.
nun.“

..
: ..
I.

(4 NLM
. m” an. ’3‘
g, A: .

Jun (I u. “w
‘ r

. $.33.“ _
:23. ..

.v .JVMV
xlnul. IL.
.2; £9555 I
.9...

in .

.mmsnrqr

.11 . l .
.mfi_§.,..

 

}2I..;,. v
2’ 0‘

i ,. . . .1 %
#gaéazig gag _ 7 _ .‘ . «2% _‘

. .(. .7»: m:

I ...;.v.

: 5...

l.' ‘

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

I

LEARNER INTERACTIVITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
COMPARING FACE-TO-FACE, HYBRID AND ONLINE
INSTRUCTION

presented by

Timothy Alan Brannan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the'requirements for the

PhD. degree in Extension Education

 

 

VRQMthfi-z

daj'or Professor’s Signature
December 10, 2002

 

Date

MSU Is an Afiinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

SEN 3 2801

 

Au‘clfl 2007

 

NOV 1 0 21393

 

@825w0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCJDateDuopGErp. 15

LEARNER INTERACTIVITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: COMPARING
FACE-TO-FACE, HYBRID AND ONLINE INSTRUCTION
By

Timothy Alan Brannan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Education and Communication
Systems

2002

ABSTRACT
Learner Interactivity in Higher Education: Comparing Face-to-face, Hybrid and
Online Instruction
By
Timothy Alan Brannan
The purpose of this study was to compare the opinions of students toward the
interactions they encounter while taking college courses in a face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environment. The study used a survey instrument containing open-
ended questions asking students to describe how the interactions were encouraged in
four categories; student — instructor interactions, student - student interactions, student
— content interactions and student — technology interactions. The instrument was sent to
a sample of 106 students who had participated in courses using each of the three
environments. /The findings of this study supported the use of technology in instruction
and found that technology can actually increase the four interactions found in the
classroom. The study also provides examples of h: instructors encouraged these
interactions. The other important finding is that instructors should be well versed in
education technology, and colleges and universities need to prepare students in the use
of technology. Students today will be expected to use technology in the work place,

and it is up to institutions of higher education to better prepare these students for the

challenges they will face while on the job.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 2
Purpose .............................................................................................................. 4
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 5
Research Question 1 ....................................................................... 5
Research Question 2 ....................................................................... 5
Research Question 3 ....................................................................... 6
Research Question 4 ....................................................................... 6
Research Question 5 ....................................................................... 6
Research Question 6 ....................................................................... 6
Implication and Application of the Study ......................................................... 7
Need for the Study ............................................................................................ 7
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................... 8
F ace-to-face Instruction .................................................................. 8
Hybrid Instruction ........................................................................... 8
Online Instruction ........................................................................... 8
Blackboard Course Management System ....................................... 8
Student — Instructor Interaction ....................................................... 8
Student — Student Interaction .......................................................... 9
Student — Content Interaction ......................................................... 9
Student - Technology Interaction ................................................... 9
Outline of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 10
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Distance Education .................................................................... 10
History of Distance Education ........................................................................ 11
Distance Education Theory ............................................................................. 14
Distance Education Theory Related to Interactivity ....................................... 16
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 21
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 21
Research Design .............................................................................................. 21
Population and Sample ................................................................................... 21

iii

Data Collection ............................................................................................... 23

Research Questions, Validity, Reliability, and Instrument Development ...... 24
Criteria for Data Analysis ............................................................................... 25
Statistical Procedures ...................................................................................... 25
Limitations of this Type of Study ................................................................... 26
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 29
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 29
Course Information ......................................................................................... 29
Delivery Type ................................................................................................. 31
Demographics ................................................................................................. 3 1
Student — Instructor Interaction ....................................................................... 37
Open Ended Responses ................................................................. 37
Student — Instructor Interaction Rating ......................................... 38
Delivery Type and Student - Instructor Interaction Ratings ........ 38
College Division and Student — Instructor Interaction Ratings 40
Student Age and Student - Instructor Interaction Ratings ............ 41
Computer Skills and Student — Instructor Interaction Ratings ..... 42
Gender and Student — Instructor Interaction Ratings .................... 43
Pursuing Degree/Certificate and Student — Instructor Interaction
Ratings .......................................................................................... 44
Analysis of Focus Group Responses of Student — Instructor
Interaction Data ............................................................................. 45
Student — Student Interaction .......................................................................... 47
Open Ended Responses ................................................................. 47
Student - Student Interaction Rating ............................................ 48
Delivery Type and Student - Student Interaction Ratings ............ 48
College Division and Student — Student Interaction Ratings ........ 50
Student Age and Student - Student Interaction Ratings ............... 51
Computer Skills and Student - Student Interaction Ratings ......... 52
Gender and Student — Student Interaction Ratings ....................... 53
Pursuing Degree/Certificate and Student — Student Interaction
Ratings .......................................................................................... 54
Analysis of Focus Group Responses of Student — Student
Interaction Data ............................................................................. 55
Student — Content Interaction ......................................................................... 57
Open Ended Responses ................................................................. 57
Student -- Content Interaction Rating ............................................ 58
Delivery Type and Student — Content Interaction Ratings ........... 58
College Division and Student — Content Interaction Ratings ....... 59
Student Age and Student — Content Interaction Ratings .............. 60
Computer Skills and Student — Content Interaction Ratings ........ 61
Gender and Student — Content Interaction Ratings ....................... 62
Pursuing Degree/ Certificate and Student — Content Interaction
Ratings .......................................................................................... 63

iv

Analysis of Focus Group Responses of Student — Content

Interaction Data ............................................................................. 64
Student — Technology Interaction ................................................................... 66
Open Ended Responses ................................................................. 66
Student — Technology Interaction Rating ..................................... 67
Delivery Type and Student - Technology Interaction Ratings ..... 67
College Division and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings. 69
Student Age and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings ........ 70
Computer Skills and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings.. 71
Gender and Student - Technology Interaction Ratings ................ 72
Pursuing Degree/Certificate and Student - Technology
Interaction Ratings ........................................................................ 73
Analysis of Focus Group Responses of Student -— Technology
Interaction Data ............................................................................. 74
Blackboard Data .............................................................................................. 76
Summary of Survey Findings and Additional Comments fiom the Focus
Group .............................................................................................................. 78
Delivery Type and the Four Interactions ...................................... 78
College Division and the Four Interactions .................................. 78
Age and the Four Interactions ....................................................... 79
Computer Skills and the Four Interactions ................................... 80
Gender and the Four Interactions .................................................. 80
Pursuing Degree/Certificate and the Four Interactions ................. 81
Additional Thoughts/Reflections from the Focus Group .............. 81
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 83
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 83
Purpose ............................................................................................................ 83
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 83
Research Question 1 ..................................................................... 84
Research Question 2 ..................................................................... 84
Research Question 3 ..................................................................... 84
Research Question 4 ..................................................................... 84
Research Question 5 ..................................................................... 84
Research Question 6 ..................................................................... 85
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 85
Student — Instructor Interaction ..................................................... 85
Student - Student Interaction ........................................................ 88
Student — Content Interaction ....................................................... 90
Student — Technology Interaction ................................................. 91
Blackboard .................................................................................... 94
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 96
Implications ..................................................................................................... 98
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 99
Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................. 100

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 1 02
APPENDICES

APPENDD( I: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES FOR EACH INTERACTION .. 104

APPENDIX II: CLASS SURVEY INSTRUMENT .......................................... 106
APPENDIX III: FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT .......................................... 108
APPENDIX IV: INFORMED CONSENT FOR FOCUS GROUP ................... 109
APPENDIX V: SURVEY COVER LETTER ................................................... 110

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 — Examples of Learning Theories, Instructional Theories,
Instructional Design Methods, and Instructional Delivery to be Related

to the Construct of Interaction .............................................................................. 19
Table 3.1 - Course Enrollments by Delivery Method .......................................... 22
Table 3.2 — Quantitative Score Representation ..................................................... 25
Table 4.1 — Distribution and Percentage Total Participation of Study

Participants According to Course ......................................................................... 29
Table 4.2 — Distribution and Percentage Total Participation of Study

Participants According to College Division ......................................................... 30
Table 4.3 — Distribution of Study Participants According to Delivery Type ....... 31
Table 4.4 — Study Participants’ Age ..................................................................... 32
Table 4.5 — Study Participants’ Age According to Delivery Type ....................... 33
Table 4.6 — Examining Differences in Study Participants’ Age According to
Delivery Type ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 4.7 — Study Participant Computer Skills ..................................................... 34
Table 4.8 - Study Participant Computer Skills by Delivery Type ........................ 34
Table 4.9 — Study Participant Gender ................................................................... 35
Table 4.10 — Study Participants Pursuing a Degree or Certificate ........................ 36
Table 4.11 - Student - Instructor Interaction Open-ended Responses ................. 37
Table 4.12 -— Student — Instructor Interaction Rating by Total Group .................. 38

Table 4.13 - Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type 38

Table 4.14 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Instructor Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 39

Table 4.15 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by College Division 40

Table 4.16 — Comparing College Division and Student — Instructor Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 40

vii

Table 4.17 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Age ..................... 41
Table 4.18 -- Comparing Age and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating .......... 41
Table 4.19 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill 42

Table 4.20 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Instructor Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 42

Table 4.21 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Gender ................ 43
Table 4.22 — Comparing Gender and Student - Instructor Interaction Rating ..... 43

Table 4.23 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/
Certificate .............................................................................................................. 44

Table 4.24 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Instructor

Interaction ............................................................................................................. 44
Table 4.25 — Student — Student Interaction Open-ended Responses .................... 47
Table 4.26 — Student — Student Interaction Rating by Total Group ..................... 48
Table 4.27 -— Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type ........ 48

Table 4.28 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Student Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 49

Table 4.29 — Student - Student Interaction Mean Rating by College Division... 50

Table 4.30 — Comparing College Division and Student — Student Interaction

Rating .................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.31 - Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Age ........................ 51
Table 4.32 — Comparing Age and Student — Student Interaction Rating .............. 51
Table 4.33 — Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill ...... 52
Table 4.34 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student — Student Interaction

Rating .................................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.35 — Student - Student Interaction Mean Rating by Gender ................... 53
Table 4.36 — Comparing Gender and Student — Student Interaction Rating ........ 53

viii

Table 4.37 — Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate . 54

Table 4.38 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree or Certificate and Student — Student

Interaction ............................................................................................................. 54
Table 4.39 - Student - Content Interaction Open-ended Responses .................... 57
Table 4.40 - Student - Content Interaction Rating by Total Group ..................... 58
Table 4.41 —- Student - Content Interaction Rating by Delivery Type ................. 58

Table 4.42 — Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Content Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 59

Table 4.43 - Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by College Division 59

Table 4.44 — Comparing College Division and Student — Content Interaction

Rating .................................................................................................................... 60
Table 4.45 — Student — Content Interaction Mean Rating by Age ........................ 61
Table 4.46 - Comparing Age and Student — Content Interaction Rating ............. 61
Table 4.47 — Student — Content Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill ...... 62
Table 4.48 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Content Interaction

Rating .................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.49 — Student — Content Interaction Mean Rating by Gender ................... 62
Table 4.50 -— Comparing Gender and Student — Content Interaction Rating ........ 63

Table 4.51 — Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate. 63

Table 4.52 — Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Content

Interaction ............................................................................................................. 64
Table 4.53 - Student - Technology Interaction Open-ended Responses ............. 66
Table 4.54 - Student — Technology Interaction Rating by Total Group ............... 67

Table 4.55 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type. 67

Table 4.56 — Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Technology Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 68

ix

Table 4.57 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by College
Division ................................................................................................................. 69

Table 4.58 -— Comparing College Division and Student — Technology Interaction

Rating .................................................................................................................... 69
Table 4.59 — Student - Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Age ................. 70
Table 4.60 -— Comparing Age and Student — Technology Interaction Rating ....... 71

Table 4.61 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill 71

Table 4.62 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student — Technology Interaction
Rating .................................................................................................................... 72

Table 4.63 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Gender ............ 72
Table 4.64 - Comparing Gender and Student — Technology Interaction Rating. 73

Table 4.65 - Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/
Certificate .............................................................................................................. 73

Table 4.66 — Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student —

Technology Interaction ......................................................................................... 74
Table 4.67 — Blackboard Use ................................................................................ 76
Table 4.68 -— How Blackboard Was Used ............................................................. 76
Table 4.69 — Comments on Blackboard ................................................................ 77
Table 4.70 — Combined Ratings for the F our Interactions based on Delivery

Type ...................................................................................................................... 78
Table 4.71 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on College
Division ................................................................................................................. 79
Table 4.72 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Age ............. 79
Table 4.73 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Computer
Skills ..................................................................................................................... 80
Table 4.74 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Gender ........ 80

Table 4.75 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Degree/
Certificate .............................................................................................................. 81

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Evolution of Distance Education .................................................. 13

xi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
mm

Distance education programs have been used to reach and serve students since
the development of correspondence courses in the late 19th century (Thomerson and
Smith, 1996). With the widespread adoption of the worldwide web, intemet delivered
courses have provided a vehicle for web-enhanced and virtual learning that is gaining
popularity on college and university campuses. Studies of various types of distance
education programs have repeatedly indicated that cognitive achievement of distance
learning students and traditional classroom students is comparable (ibid, 1996).
However, somepftigse same studies found that distant students often did not enjoy
their classroom experience, did not interact as frequently with fellow students or the
instructor, or did not feel as comfortable in the distance classroom settings as did
students attending a traditional class (ibid, 1996).

