 06
Strongly agree with the 2nd
choice = 07

Bipolar Measures (“semantic differential
adjective pairs”) to measure satisfaction
levels from Usability of the Course.
Design from the Integrated Satisfaction
Model (Coursaris et al, 2007, 2012;
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977)

107

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Comments

Comments after
Usability/
Satisfaction- Self
Efficacy

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

CmtUsbSat

The answers to this question were Question to encourage any qualitative
subdivided into how they related feedback about usability and satisfaction
to the three constructs under
levels
evaluation

CmUsbSSatSE

Very insecure about the class=01
Insecure about the class=02
Somewhat insecure about the
class=03
Neutral about the class=04
Somewhat Confident about the
class=05
Confident about the class=06
Very confident about the
class=07
No comment=99

108

Comments that show either selfconfidence in the class and ability to selfdirect, even if there is dissatisfaction
with how either the professor or
classmates are participating.

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Comments after
Usability/
SatisfactionUsability of the LMS

Variable ID
CmUsbSSatUSSys

Value Variable ID
Very frustrated with the
system=01
Frustrated with the system=02
Somewhat frustrated with the
system=03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the LMS
system=05
Happy with the LMS system=06
Very happy with the LMS
system=07
No comment=99

109

Notes
Comments dealing with the usability of
the system – some had very strong
comments and deep frustration.
A student could be unhappy with the
LMS and yet happy with the usability
that the instructor enabled- “My teacher
is fantastic. She has kept everything
extremely organized and communicates
with fast responses. I have a windows 8
laptop, and have had a hard time with
D2L being user friendly. I bought a
computer for this class and have to go
use my parents’ computer or a school
computer due to the complications from
windows 8.”

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Comments after
Usability/
SatisfactionUsability per the
instructor’s
organization

Variable ID
CmUsbSatUSIns

Value Variable ID
Very frustrated with the
instructor’s organization=01
Frustrated with the instructor’s
organization =02
Somewhat frustrated with the
instructor’s organization =03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the
instructor’s organization =05
Happy with the instructor’s
organization =06
Very happy with the instructor’s
organization =07
No comment=99

110

Notes
These were comments expressing
satisfaction or frustration with the
professor’s use of the system- “My
biggest complaint has to do with D2L
technical problems this semester.
Students are at the mercy of the system
to complete their assignments and get
instruction. I have had moments of
frustration. But overall, I believe online
writing classes add wonderfully to the
process of learning. My instructor is
helpful, but miscommunications have
occurred do to the online environment. I
am benefiting greatly from the
experience and will continue to take
online classes in the future.”

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Comments after
Usability/
Satisfaction- Social
Presence

Variable ID
CmUsbSSatSP

Value Variable ID

Notes

Very frustrated with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence)=01
Frustrated with the instructor’s
communications (social presence)
=02
Somewhat frustrated with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence) =03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence) =05
Happy with the instructor’s
communications (social
presence) =06
Very happy with the instructor’s
communications (social
presence) =07
No comment=99

Note: All comments were directed
towards either high satisfaction with/ or
high dissatisfaction with social presence
and interaction with the instructor. There
were no comments pertaining to social
presence of the fellow-students in this
section.”

111

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
I feel that my
professor responds in
a reasonable time to
my comments

Variable ID
SPProfEml01

I would like it if my
professor responded
more quickly to my
comments

SPProfEm02

How quickly would
you feel is a
reasonable time for
your professor to
respond to your
comments or
questions?