In 1989 Michael Moore proposed a theory of distance education based on the
need to accommodate within the classroom three essential interactions: learner-content;
learner-instructor; and leamer-learnegMoore, 1989). In 1994 I-Iilhan, Willis and
Gunawardena augmented Moore’s model with a fourth interaction, learner-interface
(Hillman, et al, 1994). This interaction addresses learners’ accommodation to
technological learning platforms.

For the purpose of this study the term face-to-face instruction is defined as a

“live” classroom setting where no content is delivered in a technology enhanced format.

Hybrid instruction combines both face-to-face and online instruction. Courses delivered

in a hybrid format are those where at least half of the course content is delivered via the
worldwide web, and the course also uses face-to-face instruction periodically
throughout the semester. Online instruction, on the other hand, is a course where the
entire content of the course is delivered via the worldwide web.

It was the interactions in these face-to-face, hybrid, and online instructional
environments that were examined in this study. Multiple studies have examined the
way traditional and virtual classes are similar and different, but none to date have
looked at how a course delivered in these environments impact interaction in the
classroom and the student’s perception of the learning environment.

Sgtement of the Problem

Although the popularity of online instruction has increased in recent years, the
interactions in courses offered online as compared to other instructional delivery
methods has yet to be fully investigated. The importance of interaction in education is
practically a given based on Shale and Ganison’s work 111990 WThey §_t§.t§...t_l_‘§t Bin-Its
most fundamental form education is an interaction between teacher, student, and subject
content (Shale and Garrison, 1990). Interactions between the instructor and learners and

g.-.-41-

interactions arnong learners provide the basis for learning. Without interaction, teaching
becomes simply passing on content as if it were dogmatic truth, and the cycle of
knowledge acquisition to evaluation and validation is nonexistent (ibid, 1990). Sewart
proposes that all educational transactions lie somewhere on an interaction continuum
with learner-instructor interaction at one end and learner-content at the other (Sewart,

1982). Most students desire some degree of interaction with their instructor and fellow

students during a course (Moore and Kearsley, 1996). This may be for the purpose of

getting feedback on their ideas and their learning progress or for social contact (ibid,
1996)

The idea and importance of interaction in distance education is a much-
discussed topic (Hillman, et al., 1994). Baath’s (1979) focus on two-way
communication, Holmberg’s (1988) discussion on the use of “guided didactic
conversation” in textual design, and Moore’s (1989) outline of three specific types of
interaction are but a few examples of the treatment of interaction in the literature of
distance education (as cited in Hillman, et al, 1994). Moore provides a framework for
studying interaction in distance education by identifying the three types of interactions:
learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content. Many of the approaches to
defining interaction in education fit within the models identified by Moore.

The first interaction described by Moore, learner-content, can be defined as the
process of “intellectually interacting with content” to bring about changes in the
learner’s understanding, perspective, or cognitive structures (Moore, 1989). The second
interaction, learner-instructor, examines an instructor’s attempt to motivate and
stimulate the learner and allows for clarification the learner may need regarding the
content of the learning (ibid, 1989). The final interaction, learner-learner, addresses
interactions between one learner and another or among groups of learners with or
without instructor intervention.

Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) added a fourth interaction, learner-
interface, to Moore’s model. A facet of distance education that is increasingly

overlooked is the efi‘ect of high-technology devices on interaction (ibid, 1994). The

leamer-interface interaction is accomplished by means of high-technology devices

which serve as the interface, the point or means of interaction, between the learner and
his or her content, instructor, and fellow learners (ibid, 1994). As technology
increasingly becomes the means of communication between leamer-instructor, learner-
learner and learner-content, the design of these mediating technologies becomes
correspondingly more important (ibid, 1994). The increased use of technology in
instruction and the increasing complexity of this “tool for instruction” has led Hillman,
Willis and Gunawardena (1994) to define this additional model for interaction. Learner-
interface interaction can be defined as the process where the WI with
the technological medium in order to intemet with the content, instructor, or other

Most of the research to date relating to the topic of distance education has been
devoted to the “no significant difference phenomenon:(Russell, 1999). Thomas L.
Russell’s compilation of more than 300 comparative research studies suggests that
students in distance learning courses learn as well as on-campus, face-to-face students
(ibid; 1999). These studies have typically been used by distance educators to defend the
quality of their courses and programs against the view that learning takes place only in a

physical classroom. What is needed now are new approaches that go beyond exarmmng

 

“no significant difference” between classroom and distance education. Studies where

MWMhMMvg. ‘ *m. 9‘... t. —_‘ 'lD-v'w'

 

the learning outcomes are not the only variable and research that investigates student
perceptions of the four interactions mentioned above are needed.
was;
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between

student perceptions of each of the four interactions: leamer-instructor, leamer—learner,

learner-content, and leamer-interface and the type of course in which the student is

enrolled: face-to-face, as a hybrid, and completely online. Data from this research will

‘~___..—_m.
NH...

assist institutions in making informed decisions regardinguthe adoption of technology in

 

instruction based wLwhich delivery methods promote the WW student-instructor /
student-student, student-content, and student-technology interactivity.
Research Questions

Six research questions were used to guide the study. Each of the following
questions was asked to determine student perceptions of the interactions and if age or
gender played a role in how the students responded to the survey.
Research estion 1:
In what ’v‘g/ays do student perceptions diff; when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the
instructor? This question is important in ascertaining how learner-instructor
interactions are impacted by the setting in which the instruction is held. Are instructor-
student interactions impacted favorably by face-to-face contact?
Research estion 2:
In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the other
students? the class? Are interactions among students impacted positively or negatively

in technologically enhanced classes? Are learners who are hesitant to interact during a

face-to-face class less reluctant to communicate with their classmates online?

Research Question 3:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the course
cont/e’gt? This question will provide data regarding accessibility to course content. Do
students perceive that having content available. online enhances their learning? Does
access to this material increase retention of the course content? In what ways does
interaction with course content impact students’ perceptions of going to class?
Research Question 4:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the

technology used in the class? Does tvhevuseofwtec‘hnologyproyidegreater access to

learning, or is the technology a barrier to learning? How has technology changed the

 

way students interact with their courses? Has it been for the better or worse?

Research Qgestion 5:

Is age a differentiating factor when student identified interactions in the three different
classroom settings are compared? If so, in what ways is it differentiating? Do students
who have grown up with technology fare better in a technologically mediated course?
How is technophobia impacted by a student’s age? Are younger students quicker to try
new technologies? Can the age of a student be a‘predictor for student success in an

N—u-u

online or hybrid course?

Research Question 6:

Is gender a differentiating factor when student identified interactions in the three

different classroom settings are compared? If so, in what ways is it differentiating?

Does the gender of a student impact how he or she fares in a technologically mediated
course? Can the gender of a student be a predictor for success in an online or hybrid

course?

I /

l
Implication and Application of the Study 3 1 Id 5 .1

This study will help to advance the research in the area of distance education, as

it explores student perceptions of the four interactions in courses offered face-to-face, as

n

a hYbl'Id, and online. . f‘ \A/ r“, (315'. i’f

Need for the Study / 5' T I

There are only two cases presented in the literature studying the effects of
combining face-to-face instruction with online instruction and offering these as one of
the course delivery methods. More research needs to be completed to determine if
student interactions are actually enhanced through a hybrid type of course delivery. In

addition, K.C. Green’s 2000 Campus Computing Survey reported that assisting faculty

.- -.——-—---'-

in integrating technology into instruction was the single most important information

W n-.-'

r‘"""—’ .LM-F -"-FI'

technology issue facing higher education institutions today. Students are demanding

 

access to educational opportunities anytime and anywhere. For the opportunity to be

effective, student perceptions of the four interactions need to be examined.

Definition of Term_s

Distance education delivery methods range from web-supported or web-
enhanced instruction to complete virtual or online delivery. For the purposes of this
study the following terms will be used to define these variations.
Face-to-face Instruction
Face-to-face instruction is a course that is delivered at the same time and the same place
with the instructor and student present.
Hybrid Instruction
Hybrid instruction is a course that uses both a face-to-face and an online component,
often referred to as combination lecture/intemet courses.
Online Instruction
Online instruction is a course which is delivered totally virtually via the worldwide web.
The instructor and students interact at different times and from different locations.
Blackboard Course Mmement System
The Blackboard Course Management System is the web-based course management tool
that enables online instruction in any of its delivery modes; web-enhanced, hybrid, or
online.
Student-Instructor Interaction
Student-instructor interactions are those interactions between the student and the
instructor. Moore (1989) presents this interaction as interaction between the learner and
the expert who prepared the subject material or some other expert acting as the

instructor.

Sargent-Student Intergtion

Student-student interactions are those interactions between students in a course. Moore
(1989) presents this interaction as inter-leamer interaction between one learner and
other learners, alone or in-group settings, with or without the real-time presence of an
instructor.

Student-Content Interaction

Student-content interactions are those interactions between the students and course
content. Moore (1989) presents this interaction as interaction between the learner and
the content or subject of study. Moore (1989) stipulates there cannot be education
without this interaction.

Stadent-Technologv Interaction

Student-technology interactions are those interactions between the students and the
course management system. This is the interaction Hillman, et al (1994) presents as
leamer-interface. The learner-interface interaction provides access to instruction, and

this access permits students to participate in the other interactions

Outline of th_e Study
The research study is presented in five chapters. Chapter one has presented the
problem, chapter two consists of a review of related literature, chapter three presents the
methodology, and chapter four presents a detailed description of the results of the study.

Finally, chapter five provides the conclusions and recommendations of the study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW ()1? THE LITERATURE
“ Introduction

Th literaturd review is presented in this chapter. Sections include: Definition
of Distance Education, History of Distance Education, Distance Education Theory, and
Distance Education Theory Related to Interactivity.

Definition of Distance Education

Michael G. Moore, Penn State University, defines the term “distance education”
as teaching-learning relationships characterized by separation between learners and
teachers. While it is true that distance education is the universe of all educational
activities in which learners are separated by space and/or by time, what is of interest and
importance to practitioners and theorists alike is the effect that this distance has on
instruction, on the learners, the teachers, the forms of communication and interaction,
the curriculum, and the management of the program (Moore and Kearsley, 1996). The
transaction that we call distance education is the interplay between people who are
teachers and learners in environments that have the special characteristic of being
separate from one another and a consequent set of special teaching and learning
behaviors (ibid, 1996). It is the physical distance that leads to a communication gap, a
psychological space of potential misunderstandings between the behaviors of instructors
and those of the learners, and this is the transactional distance (ibid, 1996).

In their book Distance Education — A Systems View, Moore and Kearsley uses

the following definition of distance education:

10

Distance education is planned learning that normally occurs in a different place

from teaching and as a result rgguires special techniques of course design,

special instructional techniques, Special methods of communication by electronic

and other technology, as well as special organizational and administrative

arrangements.

(Moore and Kearsley, 1996)

Because distance education provides instruction in places and times that are
convenient for students rather than teacher or teaching institutions, many individuals use
the term “distance learning” in place of distance education. Moore understands the

authors’ rationale for using the terms. However, he prefers distance education since

there is an emphasis not only on the learning but on teaching as well.”

”H—M- m5.

_‘

Moore goes on to emphasize that distance education is much more than simply
using technology in a conventional classroom. It is about the consequences of using
technology on such subjects as course design and delivery, interaction and learning,
management, and organization (ibid, 1996).

History of Distapce Education

The history of distance education in the United States begins with courses
delivered by mail. Originally known as correspondence study, the method was called
“home study” by private, for-profit schools and “independent study” by the universities
(Moore and Kearsley, 1996). The earliest documented home study course offered in the
United States was in shorthand.

Study at home became interactive with the development of cheap and reliable

-___ H... ......
war-.0

mail services that permitted students to correspond with their instructors (ibid, 1996).
The academic respectability of correspondence teaching was formally recognized in

1883 when the State of New York authorized the Chautauqua Institute to award degrees

11

through this method (ibid, 1996). In 1890 the Colliery Engineer School of Mines began
to advertise a home study course on mine safety and soon began to offer other courses.
In 1891 the Colliery Engineer School of Mines became the International
Correspondence Schools (IC S) providing correspondence courses to railroad workers.
Today ICS is the largest commercial provider of home study programs in the United
States (ibid, 1996).

However, the history of distance education did not begin in the United States but
rather in Great Britain. Isaac Pitrnan began to teach shorthand by correspondence in
1840 soon after the invention of the “Penny Post,” which delivered a letter anywhere in
the kingdom for a penny (ibid, 1996). In 1856 a Frenchman, Charles Toussaint, and a
German, Gustav Langenscheidt, began to teach languages by correspondence (ibid,
1996)

The late 19605 and early 19708 was a time of critical change in distance
education. It was a time of experimenting with new media in education and new
instructional techniques, which led to the beginning of new educational theorizing (ibid,
1996). The two most important developments were the University of Wisconsin’s
Articulated Instructional Media Project (AIM), funded by the Carnegie Corporation
from 1964 — 1968, and Britain’s Open University. The purpose of the AIM project was
to find ways of articulating various communication media for teaching off-campus
students (ibid, 1996). In 1967 the British government set up a committee to plan a
revolutionary new educational institution. It would be a nationwide university system

with no resident students. It would be large, well funded, and would employ the fullest

12

range of communications technologies to teach a full university undergraduate
curriculum to any adult who wanted such an education (ibid, 1996).

The advent and adoption of various broadcast media, radio and television,
became the next wave of technological enhancement in distance education. Recently
computer network, multimedia, and now the widespread use of the world-wide-web
have allowed access to educational opportunities anytime and anyplace. These
technologies have had the largest impact on how students can access instructional
content from across the world. The most recent technologies are based on combinations
of computers and telecommunications. These technologies include computer
conferencing, audio-graphic conferencing, and two-way videoconferencing (ibid, 1996).
Access to large-scale course management systems has allowed educational institutions
to put course content online which can be accessed from a computer connected to the
intemet regardless of where that computer is located.

In their book Distance Education — A Systems View, Moore and Kearsley
provide the following figure, Figure 2.1 — The Evolution of Distance Education, to
illustrate the evolution of distance education:

Figure 2.1 The Evolution of Distance Education

 

 

 

 

 

Correspondence/ First Generation
Independent Study
Open Universities -
Second Generation

 

 

Broadcast!
Teleconferencing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Networks/ , ,
Multimedia Third Generation

 

 

 

13

Distance Education Theory

Although various forms of distance education have existed since the 18405 and
attempts at theoretical explanations of distance education have been undertaken for
decades by leading scholars in the field, the need for a theory of distance education has
been largely unfulfilled until recently (Sirnonson, et al, 1999). Holmberg (1986) stated
that theoretical considerations give distance educators a touchstone against which
decisions can be made with confidence (as cited in Simonson, et al, 1999). In 1988,
Homberg reiterated the need for theory stating that,

One consequence of such understanding and explanation will be that hypotheses

can be developed and submitted to falsification attempts. This will lead to

insights telling us what in distance education is to be expected under what
conditions and circumstances, thus paving the way for corroborated practical
methodological application.

(as cited in Sirnonson, et al, 1999)

As early as 1972 Moore expressed concern about the progress of distance
education being hindered by lack of attention to what he called the ‘macro factors’
(Sirnonson, et al, 1999). Moore indicated that there is a need to describe and define the
field of distance education, to discriminate between its various components, and to
identify the critical elements of the various forms of learning and teaching (ibid, 1999).
Keegan (1995) reaffirmed the continued need for a theory of distance education by
stating that a firmly based theory of distance education is one that can provide the
touchstone against which decision; — political, financial, educational, and social -c
be made with confidence (as cited in Simronson, et al, 1999). Theory would thus cease

to be an ad hoc response to a set of conditions arising in crisis situations of problem-

solving characteristic of the field of education (Simonson, et al, 1999). In summary, the

14

need for distance education theory is predicated on the need for a set of related
hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict occurrences.

In his book The Foundations of Distance Education (1986), Keegan classified
distance education theories into three groups: theories of independence and autonomy,
theories of industrialization of teaching, and theories of interaction and communication
(as cited in Simonson, et al, 1999). A fourth category seeks to explain distance
education through a synthesis of existing communication and diffusion theories as well
as education philosophies (Simonson, et al, 1999).

Holmberg’s (1989) theory of distance education, what he calls “guided didactic
conversation,” falls into the general category of communication theory (as cited in
Simonson, et al, 1999). Holmberg noted that his theory had explanatory value in
relating teaching effectiveness to the actual exchange of questions, answers, and
arguments in mediated communication (ibid, 1999). Holmberg offers seven background
assumptions for his theory.

First, the core of teaching consists of interaction between the teaching and
learning parties. Simulated interaction through subject matter presentation in pre-
produced courses can subsume part of the interaction by causing students to consider
different views, approaches, and solutions and generally to interact with a course.
Second, emotional involvement in the study and feelings of personal relation between
the teaching and learning parties is likely to contribute to learning pleasure. Third,
learning pleasure supports student motivation. Fourth, participation in decision-making
is favorable to student motivation. Fifth, strong student motivation facilitates learning.

Sixth, a fiiendly, personal tone and easy access to the subject matter contributes to

15

learning pleasure, supports student motivation, and, thus, facilitates learning. Seventh,
the effectiveness of teaching is demonstrated by students’ learning of what has been
taught (as cited in Simonson, et al, 1999).

According to Hohnberg, several statements characterize distance education.
First, all learning concerned with the acquisition of cognitive knowledge and cognitive
skills as well as affective learning and some psychomotor learning is effectively
provided for by distance education. Second, distance education is based on learning as
an individual activity. Learning is guided and supported by noncontiguous means.
Third, distance education is open to behaviorist, cognitive, constructivist, and other
modes of learning. Fourth, personal relations, study pleasure, and empathy between
students and those supporting them (tutors, counselors) are central to learning in
distance education. Feelings of empathy and belonging promote students’ motivation to
learn, influencing learning favorably. And finally, while it is an effective mode of
training, distance education runs the risk of leading to the mere fact learning and
reproduction of accepted ‘truths’. However, it can be organized and carried out in such
a way that students are encouraged to search, criticize, and identify positions of their
own (as cited in Simonson, et al, 1999).

Distance Education Theory Related to Interactivity

In 1989 Michael Moore proposed a theory of distance education based on the
need to accommodate within the distant classroom three essential interactions: leamer-
content, leamer-instructor, and learner-leamer (Moore, 1989). The first type of
interaction is between the learner and the content or subject of study. This is a defining

characteristic of education. Without it there cannot be education, since it is the process

16

of intellectually interacting with content that results in changes in the learner’s
understanding, the learner’s perspective, or the cognitive structures of the learner’s mind
(ibid, 1989). Some learning programs are solely content-interactive in nature. They are
one-way communications with a subject expert, sometimes assisted by an instructional
designer, intended to help distant learners in their study of the subject (ibid, 1989). No
other professional teaching expertise is provided, and learning is largely self-directed.

The second type of interaction, regarded as essential by many educators and as
highly desirable by many learners, is interaction between the learner and the expert who
prepared the subject material or some other expert acting as instructor (ibid, 1989). In
this interaction, distance instructors attempt to achieve aims held in common with all
other educators. First having planned or been given a curriculum, a program of content
to be taught, they seek to stimulate or at least maintain the student’s interest in what is
to be taught, to motivate the student to learn, to enhance and maintain the learner’s
interest, including self-direction and self-motivation (ibid, 1989). The instructor is
especially valuable in responding to the learners’ application of new knowledge.
Whatever self-directed learners can do alone for self-motivation and interaction with
content presented, they are vulnerable at the point of application (ibid, 1989). They do
not know enough about the subject to be sure that they are (1) applying it correctly, (2)
applying it as extensively as possible or desirable, or (3) aware of all the potential areas
of application (ibid, 1989).

It is the third form of interaction, a new dimension of distance education, which
will be a challenge to our thinking and practice in the 19903 and beyond. This is inter-

learner interaction between one learner and other learners, alone or in group settings,

17

with or without the real-time presence of an instructor (ibid, 1989). Through the history
of education the class or educational group has more often than not been organized for
reasons which have nothing to do with learners’ needs (ibid, 1989). At present many
classes are organized because the class is the only organizational form known to most
teachers and because in the short term, though not usually the long term, it is the
cheapest way of delivering the teaching acts of stimulation, presentation, application,
evaluation, and student support (ibid, 1989).

Recently, Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena augmented Moore’s model with a
fourth interaction, leamer-interface (Hillman, et al, 1994). This interaction addresses
learners’ accommodation to technological learning platforms. The leamer-interface
interaction provides access to instruction, and access permits learners to participate in
the other essential learner interactions (ibid, 1994). If the leamer-interface interaction
fails to occur, students might not participate at any level in other learner interactions
(ibid, 1994). In effect, adequate and reliable leamer-interface interaction is the keystone
to learner involvement. If it fails, learning fails. A desirable outcome of the leamer-
interface interaction is to render the technology user friendly and transparent (ibid,
1994).

Wagner (1994) has suggested that future considerations of interaction and
interactivity should draw upon the results of research from four domains. The first
domain Wagner suggests is learning and learning theory in order to better understand
human learning capacity. The second domain Wagner presents is in the area of
instructional theory where she feels it is necessary to base general performance

ilnprovement interventions. The third domain is related to instructional design, so

18

researchers and practitioners can tailor interventions that address situational

contingencies. Finally, the fourth domain related to instructional delivery is designed to

encourage the generation of strategies for using interactive delivery systems to achieve

interaction in instructional settings. Distance educators may be well served by

examining these arenas of activity to determine how interaction has been accommodated

(Wagner, 1994). Table 2.1 - Examples of Learning Theories, Instructional Theories,

Instructional Design Methods, and Instructional Delivery to be Related to the Construct

of Interaction, elaborates on each of these arenas by relating relevant research on

interaction to the activity being emphasized within that arena (ibid, 1994).

Table 2.1 - Examples of Learning Theories, Instructional Theories, Instructional
Design Methods, and Instructional Delivery to be Related to the Construct of

 

 

 

Interaction
Learning Theories Instructional Theories Instructional Instructional
Design Delivery

Empirically define and Prescribe interventions Tailors learning and Deals with the

describe human learned to improve learning and performance media and methods

capabilities. performance. prescriptions to fit of transmitting
situational contingencies. information and
instruction

Examples 0f learning Examples of 0 Assessment determines 0 Product concerns

theories include but are instructional theories design parameters; related to

not limited to include but are not analysis identifies technology

0 Behaviorism limited to “actuals” and systems,

0 Perception-based 0 Component Display “optimals” hardware, and
knowledge Theory 0 Design sets desired software tend to
representation 0 Elaboration Theory outcomes, strategies be concerned

0 Meaning-based o ARCS Motivational and tactics, critical with
knowledge Theory resources, project interactivity.
representation management, and 0 Process concerns

0 Memory encoding and development activities related to
retrieval, elaboration, needed to move from technology
reconstruction actual state to optimal integration

0 Problem solving, state. strategies and
reasoning, and 0 Evaluation looks at application
creative thinking system efficacy at tactics tend to be

formative and concerned with
summative stagti interaction.

 

 

 

 

19

(Wagner, 1994)

 

Wagner provides practitioners the best model to refer to when she presents her
model of how interaction is accommodated based on research in several domains:
learning theory, instructional theory, instructional design, and instructional delivery. By
understanding the unique paradigm of distance education and the role interaction plays,
instructors will be assured success with students regardless of delivery method.