SPProfEm03

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Less than 6 hours= 01
6 hours=02
12 hours=03
18 hours=04
1 day=05
2 days=06
3 days=07
More than 3 days=08

112

Notes
Social Presence and email response time
satisfaction at current levels- level of
immediacy with instructor

Social Presence and email response time
preferences- level of immediacy with
instructor

Exploring student expectations for email
response satisfaction levels with
instructor

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
When I posted a
comment on our class
site my classmates
responded to me in a
reasonable time

Variable ID
SPStud01

I enjoy interacting
with my online
classmates

SPStud02

I have shared
personal information
with my online
classmates

SPStud03

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07

113

Notes
Social Presence and levels of immediacy
with classmates

Social Presence and comfort of
interaction with classmates

Social Presence with classmates- Deep
sharing

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
My classmates share
personal information
about themselves

My classmates
express their
agreement or
disagreement with
what I post

Variable ID
SPStud04

SPStud05

Value Variable ID
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07
Strongly Disagree = 01
Disagree =02
Somewhat Disagree = 03
Neither Agree nor Disagree =04
Somewhat agree =05
Agree =06
Strongly Agree=07

114

Notes
Social Presence with classmates- Deep
sharing

Social Presence with classmates

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Comments

Variable ID
CmtSPCom

Value Variable ID
Very frustrated with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence)=01
Frustrated with the instructor’s
communications (social presence)
=02
Somewhat frustrated with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence) =03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the
instructor’s communications
(social presence) =05
Happy with the instructor’s
communications (social
presence) =06
Very happy with the instructor’s
communications (social
presence) =07
No comment=99

115

Notes
Question to encourage any qualitative
feedback about social presence and
communication issues.
All the answers, except one, were
directed at the social presence and
communication issues with the
instructor. The one exception was neutral
about communications, so it was not
coded in the findings since there was not
enough to findings to create a new
category, but the comment will be
addressed in the findings.
Most comments were-“ This class has
been a real struggle what with my
instructor not knowing how to use D2L
and not responding when I have emailed
her. Her average response time is about
two weeks, which is usually after an
assignment is due. This is very
aggravating.”- this would show very
frustrated with communications/social
presence.

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
If I needed more help
with my assignments
I know where to go
for help
Did you ever try to
use tutoring services?

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

SelfDirect02

Yes= 01
No = 02

Validity question to SelfDirect

TSUse

Yes= 01
No = 02

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

Was it easy to get an
appointment?

TSEase

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

Was the session(s)
helpful?

TSHlpflnss

Yes= 01
No = 02
Not applicable=99
Yes= 01
No= 02
Other = 03
Not applicable=99

116

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original
Question or
value name
Comments

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

CmtTS

Very unhappy with their service=01
Unhappy with their service=02
Somewhat unhappy with their
service=03
Neither happy nor unhappy with their
service=04
Somewhat happy with their
service=05
Happy with their service=06
Very happy with their service=07
Haven’t used the service yet/ not
applicable=99

Question to encourage any qualitative
feedback about tutoring services

Did you ever try
to use the
Writing Center
services?
Was it easy to
get an
appointment?

WCUse

Yes= 01
No = 02

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

WCEase

Yes= 01
No = 02
Not applicable=99

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

117

Table 22 (cont’d)
Was the session(s)
helpful?

WCHlpflnss

Comments-

CmtWC

Are you still in the
class?
Were you
administratively
(either by the
professor or the
system) dropped for
any reason?

StuRtn
StuDrpAdmin

Yes= 01
No = 02
Other= 03
Not applicable=99
Very unhappy with their service=01
Unhappy with their service=02
Somewhat unhappy with their service=03
Neither happy nor unhappy with their
service=04
Somewhat happy with their service=05
Happy with their service=06
Very happy with their service=07
Haven’t used the service yet/ not
applicable=99

Dealing with institutional best practices
and supplemental services

Yes= 01
No = 02
Yes= 01
No = 02
Not applicable=99

Retention check

Question to encourage any qualitative
feedback about the Writing Center

Administrative drops- non-payment of
tuition, loss of scholarship, nonattendance, other issues

118

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Did you drop the
class before starting
work on the material?
Reasons for dropping
the class(Select as many as
apply)

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Notes

StuDrpSelfBf

Yes= 01
No = 02
Not applicable=99

Drops before starting material at all, to
find those who preferred to be in a
different section for various reasons

StuDrpBfRsnAll

I was able to get into a face-toface section = 01
I didn’t need the class =02
I was too busy = 03
I didn’t have the technical
equipment I needed =04
I heard negative things about the
class from other students =05
I heard negative things about the
professor from other students =
06
Not applicable=99

Drops before starting material at all, to
find those who preferred to be in a
different section for various reasons- to
find all reasons

119

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Check the reason that
most influenced your
decision

Did you drop the
class before
completing it?

Variable ID
StuDrpBfRsnPr

StuDrpSlfDrng

Value Variable ID
I was able to get into a face-to-face
section = 01
I didn’t need the class =02
I was too busy = 03
I didn’t have the technical
equipment I needed =04
I heard negative things about the
class from other students =05
I heard negative things about the
professor from other students = 06
Other= 07
Not applicable=99
Yes= 01
No = 02
Not applicable=99

120

Notes
Drops before starting material at all, to
find those who preferred to be in a
different section for various reasons-to
find primary reason

Drops during the class

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
value name
Reasons for dropping
the class

Select the reason that
most influenced your
decision

Variable ID
StuDrpDrngAll

StuDrpDrngPr

Value Variable ID
I was having technical problems= 01
I didn’t understand how the course was organized =
02
I couldn’t keep up with the assignments =03
The professor didn’t give good feedback =04
The other students were not very helpful =05
My schedule changed and I was too busy =06
Other =07
Not applicable=99
I was having technical problems= 01
I didn’t understand how the course was organized =
02
I couldn’t keep up with the assignments =03
The professor didn’t give good feedback =04
The other students were not very helpful =05
My schedule changed and I was too busy =06
Other =07
Not applicable=99

121

Notes
Drops during the class, to find
all reasons

Drops during the class, to find
primary reason

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question or
Variable ID
value name
Any other comments CmnAll
you would like to
offer about your
online education
experiences, either for
this class or other
online classes you
have been in.
CmnAllSE

Value Variable ID

Notes

These are coded into the three constructs
under consideration.

Question to encourage any qualitative
feedback about the online educational
experience

Very insecure about the class=01
Insecure about the class=02
Somewhat insecure about the class=03
Neutral about the class=04
Somewhat Confident about the class=05
Confident about the class=06
Very confident about the class=07
No comment=99

Final Comments relating to a student’s
sense of self-efficacy in online classes

122

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question
or value name

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

Very frustrated with the instructor’s organization=01
Frustrated with the instructor’s organization =02
Somewhat frustrated with the instructor’s organization
=03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the instructor’s organization =05
Happy with the instructor’s organization =06
Very happy with the instructor’s organization =07
No comment=99
CmnAllSPStu Very frustrated with fellow students’ communications
(social presence)=01
Frustrated with fellow students’ communications (social
presence) =02
Somewhat frustrated with fellow students’
communications (social presence) =03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with fellow students’ communications
(social presence) =05
Happy with fellow students’ communications (social
presence) =06
Very happy with fellow students’ communications
(social presence) =07
No comment=99
CmnAllUS

123

Notes
Final Comments relating to the
usability of the class due to
instructor’s utilization

Final Comments relating to the
social presence/ communication
with other students

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question
or value name

Your Zip Code-

Variable ID

Value Variable ID

CmnAllSpIns Very frustrated with the instructor’s communications
(social presence)=01
Frustrated with the instructor’s communications (social
presence) =02
Somewhat frustrated with the instructor’s
communications (social presence) =03
Neutral=04
Somewhat happy with the instructor’s communications
(social presence) =05
Happy with the instructor’s communications (social
presence) =06
Very happy with the instructor’s communications (social
presence) =07
No comment=99
Zip
Prefer not to answer=99

Are you the first
DemFstPrsn
person in your
immediate family to
attend college?