Distance learning offers many advantages to formal classroom instruction in the
ability to reach geographically dispersed or time constrained students. Michael Moore’s
distance learning theory of three essential interactions learner-content, learner-
instructor, and learner-leamer provides practitioners a framework on which to build an
understanding of the importance of accommodating students’ needs within the distant
learning classroom including hybrid courses. In addition, Hillman, Willis and
Gunawardena’s augmentation of Moore’s model with a fourth interaction leamer-
interface, which address learners’ accommodation to technological learning platforms,

further adds to this fiamework of the importance of interaction in distance education.

20

 

this
Date

Cillt

and
qua]
ques
ratir
intrc

The

face

Com

CHAPTER III
METHODOLGY
Introduction
The methods for data collection and analysis used in this study are presented in
this chapter. Sections include: Introduction, Research Design: Population/and Sample, J: r:

Data Collection, Research Questions, Validity, Reliability, Instrument Development, (f

a f as.
In pr, ,(

Criteria for Data Analysis, Statistical Procedures and Limitation of this Type of Study. 1’: : ‘
Research Design
The study employed a causal-comparative design and used a survey instrument
and a focus group to collect the necessary data. This provided both quantitative and
qualitative data. A survey instrument (see Appendix II) containing open-ended

questions and Likert-type items was used to collect information regarding the students’

“1’

f"

rating of the four interactions. A survey cover letter (see Appendix V) was sent
introducing the study. The focus group was used as a second method of data collection.
The focus group instrument and informed consent for focus group form can be found in
Appendix III and IV at the end of this study.
Population and Sample

The population for this study included students who attended seven courses at
Lansing Community College which were offered via all three instructional methods
face-to-face, hybrid, and online during the fall semester of 2001. This population
comprises three groups of students who took one of the seven courses offered either

face-to-face, as a hybrid, or in an online environment.

21

" r
l

' I

l
l ,/
t ._

,
F/
, r.

f. I

Ccuoptsar‘ hair‘wé‘flfiz 5" '

Table 3.1 - Course Enrollments by Delivery Method, lists the total student
enrollments in the face-to-face, hybrid, and online sections.

Table 3.1 - Course Enrollments by Delivery Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Title Face-to-Face Hybrid Online Enrollment
Enrollment Enrollment
Accounting210 447 14 25
Chemistry 151 228 12 18
Comp Info Sys 203 28 19 35
History 212 321 16 39
Management 225 64 12 17
Marketing 200 105 14 20
Psychology 200 777 19 84
Total 1880 106 238

 

 

 

 

The largest population is found in the face-to—face courses, then online, and
finally the hybrid courses, which had a total of 106 enrollments for Fall 2001 . Due to
the large size of the population and the disproportionate number of students in the
traditional classroom group, a stratified sample using the equal allocation method was
used. Using random numbers, 106 face-to-face student and 106 online students were
randomly selected for the sample. They joined all 106 hybrid students used in the study.

Out of a sample size of 318, 53 surveys were returned for a response rate of
166184. In addition ten students returned the postcard indicating interest in attending
the focus group, Out of the ten who indicated interest in attending the focus group, five
actually attended the focus group. Reasons cited for not being able to attend included
inconvenient time, family/other commitments, and living too far away to attend.

Due to the small number of survey respondents, the study results cannot be

generalized beyond the group of individuals who participated in the survey. The

22

 

distribution of respondents across different factors was good, however the overall
response rate was too low to draw a great deal of meaning from the data.
Data Collection

Two methods for data collection were used in the study. A survey instrument
(see Appendix II) containing open-ended questions was used to gather information on
how the four interactions, instructor-student, student-student, content-student,
technology-student, were encouraged. The survey also included a Likert-type item to
collect information regarding the students’ rating of each of the four interactions.
Demographic information regarding age, computer skill, pursuance of a
degree/certificate, and sex was collected from participants in the study.

A focus group was used as a second method of data collection. One focus group
consisting of five people responded to the survey that they were interested and attended
the focus group. Data from the study was shared with each of these participants, and
their feedback to the data presented was recorded via cassette and by a recorder.

Krueger and Casey (2000) suggests that a focus group should be homogeneous
and should range in size from four to twelve participants to allow individuals to discuss
the questions presented by the researcher. The focus group was conducted to detect
patterns and trends from the data gathered from the survey. The focus group interviews
were taped and transcribed, serving as the primary data sources. Field notes and any
products created by the interviewees were consulted as secondary data. Two researchers
attended the focus group, one to moderate the interview while the other took field notes.
The following questions were asked to the focus group participants:

1. What meaning/understanding can you draw from the data presented?

23

2. In what ways is the data different from or the same as what you expected or
experienced?

3. In what ways can this data help instructors do a better job?

Analysis of data followed the procedure set forth by Krueger and Casey (2000)
and involved three phases. First, the researchers discussed the interview immediately
after the participants departed to identify key observations which surfaced during the
session. In the second phase, raw data fi'om the interview transcripts were individually

analyzed. Thirdly, patterns of evidence were determined and documented.

 

Research Questions, Validity. Reliability. and Instrument Development

The study employed a causal-comparative design and used a survey instrument
and focus groups to collect the necessary data. MEMCIJPSWPQEEPS 111m

similar research projects were used to identify possible statements for the instrument.

“Wm-u...

 

—‘.-__--_...
w “hm-“h-..” -n- .. .7~,.‘- .. ......‘_-—:—_. -—--- ..——-- - cw—t-no-ul- WI-r—m-n—r—“r‘

Four cluster areas were identified foggaestion development rgvolying argpnd stadent-_
mwm,-\_-MUHMI I MMMMM AH“

‘4

instructor interaction, student-student interaction, mdent-congatggyggn and

 

 

student-technology interaction. Overall cluster means were calculated to ensure internal
WW...

consistency between the four interaction questions. Open-ended questions asked

students to describe the various interactions described above -describe your interactions

with the instructor, with classmates, with the course material, with the technology.

The survey instrument used a Likert-type scale to measure student responses.

Because quantitative data such as group means can be generated from a Likert—type

 

scale, it is useful when comparing responses between and among groups used in the
study. Borg and Gall (1989) explain that the Likert technique is usually the easiest

method for developing an attitudinal measurement instrument. The five point Likert-

24

type scale was used to ascertain if the students felt the interaction was Excellent (5),
Poor (1) or fell between these two points by rating each interaction in the survey.
Critgia for Data Analysis
A set of criteria was defined to assist in the analysis of data. These criteria,
defined in table 3.2, provide discrete qualitative descriptors for all means derived
through the study.

Table 3.2 - Quantitative Score Representation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Term * Range of Scores
Poor 1.0 — 1.5
Not Good 1.5 — 2.5
Average 2.5 - 3.5
Good 3.5 — 4.5
Excellent 4.5 - 5.0

 

 

 

 

As is shown in Table 3.2, mean scores between 1.0 and 1.5 are defined as
“poor,” mean scores between 1.5 and 2.5 are defined as “not good,” mean scores
between 2.5 and 3.5 are defined as “average,” mean scores between 3.5 and 4.5 are
defined as “good,” and mean scores between 4.5 and 5.0 are defined as “excellent.”

Statistical Procedures

One-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) tests were first used to analyze the data,

 

 

 

 

 

 

however these tests did not to appear to show differences therefore paired t -tests were

 

used to yifiemwcre realnfieeases.tb§misht has 11.0! appeared iathe ANQYA-

--.. .or
~I‘

This procedure is described by Hopkins when he states that, “. . .there’s nothing to say
that the p value for the overall effect is any more valid than the p value for individual
contrasts. So if you’ve set up your study with a particular contrast in mind go ahead and

do that contrast, regardless of the p value for the overall effect. Performing the pre-

25

planned contrast does not have to be contingent upon obtaining significance for the
overall effec .” (Hopkins, 2000)
Limitations of this Type of Study

Based on previous literature and research studies, the Institute for Higher
Education Policy released a report to the American Federation of Teachers and the
National Education Association regarding the effectiveness of distance education
(IHEP, 1999). The report titled “What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary
Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education” was
commissioned by the National Education Association (NBA) and The American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) to examine the research on distance education. What’s
the difference between distance learning and traditional classroom-based instruction?
This question has become increasingly prominent, as technology has made distance
learning much more common. This report reviews a broad array of research and articles
published in the last decade to determine the overall quality of the analysis, the gaps in
the research, and the implications of the research for the future. The report finds that
the overall quality of the research is questionable and thereby renders many of the
findings inconclusive. Numerous gaps in the research require more investigation and
information. These gaps include the fact that the research emphasizes student outcomes
for individual courses rather than for a total academic program; does not adequately
explain why the dropout rates of distance learners are higher; does not address the
quality of digital “libraries”; and does not take into account differences among students

in how they learn. Implications of the research findings on college access and the

26

“human factor” in learning also are included. This report reviewed the research and

came to the follow conclusions:

1.

Of the hundreds of articles written on distance learning, only a small
percentage contains original, quantitative research.

The bulk of these quantitative studies shows that there is no significant
difference in the learning outcomes between online and conventional
classes (see Russell 1999).

Most of these studies are methodologically flawed in one or more of the
following ways:

a.

There is no attempt to control for extraneous variables,
which in turn limits the ability to demonstrate cause and
effect.

Subjects are not randomly selected and thus the ability to
generalize from these studies is compromised.

The validity and reliability of the instruments used to
measure student outcomes and attitudes are questionable.

“Reactive effects” - feelings of students and faculty are
not controlled for or explored.

Reported outcomes are for single courses and not for
programs.

Differences among students are not taken into account.

Dropout rates for online courses are not explained or
taken into consideration.

Student learning styles relating to technology are not
considered.

There are no theoretical or conceptual frameworks
utilized.
(Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1999)

This research attempts to address many of these concerns with this current

project. Letter i (above) indicates that in many studies no theoretical or conceptual

frameworks are utilized. Although the development of theory is in its infancy with

27

regard to online or hybrid instruction, there is a growing body of literature that tests and
advances the state of distance education theory in this area.
Chapter IV — Findings and Chapter V, Conclusions and Recommendations,

helps to address other issues raised by the Institute for Higher Education Policy report.

28

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Introduction
The study findings are presented in this chapter. Sections include: Course

Information, Delivery Type, Demographics, Student - Instructor Interaction, Student -
Student Interaction, Student — Content Interaction, Student - Technology Interaction,
Blackboard Data and a Summary of Survey Findings and Additional Comments from
the Focus Group. The survey question results are presented in the same order as they
were asked. In addition the focus group responses are included for each question under
that question’s section in this chapter.

Course Information

 

The specific courses and numbers of students who participated in the survey for
each course are detailed in Table 4.1 — Distribution and Percentage of Total
Participation of Study Participants According to Course.

Table 4.1 - Distribution and Percentage of Total Participation of Study

Participants According to Course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course - Number of Study Percent of Total
, , Participants

Accounting 210 6 1 1.3
Computer Information Systems 6 11.3
for Business 203

Chemistry 151 7 13.2
Management 225 7 13.2
Psychology 200 7 13.2
History 212 9 17.0
Marketing 200 11 20.8
Total 53 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

29

Study participants were distributed across all seven courses that were used for
the study. Table 4.1 shows that the number of study participants in each of the seven
courses ranged from six to eleven. There were six study participants, 11.3% of the total,
in both Accounting 210 and Computer Information Systems 203. Seven study
participants, 13.2% of the total, were in Chemistry 151, Management 225 and
Psychology 200. Nine study participants, 17.0% of the total, were in History 212 and
eleven study participants, 20.8% of the total, in Marketing 200.

Table 4.2 — Distribution and Percentage of Total Participation of Study
Participants According to College Division groups the courses according to the College
Division in which it is administratively located. The number of study participants are
shown according to each College Division.

Table 4.2 — Distribution and Percentage of Total Participation of Study

Participants According to College Division

 

 

Division ‘ , Course Number of Study
. Participants ‘(%)
Business and Media Careers 0 Accounting 210 30 (56.6%)
Computer

Information Systems
for Business 203

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Management 225
0 Marketing 200
Liberal Studies 0 Chemistry 151 23 (43.4%)
0 Psychology 200
0 History 212
Total 53 (100.0%)

 

Study participants were distributed across two of the five College Divisions.
Table 4.2 shows the number of study participants in each of these two College

Divisions. The Business and Media Careers Division had 30 study participants, 56.6%

30

of the total, and the Liberal Studies Division had 23 study participants, 43.4% of the
total.

Deliveg Type
The delivery type and numbers of students who participated in the survey for
each delivery type is detailed in Table 4.3 — Distribution of Study Participants
According to Delivery Type.