Yes =01
No =02
Prefer Not to Answer =99

Notes
Final Comments relating to the
social presence/communications
of the instructor= “I like online
classes but I think professors
should be held to a timeframe just
as I am. If I post an assignment I
would like to get feedback within
a week rather than whenever they
get to it or not at all.” Would
express strong dissatisfaction
with social interaction at the same
time as strong self-efficacy in
online classes.
Demographics- financial
Demographics- background

124

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question
or value name
What is your
approximate GPA?

Variable ID
DemGPA

Gender

DemGen

Ethnic/ Racial
Background

DemRacial

Value Variable ID
.00-.99= 01
1.00-1.49=02
1.50-1.99=03
2.00-2.49=04
2.50-2.99=05
3.00-3.49 =06
3.50-4.00 = 07
Prefer not to answer=99
Male= 01
Female=02
Prefer not to Answer =99
American Indian or Alaska Native =01
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander =02
Black or African American =03
Asian =04
White =05
Hispanic, Latino =06
Two or more races=07
Other=08
Prefer not to answer=99

125

Notes
Demographics- GPA

Demographics- gender

Demographics- racial

Table 22 (cont’d)
Original Question
or value name
Citizenship

Thank you so much
for your
participation in this
research.
Would you like to
enter in the drawing
for a $25 gift
certificate from
Meijer?

Variable ID
DemCitz

DemCert

Value Variable ID
U.S. Citizen =01
Permanent Resident=02
Refugee= 03
Immigrant=04
Political Asylum =05
Other (example:H4, TPS, B2) =06
Prefer not to answer =99
Yes =01
No=02

126

Notes
Demographics- citizenship
(ESOL)

Demographics- motivation for
participation

WORKS CITED

127

WORKS CITED

Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2010). Skills, Tasks and Technologies : Implications for
Employment and Earnings. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No.
16082. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16082
Achilles, W., Byrd, K., Felder-strauss, J., Franklin, P., & Janowich, J. (2011). Engaging students
through communication and contact : Outreach can positively impact your students and you.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 128–133.
Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84(5), 888-918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbeing, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84(5), 888-918.
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011.
Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011
Archibald, R.B., and Feldman, D.H. (2010). What Does College Cost so Much? New York, NY;
Oxford University Press.
Artino,, A. R. (2009). Online learning: Are subjective perceptions of instructional context related
to academic success? The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 117–125.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.003
Auguste, B. G., Cota, A., Jayaram, K., & Laboissiere, M. C. A. (2010). Winning by degrees : the
strategies of highly productive higher- education institutions (p. 66). New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Winning by
degrees report fullreport v5.pdf
Bailey, C. J., & Card, K. A. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching:
Perception of experienced instructors. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152–
155. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constucting self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishig.

128

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Student Attrition
Undergraduate. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170245
Beerkens, E. (2003). Globalisation and Higher Education Research. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 7(2), 193–206. doi:10.1177/1028315303251395
Bergeron, J. (2012). Integrating adjunct faculty into our student success initiative. Lansing
Community College: Strategic Planning Process. Retrieved from
http://web.lcc.edu/strategy/2012/01/16/integrating-adjunct-faculty-into-our-student-successinitiative/
Bramble, N., & Lu, Y. J. (2011). Accreditation of tuition-free online universities and peer-topeer postsecondary learning communities: a framework for protecting students and
expanding access to higher education. Yale Information Society Project Working Paper
Series.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the
college student departure process. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 570–590.
Brinthaupt, T. M., Fisher, L. S., Gardner, J. G., Raffo, D. M., & Woodard, J. B. (2011). What the
Best Online Teachers Should Do. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
7(4), 515–524.
Brown, R. (2011, July 18). Community-college students perform worse online than face to face.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Community-College-Students/128281/
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The Convergence Between
Two Theories of College Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143.
Caudill, J. G. (2007). Mobile Computing : Parallel developments. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 13. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=jason_caudill
Clay, R. (2012). Diversity at Community Colleges. Monitor on Psychology. 43(8), 38. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/09/diversity.aspx
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning
management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and
Management, 11(1), 19–36. doi:10.1080/13583883.2005.9967137