Table 4.3 — Distribution of Study Participants According to Delivery Type

 

 

 

 

 

Delivery Type ‘ Number of Study Perfcent of Total
I! . ' ‘ , Participants '
Face-to-face 17 32.1
Hybrid 1 5 28 .3
Online 21 39.6
Total 53 1 00.0

 

 

 

 

 

The above table shows that the study participants were distributed across the
three delivery types. There were 17 study participants, 32.1% of the total, in face-to-
face delivered courses. Fifieen study participants, 28.3% of the total, were in hybrid
delivered courses and 21 study participants, 39.6% of the total, were in online delivered
courses.

Demographics

The demographics section of this study provides additional information on the
study participants. These data include the study participants’ age, computer skills,
gender, and if they were pursuing a degree/certificate at the time they retmned the
survey.

Each study participants’ age and the average age of the entire sample is detailed

in Table 4.4 - Study Participants’ Age.

31

Table 4.4 - Study Participants’ Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age Number of Study Percent of Total
Participants

18 2 3.8
19 4 7.5
20 6 11.3
21 5 9.4
22 2 3.8
23 3 5.7
24 4 7.5
25 2 3.8
26 1 1.9
27 2 3.8
28 l 1.9
29 1 19
30 3 5.7
32 3 5.7
35 3 5.7
37 l 1.9
39 2 3.8
40 2 3.8
41 l 1.9
45 1 1.9
47 1 1.9
50 1 1.9
57 l 1.9
58 1 1.9

Total 53 100

Average Age 28.62

Standard

Deviation 10.03

 

Table 4.4 - Study Participants’ Age shows that the study participants’ ages
ranged from 18 to 58 years. The average age of participants in this study was 28.62
years, which is only slightly greater than 27.5 years, the average age of the general
student population at the college. As can be expected, the standard deviation was high,

10.03, indicating that the average age shows considerable variance. This can be

32

 

considered typical for the non-traditional group of students who enroll at a community
college.

Table 4.5 — Study Participants’ Age According to Delivery Type shows the
number of students and their mean age and standard deviation for each of the three

delivery types.

Table 4.5 - Study Participants’ Age According to Delivery Type

 

 

 

 

4. Delivery'Type Number of . Mean Age ' Standard

, , , _, Students ' , , . .. Deviation ,
Face-to-face 17 25.88 7.18
Hybrid 15 31.53 14.12
Online 2 1 28.76 8 .24

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.5 shows that the average age of the online students, 28.76, was very
similar to the average age of the entire sample which was 28.62. The average age of
face-to-face students, 25.88, was less than the entire sample and the average age of
hybrid students, 31.53, was more than the entire sample.

Table 4.6 shows the results when multiple T-tests are applied to these data to
examine if differences in mean age according to delivery type may have occurred by
chance.

Table 4.6 - Examining Differences in Study Participants’ Age According to

 

 

 

 

Delivery Type
Delivery Type - t l ' df ’ F ’ Sigu
Face-to-face to -1.453 30 9.330 .157
Hybrid
Face-to-face to -1.133 36 .210 .265
Online
Hybrid to Online .742 34 7.402 .463

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

Table 4.6 shows that the level of significance is .157 for face-to-face compared
to hybrid, .265 for face-to-face compared to online, and .463 for hybrid compared to
online. This indicates there is no difference between the study participants’ age and
delivery type.

Table 4.7 — Study Participant Computer Skills shows the reported skill level for
the study participants.

Table 4.7 -- Study Participant Computer Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skill Level ~ Number of Students Percent of Total I
Novice 2 3.8
Intermediate 21 39.6
Advanced 24 45.3
Expert 6 l 1.3
Total 53 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The study participants reported having computer skills that ranged from novice
to expert. Few of the study participants indicated they had Novice Skills, 3.8%, or
Expert Skills, 11.3%. Most of the study participants, 84.9%, indicated they had
Intermediate or Advanced Computer Skills.

Data regarding computer skills were grouped to provide for more meaningful
analyses. Table 4.8 shows the distribution of students according to delivery type when
Novice and Intermediate skill levels are combined into a Low Skill Level category and
Advanced and Expert skill levels are combined into a High Skill Level category

Table 4.8 -Study Participant Computer Skills by Delivery Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skill Level Face-to-Face Hybrid Online , Total. 7 ,
Low 6 8 9 23 (43.4%)
High 1 1 7 12 30 (56.6%)
Total 17 15 21 53 (100%)

 

 

 

 

34

Table 4.8 — Study Participant Computer Skills by Delivery Type shows that six
face-to-face study participants indicated they had low computer skills and eleven face-
to-face study participants indicated they had high computer skills. Eight hybrid study
participants indicated they had low computer skills and seven hybrid participants
indicated they had high computer skills. Nine online study participants indicated they
had low computer skills and twelve online study participants indicated they had high
computer skills. More of the study participants indicated High Skill, 56.6%, than
indicated Low Skill, 43.4%).

The gender of the students who participated in the survey is detailed in Table 4.9
- Study Participant Gender.

Table 4.9 - Study Participant Gender

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Number of Students Percent of Total -
Male 11 20.8
Female 41 77.4
Missing 1 1.9
Total 53 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

The above table shows that 41, or 77.4%, out of a total of 53 students who
participated in the study were female. Though more female students are enrolled at the
college, 52.4% of total enrollment is female, the gender distribution for the study shows
a skewing toward female participation.

The number of study participants who indicated they were seeking a degree or a
certificate program at the college is detailed in Table 4.10 — Study Participants Pursuing

a Degree or Certificate.

35

Table 4.10 — Study Participants Pursuing a Degree or Certificate

 

 

 

 

 

Degpee or Certificate Number of Students Percent of Total
Yes 29 54.7
No 23 43.4
Missing 1 1.9
Total 53 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in the above table, twenty-nine students who participated in the study,
54.7% of the total, indicated they were seeking a degree or certificate. Though this
percentage appears to be low in relation to what might be expected in higher education,
it is not low for a community college that has a mission that is split between higher
education credentialing and specific job/skill development. For the entire community
college, 55.9% of the students were pursuing a degree or certificate which is close to the

percentage of study participants who indicated they were seeking a degree or certificate.

36

Student — Instructor Interaction

Survey question one asked study participants to indicate in what ways interaction
between the instructor and students was encouraged in their course. The students were
given space to provide an open-ended response and then were asked to rate the
interaction they had witnessed in their course fi'om one (poor) to five (excellent). All
responses were grouped and categorized. Those open-ended responses with two or
more responses are included in the Open Ended Responses section of this chapter. A
complete listing of the open-ended responses for each of the interactions can be found in
Appendix I of this study.
Qmp Ended Rammes

A total of 23 study participants provided an open-ended response to the question,
“In what ways was interaction between the instructor and students encouraged?”
Responses were grouped to allow qualitative analysis. Those responses that were given
by two or more respondents are shown in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 - Student - Instructor Interaction Open-ended Responses

 

 

 

 

a... ‘— 7 .7 f TV Category of Response ’1 ,_- . Vi ; Number of Students ‘
Asking/answering questions 10

Lecture, class discussion 5

Oflice hours 2

 

 

 

 

As shown in Table 4.11, the greatest category of response, indicated by 10 study
participants, was “Asking/answering questions.” This form of student — instructor
interaction is a very basic educational technique that, according to these data, is
apparent in face-to-face instruction as well as instruction that is offered online. A

second category of response, “Lecture, class discussion,” is also seen as a very basic

37

educational technique that was identified by the study participants. No category of
response was indicated by the study participants that could be considered a unique form
of student — instructor interaction for online learning such as emails, phone calls, etc.
Student — Instructor Interaction Rating

Table 4.12 — Student — Instructor Interaction Rating by Total Group, shows the
distribution of study participant ratings and the overall mean rating for the student —
instructor interaction.

Table 4.12 - Student - Instructor Interaction Rating by Total Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Number of Reponses
1 Poor 4
2 6
3 5
4 l 8
5 Excellent 20
Mean 3.83

 

 

 

 

Table 4.12 shows that the mean rating for student — instructor interaction for the
total group is 3.83. Overall, study participants felt the interaction between the instructor
and students was “Good” based on the Criteria for Data Analysis defined for this study.
Delivery Tyne and Student — Instructor Interaction Ra_ti_ng§

Table 4.13 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type,
shows the calculated mean rating by delivery type.

Table 4.13 — Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type

Face-to-face 3.58

3.93
Online 3.95

 

38

Table 4.13 shows that all three groups rated the student — instructor interaction
as “Good.” F ace-to-face students rated the student — instructor interaction 3.58, hybrid
students rated the interaction as 3.93, and online students rated the interaction as 3.95.
Hybrid and online courses, those that use distance education technology, appear to show
higher average ratings than face-to-face courses.

The mean student - instructor interaction ratings for each of the delivery types
were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A
group of 3 T-tests were used to compare mean ratings between face-to-face and online,
face-to-face and hybrid, and hybrid and online. These findings are shown in Table 4.14
- Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Instructor Interaction Rating.

Table 4.14 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Instructor Interaction

Rating

 

d F Sig:
Face-to- -.886 36 .35 .381
face and
online
Face-to- -.747 30 .461 .3441
face and
hybrid
Hybrid -.044 34| .006 .965
and
online

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.14 shows there are no differences for student — instructor interaction that

can be attributed to delivery type.

39

College Division and Student — Instructor Interjgtion Ratings
Table 4.15 shows the calculated mean student — instructor interaction rating by
College Division.

Table 4.15 — Student - Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by College Division

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ' . Division . Student - Instructor
Business and Media 3.97
Careers
Liberal Studies 3.65

 

Table 4.15 shows that study participants in Business and Media Careers courses
appeared to rate the student — instructor interaction slightly higher than study
participants in Liberal Studies courses. The mean rating for Business and Media
Careers was 3.97 and the mean rating for Liberal Studies was 3.65.

The mean student - instructor interaction ratings for each of the College
Divisions were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by

chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in the means. This finding is shown in

 

 

 

Table 4.16.
Table 4.16 - Comparing College Division and Student — Instructor Interaction
Rating
tl F Sig.
Equal 394' 51 2.542 .117
Variance

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.16 — Comparing College Division and Student — Instructor Interaction
Rating shows there is no difference for student - instructor interaction that can be

attributed to College Division.

40

Student Age and Student - Instructor Interaction Ratings

Study participants were divided into two age groups of approximately equal size.
One group was labeled as the “Young Half” group and included 26 study participants
from 18 years to 24 years of age. The other group was labeled as “Old Half” and
included 27 study participants fiom 25 — 58 years of age. Table 4.17 — Student —
Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Age shows the calculated mean student —
instructor interaction rating by student age grouping.

Table 4.17 - Student - Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Age

 

 

 

_: f‘agEj, ,, 7,: f Number A ' Stiddnt:InSEuctor
Young Half 26 3.65
Old Half 27 4.00

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.17 shows that “Old Half” study participants appear to rate the student —
instructor interaction slightly higher than “Young Half” study participants. The mean
rating for “Old Half” study participants was 4.00 and the mean rating for “Young Half”
study participants was 3.65.

The mean student — instructor interaction ratings for the two age groupings were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in 4.18 - Comparing Age
and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating.

Table 4.18 - Comparing Age and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating

ti dtl F Sig.
Equal -.994 51 8.908 .325
Variances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.18 shows there is no difference for student - instructor interaction that

can be attributed to age grouping.

41

Computer Skills and Student — Instructor Interaction Ra_ti_ng§

Study participants were grouped according to two broad categories of computer
skills to allow for data analysis. Those study participants who indicated novice or
intermediate skills were grouped in a “Low Computer Skill” category. The other group
was labeled as the “High Computer Skill” category and consisted of those participants
who indicated advanced or expert computer skills. Table 4.19 shows the calculated
mean student - instructor interaction rating by computer skill.

Table 4.19 - Student — Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill

 

 

 

I. Cbmhufer Skill 5- > F Number = 1 Student's-7.“ ”
I; . A .. g .. Instructor
L°w 23 3.65
High 30 3.97

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.19 shows that “High Computer Skill” study participants appear to rate
the student — instructor interaction higher than the “Low Computer Skill” study
participants. The mean rating for “High Computer Skill” participants was 3.97 and the
mean rating for “Low Computer Skill” participants was 3.65

The mean student — instructor interaction ratings for the two computer skill
categories were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by
chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in
4.20 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating.