129

Corey, K., Keller, J., O'Leary, B., Richards, A., Coddington, R., & Smallwood, S. (2012).
College completion: Who graduates from college, who doesn't, and why it matters. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://collegecompletion.chronicle.com/college-stats/
Coursaris CK, Hassanein K, Head MM and Bontis N (2007) The impact of distraction on the
usability and the adoption of mobile devices for wireless data services. Proceedings of
the European Conference on Information Systems, HCI Track, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Coursaris CK, Hassanein K, Head MM and Bontis N (2012) The impact of distractions on the
usability and intention to use mobile devices for wireless data services. Computers in
Human Behavior 28(4), 1439-1449
Coursaris, C, van Osch, W. (2012). An integrated model of user satisfaction (IMUS): Disrupting
the dichotomy of utilitarian versus hedonic system performance. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Coursaris, C.K., Hassanein, K., Head, M.M., & Bontins, N. (2007). The impact of distraction on
the usability and the adoption of mobile devices for wireless data service. Computers in
Human Behavior 28(4), 1439-1449.
Coursaris, C.K., Kripintris, K. (2012). Web aesthetics and usability: An empirical study on the
effects of white space. International Journal of E-Business Research 8(1), 35-53.
Coursaris, CK, (et al--??). (2012) An integrated model of user satisfaction (IMSU): Disrupting
the dichotomy of utilitarian versus hedonic system performance. Manuscript Submitted
for Publication.
Crim, S. J. (2006). An examination of social presence in an online learning environment.
University of Louisville.
Crim, S. J. (2006). An examination of social presence in an online learning environment.
University of Louisville.
Crosling, G., Thomas, L., & Heagney, M. (Eds.) (2008). Improving student retention in higher
education: The role of teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and selfregulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002

130

Daniels, L. M., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2012). Not that different in theory: Discussing the controlvalue theory of emotions in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(3), 222–226. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.04.002
Fisk, D. M. (2003). U . S . Bureau of Labor Statistics Compensation and Working Conditions
Online American Labor in the 20th Century (pp. 1–9).
Fortune, M. F., Spielman, M., & Pangelinan, D. T. (2011). Students ’ Perceptions of Online or
Face-to-Face Learning and Social Media in Hospitality , Recreation and Tourism. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 1–16.
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional Development for
Technology-Enhanced Inquiry Science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–
448. doi:10.3102/0034654311415121
Gibbons, H. S., & Wentworth, G. P. (2001). Andrological and Pedagogical Training Differences
for Online Instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(3), 1–5.
Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall43/gibbons_wentworth43.html
Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R. (2009).
Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer- mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8–26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer- mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8–26. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Hart, C. (2012). Factors Associated With Student Persistence in an Online Program of Study: A
Review of the Literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1).
Hawkings, B. (2012 July 12). Prepare now for Minnesota's future higher-ed needs, Itasca report
advises. MinnPost. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2012/07/prepare-now-minnesotas-future-higher-ed-needs-itasca-report-advises
Herbert, M., & Ph, D. (2006). Staying the Course : A Study in Online Student Satisfaction and
Retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(5). Retrieved from
http://fsweb.bainbridge.edu/qep/Files/TeachingRes/Staying the Course.pdf