Table 4.20 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Instructor Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
I dtl F Sig.
Equal -.s94l 51 .449 .376
Variances

 

 

 

42

Table 4.20 Shows there is no difference for student - instructor interaction that
can be attributed to computer skills.
Gender and Stuagnt — Instructor Interaction Ratings

Table 4.21 shows the calculated mean student —- instructor interaction rating by

gender.

Table 4.21 — Student - Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Gender

 

 

 

Gender * - ' ‘ ‘ ‘ Number Student - Instructor 5
Female 11 4.02
Male 41 3.09

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.21 shows that Female study participants appear to rate the student -
instructor interaction higher than Male study participants. The mean rating for Female
study participants was 4.02 and the mean rating for Male study participants was 3.09.

The mean student - instructor interaction ratings for Females and Males were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is Shown in Table 4.22 - Comparing
Gender and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating.

Table 4.22 — Comparing Gender and Student — Instructor Interaction Rating

 

d d F Sig.
Equal -2.232 50 4.215 .030
Variances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.22 shows there is a mean rating difference for student — instructor
interaction that can be attributed to gender (>.05). Female study participants, as a

group, rate student — instructor interaction higher than male study participants.

43

Pursuing Degree/Certificate and Student — Instructor Interaction Ra_ti_ng§

Table 4.23 shows the calculated mean student — instructor interaction rating for
those students pursuing a degree/certificate and those students not pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Table 4.23 - Student - Instructor Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DegreelCertificate Number Student -

l . . Instructor
Yes 29 3.90
No 23 3.74

 

Table 4.23 shows that the group of study participants who are pursuing a
degree/certificate appear to rate the student — instructor interaction higher than those
study participants not pursuing a degree/certificate. The mean rating for those study
participants pursuing a degree/certificate was 3.90 and the mean rating for those not
pursuing a degree/certificate was 3.74.

The mean student — instructor interaction ratings for the pursuing a
degree/certificate groups were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have
occurred by chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is
shown in 4.24 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Instructor
Interaction Rating.

Table 4.24 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Instructor

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction
F dfl F Sig:
Equal .437 50 .273 .664
Variances

 

 

 

 

Table 4.24 shows there is no mean rating difference for student — instructor
interaction that can be attributed to whether or not a study participant was pursuing a
degree/certificate. It is important to note that pursing a degree is not always the focus
for students who attend community college courses.

Anflysis of F ocas Group Responsgs of Student — Instructor Interaction Dia

The focus group was asked to discuss the data regarding student — instructor
interaction. A set of three questions was used to focus the discussion. The first
question asked, “What meaning/understanding can you draw from the data presented?”
The second asked, “Is the data different from or the same as you expected or
experienced?” The third question asked focus group participants, “In what ways can
this data help instructors do a better job?”

Focus Grou Res nses to “What meanin understandin can you draw fi'om the
data presented.” Four themes emerged from the first discussion question. First, the
focus group immediately recognized that the mean scores increased from face-to-face to
online, and they were quick to point out that there is an increased expectation of
interaction in an online class. They were impressed that the online rating is higher.
Second, the focus group discussed how the delivery of information changes from face-
to-face to online. They felt that the instructor encouraged more interaction with his/her
students by providing content online and tools that would encourage interaction —- for
example, discussion boards or via email message. Third, the focus group participants
felt quiet students may interact more online. These students may be more introverted in
face-to-face situations and online classes may offer less peer pressure. Fourth, the focus

group liked online classes because of the interaction. They felt everyone in an online

45

class gets an opportunity to Share his/her ideas and online instructors encourage
interaction.

Focus Group Remnses to “Is the daga different from or the same as you
eapeated or exmrienced?” Two themes emerged from the second discussion question.
The focus group felt that the online interaction between the instructor and the student
exceeded their expectations. The focus group participants who have taken online
classes stated that there was always prompt response to student inquiries. The focus
group participants were surprised that the face-to-face rating was as high as it was.
Many stated that in their experience it was not uncommon to sit through a face-to-face
class and not even interact at all with the instructor.

Focus Group Remnses to “In what ways can this data help instructors do a
better job?” There were three ways in which focus group participants felt the data
could help instructors do a better job. First, the focus group participants felt it was
important that the instructor match the different learning styles of the students who are
taking the course. Students have difi’erent ways of learning and the focus group felt
instructors should make an attempt to meet these different learning styles. In addition,
the focus group participants also stated that instructors should survey the students before
class to see what they would like to learn and then “check-in” with them as the semester
progresses to see if student needs are being met. Second, instructors need to look at the
data presented in the study and attempt to change their techniques to encourage student
— instructor interaction. By using this data, instructors will be able to encourage
interaction between the students and themselves. Finally, instructors need to be willing

to take questions, comments, and criticism from students.

46

Student - Student Interaction

Survey question two asked study participants to indicate in what ways
interaction between and among the students was encouraged in their course. The
students were given space to provide open-ended responses and then were asked to rate
the interaction they had witnessed in their course fiom one (poor) to five (excellent).
All responses were grouped and categorized. Those open-ended responses with two or
more responses are presented. A complete listing of the open-ended responses for
student - student interaction can be found in Appendix I of this study.
ng Ended Rammes

A total of 16 study participants provided an open-ended response to the question,
“In what ways was interaction between and among students encouraged?” Responses
were grouped to allow qualitative analysis. Those responses that were given by two or
more respondents are shown in Table 4.25.

Table 4.25 - Student — Student Interaction Open-ended Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

,, Category of Response ' . - Number of Students.
we had to work in teamS/ group projects 5
Class discussion 5
Compared/shared notes 2
Worked in labs for one session each week, 2
allowed for discussion between lab partners

 

 

 

As shown in Table 4.25, the greatest categories of response, indicated by five
study participants were that they worked in teams and/or on group projects and another
five students indicated that the instructor encouraged interaction through discussion.

Two other categories, compared/shared notes and by having the students work in labs

47

for one session each week, allowing for discussion between lab partners were each
identified by two study participants.
Student - Student Interaction Rating

Table 4.26 - Student — Student Interaction Rating by Total Group, shows the
distribution of study participant ratings and the overall mean rating for the student -
student interaction.

Table 4.26 - Student — Student Interaction Rating by Total Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Number of Reponsee
1 Poor 6
2 10
3 8
4 16
5 Excellent 13
Mean 3.37

 

 

 

 

Table 4.26 shows the mean rating for the student — student interaction rating for
the total group is 3.3 7. Overall, study participants felt the interaction between and
among the students was “Average” based on the Criteria for Data Analysis defined for
this study.

Deliveg Tm and Student — Student Interaction Ragga

Table 4.27 — Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type shows

the calculated mean rating by delivery type.

Table 4.27 - Student - Student Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type

Face-to-face 3.1 1

2.93
Online 3.90

 

48

Table 4.27 shows that two of the groups, face-to—face and hybrid, rated the
student - student interaction as average. F ace-to-face students rated the student —
student interaction 3.11 and hybrid students rated the interaction as 2.93. Online
students rated the interaction as 3.90, or good. Study participants in the online group
appear to Show higher average ratings than face-to-face or hybrid course groups.

The mean student — student interaction ratings for each of the delivery types
were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A
group of 3 T-tests were used to compare mean ratings between face-to-face and online,
face-to-face and hybrid, and hybrid and online. These findings are shown in Table 4.28
— Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Student Interaction Rating.

Table 4.28 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Student Interaction Rating

 

t dfl F Sig.
Face-to- -1.845 36 3.110 .073
face and
online
Face-to- .378 30 1.36q .708
face and
hybrid
Hybrid -2.352 341 .215 .025
and
onlin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.28 shows there are no differences for student — student interaction when
face-to-face and online, and face-to-face and hybrid are compared. However, the
student — student interaction ratings of hybrid and online students are different (>.05)
when hybrid and online students are compared — with online students rating the

interaction higher.

49

College Division and Student — Student Interaction Ratings
Table 4.29 shows the calculated mean student — student interaction rating by
College Division.

Table 4.29 - Student - Student Interaction Mean Rating by College Division

 

 

 

Division Student - Instructor
Business and Media 3.47
Careers
Liberal Studies 3.26

 

 

 

 

Table 4.29 shows that study participants in Business and Media Careers courses
appeared to rate the student — student interaction higher than study participants in
Liberal Studies courses. The mean rating for Business and Media Careers was 3.47 and
the mean rating for Liberal Studies was 3.26.

The mean student — student interaction ratings for each of the College Divisions
were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-
test was used to test the difference in the means. This finding is Shown in Table 4.30.

Table 4.30 — Comparing College Division and Student — Student Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
ll dil F Sig:
Equal .54 51 .143 .587
Variances

 

 

 

 

Table 4.30 —- Comparing College Division and Student — Student Interaction
Rating shows there is no difference for student — student interaction that can be

attributed to College Division.

50

Student Age and Student - Student InteractionMiags

Study participants were divided into two age groups of approximately equal size.
One group was labeled as the “Young Half” group and included 26 study participants
from 18 years to 24 years of age. The other group was labeled as “Old Half” and
included 27 study participants fi'om 25 — 58 years of age. Table 4.31 — Student —
Student Interaction Mean Rating by Age shows the calculated mean student - student
interaction rating by student age grouping.

Table 4.31 - Student —Student Mean Rating by Age

 

 

 

 

 

'5 . Age , , Number ‘ Student — Student -
YounLI-Ialf 26 3.31
Old Half 27 3.44

 

 

 

Table 4.31 shows that “Old Half” study participants appear to rate the student -
student interaction slightly higher than “Young Half” study participants. The mean
rating for “Old Half” study participants was 3.44 and the mean rating for “Young Half”
study participants was 3.31.

The mean student — student interaction ratings for the two age groupings were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in 4.32 — Comparing Age
and Student — Student Interaction Rating.

Table 4.32 — Comparing Age and Student - Student Interaction Rating

 

tl df F Sig;
Eq -.366 51 3.459 .716
Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.32 shows there is no difference for student — student interaction that can

be attributed to age grouping.

51

Computer Skills and Student - Student Intqaction Ragga

Study participants were grouped according to two broad categories of computer
skills to allow for data analysis. Those study participants who indicated novice or
intermediate skills were grouped in a “Low Computer Skill” category. The other group
was labeled as the “High Computer Skill” category and consisted of those participants
who indicated advanced or expert computer skills. Table 4.33 shows the calculated
mean student — student interaction rating by computer skill.

Table 4.33 — Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer Skill Number Student — Student
Low 23 3.00
High 30 3.67

 

Table 4.33 shows that “High Computer Skill” study participants appear to rate
the student - student interaction higher than the “Low Computer Skill” study
participants. The mean rating for “High Computer Skill” participants was 3.67 and the
mean rating for “Low Computer Skill” participants was 3.00.

The mean student - student interaction ratings for the two computer skill
categories were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by
chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in
4.34 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student — Student Interaction Rating.

Table 4.34 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Student Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
:1 df F Sig.
Equal -1.824 51 4.168 .0741
Variances

 

 

 

52

Table 4.34 shows there is no difference for student — student interaction that can
be attributed to computer Skills.

Gender and Student — Student Interaction Ratings

Table 4.35 shows the calculated mean student - student interaction rating by

gender.

Table 4.35 - Student — Student Interaction Mean Rating by Gender

 

 

 

3" .,f1:e".‘;a¢i'; 1 f i 4 :ij: Elisha: e 5 f 1 ‘ ; " Student 4, stanza?
Female 1 1 3.49
Male 41 3.09

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.35 shows that Female study participants appear to rate the student -
student interaction higher than Male study participants. The mean rating for Female
study participants was 3.49 and the mean rating for Male study participants was 3.09.

The mean student - student interaction ratings for Females and Males were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occm'red by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in Table 4.36 — Comparing
Gender and Student — Student Interaction Rating.

Table 4.36 - Comparing Gender and Student - Student Interaction Rating

 

II F Sig:
Equal -.866 50 .004| .391
Variances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.36 shows there is no difference for student — student interaction that can

be attributed to gender.

53

Pursuing Degge/Certificate and Student — Student Interaction Ratings

Table 4.37 shows the calculated mean student — student interaction rating for
those students pursuing a degree/certificate and those students not pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Table 4.37 - Student - Student Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree/Certificate Number - Student - Student
Yes 29 3.45
No 23 3.35

 

Table 4.37 shows that the group of study participants who are pursuing a
degree/certificate appear to rate the student — student interaction higher than those study
participants not pursuing a degree/certificate. The mean rating for those study
participants pursuing a degree/certificate was 3.45 and the mean rating for those not
pursuing a degree/certificate was 3.35.