131

Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-Efficacy in the Context of Online Learning Environments : A Review
of the Literature and Directions for Research. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
20(3/4), 7.
Huckabee, S. B. (2010). Environmental and Psychological Factors Contributing to Student
Achievement in a High School Online Mediated Credit Recovery Program By Sheila B .
Huckabee A Dissertation Submitted to the Gardner-Webb University School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment. Gardner-Webb University.
Jamrisko, M., & Kolet, I. (2012 Aug. 15). Cost of college degree in U.S. soars 12 fold: Chart of
the day. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/costof-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12-fold-chart-of-the-day.html
Johnson, E. J., Ed, D., & Card, K. P. D. (2007). The Effects of Instructor and Student Immediacy
Behaviors in Writing Improvement and Course Satisfaction in a Web-based Undergraduate
Course. MountainRise, the International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning.
Johnson, S. G., & Berge, Z. (2012). Online education in the community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 897–902.
doi:10.1080/10668920903323948
Joo, S., & Lee, J. Y. (2011). Measuring the usability of academic digital libraries: Instrument
development and validation. The Electronic Library, 29(4), 523–537.
doi:10.1108/02640471111156777
Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by
diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 14–22.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.07.003
Kenney, J., Hermens, A., & Clarke, T. (2004). The political economy of e-learning educational
development : strategies , standardization and scalability. Education & Training, 46(6/7),
370.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. doi:10.1037//0003066X.39.10.1123
Leyton-Brown, K. (2012). Game Theory Introduction [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://class.coursera.org/gametheory-2012-002/class/index

132

Luckerson, V. (2013 Jan. 10). The Myth of the Four-Year College Degree. Time Business &
Money: Educational Financing. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2013/01/10/themyth-of-the-4-year-college-degree/?iid=obinsite
Mancuso, S. M. (2008). A qualitative study of the barriers to participation in a Web-based
environments among learners at the community college level. Capella University.
McDonald, J. (1995 Feb. 18) Colleges Cancel Dozens of Courses because of Low Enrollment.
Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-18/local/me33324_1_ventura-college
Mckerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student Perceptions of Teaching
Presence , Social Presence , and Cognitive Presence in a Virtual World. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324–336.
Means, B., Toyama,Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online-learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
U.S. Department of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program
Studies Service. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf
Michigan Department of Treasury. (2012). Lansing Community College: Michigan
postsecondary handbook profile page. Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Lansing_Community_College_151090_7.pdf
Moxley, D., Najor-Durack, A., & Dumbrigue, C. (2001). Keeping students in higher education:
Successful practices & strategies for retention. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page.
Muse, H. E. (2003). The Web-based community college student: An examination of factors that
lead to success and risk. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3), 241–261.
doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00044-7
Nakajima, M. a., Dembo, M. H., & Mossler, R. (2012). Student Persistence in Community
Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 591–613.
doi:10.1080/10668920903054931
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). College & Career Tables Library. Institute of
Education Sciences. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/tableslibrary/viewtable.aspx?tableid=4540

133

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Projections of Education Statics to 2021: Table
33. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2021/tables/table_33.asp
Ng, C. S. L., Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2012). Interaction in asynchronous discussion
forums: peer facilitation techniques. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), 280–
294. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00454.x
Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Conference
companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’94, 210.
doi:10.1145/259963.260333
Nielson, J. (2010). College students on the web. Nielson Norman Group: Evidence-Based User
Experience Research, Training, and Consulting. Retrieved from
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/college-students-on-the-web/
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2003). Human-computer interaction: psychological aspects of the
human use of computing. Annual review of psychology, 54, 491–516.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145044
Osborn, V. (2000). Identifying at risk students: An assessment instrument for distributed
learning courses in higher education. University of North Texas. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/304612885/fulltextPDF/139C18D7
D012E149321/1?accountid=12598
Parker, A. (1999). A Study of Variables that Predict Dropout from Distance Education.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–10. doi:Proquest:62307270
Patterson, B., & Mcfadden, C. (2012). Attrition in Online and Campus Degree Programs
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 1–9. Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. (R. K. Belew & M. D. Vose,
Eds.)On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Pretorius, M., & van Biljon, J. (2010). Learning management systems: ICT skills, usability and
learnability. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 7(1), 30-43.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17415651011031635
Ray, J. (2009). Faculty Perspective : Training and Course Development for the Online
Classroom. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2).
134

Roberts, G. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the Net generation. In Oblinger, D.
& Oblinger, J. (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation (pp 32-38). Educause.
Russell, V., & Curtis, W. (2012). Comparing a large- and small-scale online language course: An
examination of teacher and learner perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 16,
1–13. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.07.002
Sadeh, N. (2002) M-Commerce: Technologies, Services and Business Models, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc, Canada and USA.
Salajan, F. D., Schönwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty intergenerational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers & Education, 55(3), 1393–1403.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.017
Saltmarsh, S., & Sutherland‐ Smith, W. (2010). S(t)imulating learning: pedagogy, subjectivity
and teacher education in online environments. London Review of Education, 8(1), 15–24.
doi:10.1080/14748460903557613
Schneider, M., & Yin, L. M. (2012 April 03). Completion matters: the high cost of low
community college graduation rates. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.aei.org/outlook/education/higher-education/community-colleges/completionmatters-the-high-cost-of-community-college-graduation-rates/
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance
differences between traditional and distance learning : Summative meta-analysis and trend
examination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign,
IL, US: University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/615198423?accounti
d=12598
Shrank, P. (2009). Usability Issues That Impact Online Learning. Faculty focus: Focused on
today’s higher education professional. Retrieved from
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/instructional-design/usability-issues-that-impactonline-learning/
Song, G. (2005). Transcending e-Government : a Case of Mobile Government in Beijing. The
First European Conference on Mobile Government (pp. 1–9). Brighton, England.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S.B., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1996). Areexamination of the derminants
of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60(3), 240-253.
135

State and local higher education funding hits 25-year low. (2012). National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators. Retrieved from
http://www.nasfaa.org/research/News/State_and_Local_Higher_Education_Funding_Hits
_25-Year_Low.aspx
Steinbronn, P. E. (2007). Faculty perceived utility of methods and instructional strategies used in
online and traditional teaching environments. Drake University.
Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. (2010). Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of
Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 298–322.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x
Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design
and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. The Internet and Higher
Education, 15(2), 81–88. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.002
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Patten, E. (2011, August 28). The digital revolution and
higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Pew
Internet & American Life Project: Social & demographic trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/08/online-learning.pdf
The White House. (2012). Higher Education- Education: Knowledge and Skills for the jobs of
the future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education
The White House: Office of Management and Budget. (2010). A new era of responsibility:
Renewing America's promise. U.S . Department of Education 2010 Budget (p. 2).
Thomas, L., Cooper, M., & Quinn, J. (Eds.) (2003). Improving completion rates among
disadvantaged students. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Tutty, J., & Ratliff, J. (2012). Techniques for Improving Online Community College Completion
Rates: Narrow the Path? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11),
916–920. doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.692300
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Enrollment. Institute of Education Sciences: National
Center for Education Statistics Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
Van Deursen, a., & Van Dijk, J. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media &
Society, 13(6), 893–911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774

136

Vedder, R. (2012). 12 Reasons College Costs Keep Rising. The Fiscal Times. Retrieved from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/18/12-Reasons-College-Costs-KeepRising.asp
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: the role of selfefficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2),
151–163. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00042-5
Watson, B. W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An Argument for Clarity : What are Learning
Management Systems, What are They Not , and What Should They Become ?, 51(2), 28–
34.
Welsh, J. B. (2007). Identifying factors that predict student success in a community college
online distance learning course. University of North Texas. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/304833843/139C18D7D012E14932
1/3?accountid=12598
Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students' decision to dropout of
online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 8(4), 105–118. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=online+education+dropout+rate&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as
_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=66V9UMqkBoWxygG88YCABA&ved=0CD0QgQMwAA
Yi, M. Y., & Im, K. S. (2004). Predicting Computer Task Performance. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 16(2), 20–37. doi:10.4018/joeuc.2004040102

137