The mean student -— student interaction ratings for the pursuing a
degree/certificate groups were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have
occurred by chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is
shown in 4.38 — Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Student
Interaction Rating.

Table 4.38 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree or Certificate and Student — Student

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction
if d F Sig.
Equal .265 50 .004 .792
Variances

 

 

 

 

54

Table 4.38 shows there is no mean rating difference for student — student
interaction that can be attributed to whether or not a study participant was pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Analysis of Focus Group Resppnses of Student — Student Interaction Data

The focus group was asked to discuss the data regarding student - student
interaction. A set of three questions was used to focus the discussion. The first
question asked, “What meaning/understanding can you draw from the data presented?”
The second asked, “Is the data different fiom or the same as you expected or
experienced?” The third question asked focus group participants, “In what ways can
this data help instructors do a better job?”

Focus Group Resmnses to “What meaninglunderstanding can you draw from the

data presented.” Three themes emerged from the first discussion question. The focus

 

group felt that online discussion must cause the interaction to increase. One focus group
participant stated they had a heated debate online. In addition, the focus group
participants discussed that in an online class, students find it easier to “speak” to one
another online. They dubbed this “talking to the screen” where some students may feel
free to voice their opinions when not in a face-to-face classroom setting. Lastly, the
focus group participants felt the online instructor encouraged more interaction. This
was a general statement and the amount of interaction that was encouraged depended on
the instructor.

Focus Group Respoasasato “Is the data different from or the same as you
exyted or exparienced?” The focus group felt that the data presented was expected;

they expected more online interaction as the grade was dependent on it. Again, the

55

focus group reiterated students felt free to Speak to one another online. The computer
provided them a sense of security and that online students felt more anonymous because
they weren’t in a face-to-face class.

Focus Group Resmnses to “In what ways can this data help instructors do a
better job?” There were two ways in which focus group participants felt the data could
help instructors do a better job. First, the focus group participants felt it was important
that the instructor change the classroom environment and have more group assignments.
However, some student’s fail to “carry their own weight” in online group assignments
and the grade depends on the group’s final project. Some instructors have group
members evaluate other group members and this is counted in the individual’s grade for
the group project. This peer evaluation would ensure group members receive a proper

participation grade.

56

Student — Content Interaction

Survey question three asked students to indicate in what ways interaction
between the course content and the students was encouraged in their course. The
students were given space to provide open-ended responses and then were asked to rate
the interaction they had witnessed in their course from one (poor) to five (excellent).
All responses were grouped and categorized. Those open-ended responses with two or
more responses are presented. A complete listing of the open-ended responses for each
of the student - content interaction can be found in Appendix I of this study.
QM Ended Repgnses

A total of 12 study participants provided an open-ended response to the question,
“In what ways was interaction between the course content and the students
encouraged?” Responses were grouped to allow qualitative analysis. Those responses
that were given by two or more respondents are shown in Table 4.3 9.

Table 4.39 - Student — Content Interaction Open-ended Responses

 

 

 

 

 

Caggory of Response Number of Students
Lecture, class discussion, intemet, textbook 2

 

As shown in Table 4.39, only one response category was indicated by two or
more study respondents. The response, “Lecture, class discussion, via the intemet and
the textbook” was identified by two study participants and suggests that interaction

between students and the course content occurred through a variety of methods.

57

Student - Content Interaction Rating
Table 4.40 - Student — Content Interaction Rating by Total Group, shows the
distribution of study participant ratings and the overall mean rating for student - content
interaction.
Table 4.40 - Student - Content Interaction Rating by Total Group
of ’

1 Poor 1
2 3

3 10

4 l3

5 Excellent 21
Mean 4.04

 

Table 4.40 shows that the mean rating for student — content interaction for the
total group is 4.04. Overall, study participants felt the interaction between the course
content and the students was “Good” based on the Criteria for Data Analysis defined for
this study.

Delim Type and Stu_dent — Content Interaction Ratings

Table 4.41 - Student — Content Interaction Rating by Delivery Type shows the

calculated mean rating by delivery type.

Table 4.41 - Student - Content Interaction Rating by Delivery Type

Face-to-face " f I f 3.88

3.93
Online 4.28

 

Table 4.41 shows that all three groups rated the student - content interaction as
“Good.” F ace-to-face students rated the student - content interaction 3.88, hybrid

students rated the interaction as 3.93, and online students rated the interaction as 4.28.

58

CO

WE
C01

hyl

The mean ratings suggest there is no difference between delivery type when student —
content interaction mean ratings are compared.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for each of the delivery types
were analyzed to see if there may be any differences. A group of 3 T-tests were used to
compare mean ratings between face-to-face and online, face-to-face and hybrid, and
hybrid and online. These findings are shown in Table 4.42 — Comparing Delivery Type
and Student — Content Interaction Rating.

Table 4.42 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student - Content Interaction Rating

 

d drl F Sig
Face-to- -1.224 32 .154 .230
face and
online

F ace-tol -.l28 28 1.672 .899
face and
hybrid
Hybrid -.913 30 3.479 .368
and
online

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.42 shows there are no differences for student — content interaction that
can be attributed to delivery type.

Collegg Division and Stu_dent - Content Interaction Ratings

 

Table 4.43 shows the calculated mean student — content interaction rating by
College Division.

Table 4.43 - Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by College Division

 

 

 

Division Student - Instructor
Business and Media 4.19
Careers
Liberal Studies 3.86

 

 

 

 

59

app
Lib

the

wet

1851

from
inch
Con

1mm

Table 4.43 shows that study participants in Business and Media Careers courses
appeared to rate the student — content interaction higher than study participants in
Liberal Studies courses. The mean rating for Business and Media Careers was 4.19 and
the mean rating for Liberal Studies was 3.86.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for each of the College Divisions
were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-
test was used to test the difference in the means. This finding is shown in Table 4.44.

Table 4.44 - Comparing College Division and Student - Content Interaction

 

 

 

Rating
I: dfl F Sig
Eq 1.081 46 6.880 .285
Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.44 — Comparing College Division and Student — Content Interaction
Rating shows there is no difference for student - content interaction that can be
attributed to College Division.
Student Age and Student — Content Interaction Raings

Study participants were divided into two age groups of approximately equal size.
One group was labeled as the “Young Halt” group and included 26 study participants
from 18 years to 24 years of age. The other group was labeled as “Old Half” and
included 27 study participants from 25 — 58 years of age. Table 4.45 - Student —
Content Interaction Mean Rating by Age shows the calculated mean student — content

interaction rating by student age grouping.

60

Table 4.45 - Student — Content Interaction Mean Rating by Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Age A Number Student — Content
Young Half 26 4.04
Old Half 27 4.04

 

Table 4.45 shows that “Old Halt” study participants appear to rate the student -
instructor interaction the same as the “Young Half” study participants. The mean rating
for “Old Half” and the “Young Half” study participants was 4.04.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for the two age groupings were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in 4.46 — Comparing Age
and Student — Content Interaction Rating.

Table 4.46 - Comparing Age and Student — Content Interaction Rating

 

d F Sig.
Equal -.011 46 3.63 .991
Variances]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.46 shows there is no difference for student - content interaction that can
be attributed to age grouping.
Computer Skills and Student - Content Interaction Ratings

Study participants were grouped according to two broad categories of computer
skills to allow for data analysis. Those study participants who indicated novice or
intermediate skills were grouped in a “Low Computer Skill” category. The other group
was labeled as the “High Computer Skill” category and consisted of those participants
who indicated advanced or expert computer skills. Table 4.47 shows the calculated

mean student - content interaction rating by computer skill.

61

Table 4.47 — Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer Skill Number Student - Content
Low 23 4.05
High 30 4.04

 

Table 4.47 shows that “Low Computer Skill” study participants appear to rate
the student — content interaction slightly higher than the “High Computer Skill” study
participants. The mean rating for “Low Computer Skill” participants was 4.05 and the
mean rating for “High Computer Skill” participants was 4.04.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for the two computer skill
categories were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by
chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in
4.48 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student — Content Interaction Rating.

Table 4.48 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Content Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
(I Sig.
Equal .034 46 .047 .973
Variancei

 

 

 

 

Table 4.48 shows there is no difference for student — content interaction that can
be attributed to computer skills.
Gender and Student — Content Interaction Ratings

Table 4.49 shows the calculated mean student — content interaction rating by
gender.

Table 4.49 - Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Number Student - Content
Female 1 1 4.1 1
Male 41 3.91

 

 

62

 

Table 4.49 shows that Female study participants appear to rate the student —
content interaction slightly higher than Male study participants. The mean rating for
Female study participants was 4.11 and the mean rating for Male study participants was
3.91.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for Females and Males were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difi‘erence in means. This finding is shown in Table 4.50 — Comparing
Gender and Student — Content Interaction Rating.

Table 4.50 — Comparing Gender and Student - Content Interaction Rating

ti dil F Sig:
Eq -.554 45 1.142 .582
Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.50 shows there is no difi‘erence for student — content interaction that can
be attributed to gender.

Pursuing DegEZCertificate and Student — Content Interaction Ratings

Table 4.51 shows the calculated mean student — content interaction rating for

 

those students pursuing a degree/certificate and those students not pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Table 4.51 - Student - Content Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate

 

 

 

inegreel" “certifi‘caté _ . ; Number, ; * * Strident J Content
Yes 29 4.04
No 23 4.09

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.51 shows that the group of study participants who are not pursuing a
degree/certificate appear to rate the student — content interaction higher than those study

participants pursuing a degree/certificate. The mean rating for those study participants

63

not pursuing a degree/certificate was 4.09 and the mean rating for those pursuing a
degree/certificate was 4.04.

The mean student — content interaction ratings for the pursuing a
degree/certificate groups were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have
occurred by chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is
shown in 4.52 — Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student - Content
Interaction Rating.

Table 4.52 — Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Content

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction
t dfl F Sig:
Equal -.164 45 .010 .871
Variancesl

 

 

 

Table 4.52 shows there is no mean rating difference for student — content
interaction that can be attributed to whether or not a study participant was pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Aialjajaof PM Group Resmnses of Student — Content Interaction Dfl

The focus group was asked to discuss data regarding student — content
interaction. A set of three questions was used to focus the discussion. The first
question asked, “What meaning/understanding can you draw from the data presented?”
The second asked, “Is the data different from or the same as you expected or
experienced?” The third question asked focus group participants, “In what ways can
this data help instructors do a better job?”

EoiuiGroup Respoasps to “flat meaninglunderstanding can you draw from the

data merited.” Two themes emerged from the first discussion question. The focus

64

group discussed the fact that students must interact with content in an online class. The
online environment provides a user-friendly place to host content for the course. Face-
to-face courses offer more flexibility with course content based on student reactions. It
is easier for an instructor to reduce or change the content of the course in these courses
versus an online class where the content is already posted.

Focus Group Resmnses to “Is the data different fiom or the same as you
mted or experienced?” The focus group felt that the data presented was expected;
hybrid courses were used as an example of a course that had a “little bit of everything”
where the instructor supports the content face-to-face and encourages students to work
with the content online. The focus group also states that the online experience allowed
students to understand homework better and they could go back and review past
lectures. The students had “notes at their fingertips” and could receive instant
gratification online - feedback, grades online, etc.

Focus Group Resmnses to “In what ways can this data help instructors do a
better 1' ob?” There were three ways in which focus group participants felt the data
could help instructors do a better job. Again, the focus group participants felt it was
important that the instructor ask students their expectations. The focus group
participants stated that Blackboard should be used for all classes to provide intemet
links, announcements, syllabus, assignments, lecture notes, discussion, group work, and
email. This way a student could access the course content at anytime and would be able
to check his/her grades. Focus group participants felt instructors could explain and
define the course more clearly and could post “thoughts for the day” in Blackboard as a

way to increase interaction with course content.

65

Student — Technology Inteflon

Survey Question F our asked students to indicate in what ways interaction
between the technology and the students was encouraged in their course. The students
were given space to provide open-ended responses and then were asked to rate the
interaction they had witnessed in their course from one (poor) to five (excellent). All
responses were grouped and categorized. Those open-ended responses with two or
more responses are presented. A complete listing of the open-ended responses for
student - technology interaction can be found in Appendix I of this study.

Qpe_n Ended Remnses

A total of 15 study participants provided an open-ended response to the question,
“In what ways was interaction between the technology and the students encouraged?”
Responses were grouped to allow qualitative analysis. Those responses that were given
by two or more respondents are show in Table 4.53.

Table 4.53 - Student - Technology Interaction Open-ended Responses

 

. Category of Response . ' Number of Students ‘
Blackboard was not used 10

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in 4.53, the greatest category of response, indicated by 10 study
participants, was “Blackboard was not used.” Blackboard, intemet-based course
management software, is available for all instructors to use in their courses — face-to-
face, hybrid, or online. Interestingly, though the question asked the respondent to
identify ways interaction was encouraged, 10 study participants chose to share the idea
that interaction was not encouraged because Blackboard was not used. These 10

respondents all participated in face-to-face courses.

66

Student -— Technology Integction Rm

Table 4.54 — Student — Technology Interaction Rating by Total Group shows the
distribution of study participant ratings and the overall mean rating for the student —
technology interaction.

Table 4.54 - Student - Technology Interaction Rating by Total Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RatinL Number of Rgronses
1 Poor 4
2 l
3 8
4 10
5 Excellent 20
Mean 3.95

 

Table 4.54 shows that the mean rating for student — technology interaction for
the total group is 3 .95. Overall, study participants felt the interaction between the
technology and the students was “Good” based on the Criteria for Data Analysis defined

for this study.

Deliveg Tm and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings

 

Table 4.55 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type,
shows the calculated mean rating by delivery type.

Table 4.55 — Student -- Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Delivery Type

F ace-to-face 3.1 1

4.13
Online 4.2]

 

Table 4.55 shows that face-to-face study participants rated the student —
technology interaction as 3.11 or “Average.” Both hybrid and online study participants

rated the student - technology interaction as “Good.” Hybrid study participants rated

67

thei

W01

501]

int:

WE

fa

the interaction as 4.13 and online study participants rated the interaction as 4.21. As
would be expected, as the delivery type changed from no technology (face-to-face) to
some technology (hybrid) to all technology (online) the mean student - technology
interaction rating increased.

The mean student - technology interaction ratings for each of the delivery types
were analyzed to see if any apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A
group of 3 T-tests were used to compare mean ratings between face-to-face and online,
face-to-face and hybrid, and hybrid and online. These findings are shown in Table 4.56
— Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Technology Interaction Rating.

Table 4.56 - Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Technology Interaction

 

 

 

 

Rating

t1 dfl F Si .

Face-m -2.246 26 9.441 03%
face and
online

Face-to- -l.665 22 1.903 .110
face and
hybrid

Hybrid -.214| 32 3.677 .832
and
online

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.56 — Comparing Delivery Type and Student — Technology Interaction
Rating shows there are no differences for student - technology interaction that can be
attributed to delivery type when face-to-face students are compared to hybrid students
and when hybrid students are compared to online students. However, the student —

technology interaction ratings of face-to-face and online students are different (>05)

68

when face-to-face and online students are compared — with online Students rating the
interaction higher.

College Division and Student — Technology Interaction Ratipjga

 

Table 4.57 shows the calculated mean student — technology interaction rating by
College Division.

Table 4.57 - Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by College Division

 

 

 

. Division ~ Student - TechnolggL
Business and Media 4.22
Careers
Liberal Studies 3.65

 

 

 

 

Table 4.57 shows that study participants in Business and Media Careers courses
appeared to rate the student — technology interaction higher than study participants in
Liberal Studies courses. The mean rating for Business and Media Careers was 4.22 and
the mean rating for Liberal Studies was 3.65.

The mean student —— technology interaction ratings for each of the College
Divisions were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by
chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in the means. This finding is shown in
Table 4.58.

Table 4.58 — Comparing College Division and Student - Technology Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
(1 F Sig
Equal 1.480 41 3.687 .147
Variancesl

 

 

 

 

69

Table 4.58 - Comparing College Division and Student — Technology Interaction
Rating Shows there is no difference for student — technology interaction that can be
attributed to College Division.
Student Age and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings

Study participants were divided into two age groups of approximately equal size.
One group was labeled as the “Young Half” group and included 26 study participants
from 18 years to 24 years of age. The other group was labeled as “Old Half” and
included 27 study participants fi'om 25 — 5 8 years of age. Table 4.59 — Student —
Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Age shows the calculated mean student —
technology interaction rating by student age grouping.

Table 4.59 - Student - Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Age

 

 

 

Age Number Student —
Technology
Young Half 26 3.58
Old Half 27 4.42

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.59 shows that “Old Half” study participants appear to rate the student —
technology interaction higher than “Young Half” study participants. The mean rating
for “Old Half” study participants was 4.42 and the mean rating for “Young Half” study
participants was 3.58.

The mean student — technology interaction ratings for the two age groupings
were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-
test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in 4.60 —

Comparing Age and Student - Technology Interaction Rating.

70

Table 4.60 - Comparing Age and Student - Technology Interaction Rating

 

t df F Sig.
Eq -2.246 41 9.122 .030
Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.60 Shows there is a mean rating difference for student — technology
interaction that can be attributed to age (>.05). Older study participants, as a group, rate

student — technology interaction higher than younger study participants.

Computer Skills and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings

 

Study participants were grouped according to two broad categories of computer
skills to allow for data analysis. Those study participants who indicated novice or
intermediate skills were grouped in a “Low Computer Skill” category. The other group
was labeled as the “High Computer Skill” category and consisted of those participants
who indicated advanced or expert computer skills. Table 4.61 Shows the calculated
mean student - technology interaction rating by computer skill.

Table 4.61 — Student — Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Computer Skill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer Skill Number A Student -
‘ a F ‘ a . Technology
LOW 23 3.48
High - 30 4.41

 

Table 4.61 shows that “High Computer Skill” study participants appear to rate
the student - technology interaction higher than the “Low Computer Skill” study
participants. The mean rating for “High Computer Skill” participants was 4.41 and the
mean rating for “Low Computer Skill” participants was 3.48.

The mean student —- technology interaction ratings for the two computer skill

categories were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by

71

chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is shown in
4.62 — Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Technology Interaction Rating.

Table 4.62 - Comparing Computer Skills and Student - Technology Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
11 df F Si .
Equal -2.559 41 3.021 .01
Varianceq

 

 

 

Table 4.62 shows there is a mean rating difference for student — technology
interaction that can be attributed to computer skills (>.05). Study participants who have
higher computer skills, as a group, rate student — technology interaction higher than
study participants with low computer Skills.

Gender and Student — Technology Interaction Ratings
Table 4.63 shows the calculated mean student — technology interaction rating by

gender.

Table 4.63 — Student - Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Gender

 

 

 

Gender A Number Student - Technology;
Female 1 1 4.00
Male 41 3.83

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.63 shows that Female study participants appear to rate the student —
technology interaction higher than Male study participants. The mean rating for Female
study participants was 4.00 and the mean rating for Male study participants was 3.83.

The mean student — technology interaction ratings for Females and Males were
analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have occurred by chance. A T-test was
used to test the difference in means. This finding is Shown in Table 4.64 — Comparing

Gender and Student — Technology Interaction Rating.

72

Table 4.64 - Comparing Gender and Student - Technology Interaction Rating

 

t df Fl Sig.
Equal -.292 40 .025 .771
Variancesi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.64 shows there is not a mean rating difference for student — technology
interaction that can be attributed to gender.
Pursuing Degree/Certificat_e_ and Student — Technology Integction Raingg

Table 4.65 shows the calculated mean student — technology interaction rating for
those students pursuing a degree/certificate and those students not pursuing a
degree/certificate.

Table 4.65 - Student - Technology Interaction Mean Rating by Degree/Certificate

 

 

 

Degree/Certificate Number Student-
Technology

Yes 29 3.74

No 23 4.16

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.65 shows that the group of study participants who are not pursuing a
degree/certificate appear to rate the student - technology interaction higher than those
study participants pursuing a degree/certificate. The mean rating for those study
participants not pursuing a degree/certificate was 4.16 and the mean rating for those
pursuing a degree/certificate was 3.74.

The mean student — technology interaction ratings for the pursuing a
degree/certificate groups were analyzed to see if the apparent differences might have
occurred by chance. A T-test was used to test the difference in means. This finding is
shown in 4.66 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student — Technology

Interaction Rating.

73

Table 4.66 - Comparing Pursuing a Degree/Certificate and Student - Technology

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction
t df F Sig.
Eq -1.060 40 .857 .296
Variance

 

 

 

Table 4.66 shows there is no mean rating difference for student — technology
interaction that can be attributed to whether or not a study participant was pursuing a
degree/certificate.

m of F ocu_§ Group Responses of Student — TechnolflyIntermon Dat_a

The focus group was asked to discuss the data regarding student - technology
interaction. A set of three questions was used to focus the discussion. The first
question asked, “What meaning/understanding can you draw from the data presented?”
The second asked, “Is the data different from or the same as you expected or
experienced?” The third question asked focus group participants, “In what ways can
this data help instructors do a better job?”

FOC£ Group Responses to “What meaninglunderstanding can yowaw from the
data presented.” Four themes emerged from the first discussion question. The focus
group discussed the fact that for courses online and in a hybrid format the technology is
required and that they would expect a higher student — technology interaction score.
The group also felt that there should be an assessment of technology competence or
tools provided to increase intemet capabilities before classes began each semester. The
focus group discussed the fact that technology is being used in many courses and that

more electronic resources should be made available by the college. The group agreed

74

that online students Should have technology skills - basic computer knowledge and web
Skills.

Focua Group Question Answers to “IS the diaga different from or the same as you
gtpected or experienced?” The focus group made the point that the data presented was
the same as they expected in that technology use in hybrid and online courses was a
requirement. In addition, they felt that a basic understanding of productivity tools and

computer uses should be expected for any class not just online classes at the college.

Focus Group Question Answers to “In what ways can this data help instructors

 

do a better 1' ob?” There were multiple ways in which focus group participants felt the
data could help instructors do a better job. Again, the focus group felt that Blackboard
should be used for all classes regardless of delivery method. F ace-to-face classes Should
take advantage of technology available. The focus group participant’s felt it was
important that the instructor spend the first week of the semester on technology required
for the class and that the college offer workshops on technology use. The focus group
participants also stated that the course catalog should reflect technology knowledge as a
requirement and that a technology skills assessment Should be used by the college. This
way students would know the skill level required for a Specific class similar to the way
math and writing skills assessments are currently used. They also made it a point to
mention that the college should ensure that the instructors are proficient with the
technology and to make sure that the technology doesn’t detract from the course
content. The focus group also made the point that intemet connectivity can be a
problem in some cases and that the software might detract fi'om the course content so

instructors must ensure the use of the technology fits.

75

Blackboard Data

Survey question five asked students to indicate if Blackboard was used in their
class. If the answer was yes, they were then asked to indicate how Blackboard was used
during the semester. Table 4.67 — Blackboard Use shows the number of students who
responded they used Blackboard in their class.

Table 4.67 - Blackboard Use

, . t - . N of , .
Yes 41 77.4

No 12 22.6
Total 53 100

 

Table 4.67 shows that 41 out of 53, 77%, of the respondents to the survey stated
they used Blackboard in their course. This is surprisingly high due to the fact that this
was the first semester Blackboard was available to face-to-face instructors.

Table 4.68 - How Blackboard Was Used, shows how Blackboard was used in
the study participant’s course.

Table 4.68 - How Blackboard Was Used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_, . _ ., Category of Response ., Number of Students Percent
Announcement 38 16.7
Email 29 12.8
Sjllabus 38 16.7
Course Documents 36 15.9
Discussion Board 36 15.9

‘ Assessment 25 1 1.0
Chat 8 3.5
Group work 17 7.5
Total responses 227 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.68 shows that out of the total 227 responses, 38 students indicated they

used the announcement and syllabus feature of Blackboard in their course; this

76

represented 16.7% of the total responses respectively. Thirty-six students indicated they
used course documents posted on Blackboard (15.9%) and 36 students also indicated
they used the discussion board (15.9%). Twenty-nine students indicated that email was
used in Blackboard, or 12.8% of the responses, followed by 25 who indicated
assessments in their courses were delivered via Blackboard (11% of the total responses).
Finally, 17 indicated group work (7.5%), and 8 used the Blackboard chat feature (3.5%).

In addition to asking students about how student - technology interaction was
encouraged, the survey asked students to comment on the Blackboard Course
Management System. A total of six study participants provided a response. Table 4.69
— Comments on Blackboard shows how the students responded to the open-ended
question “Comments on Blackboard.” All responses were grouped and categorized.
Those open-ended responses with two or more responses are included. A complete
listing of the open-ended responses for comments on Blackboard can be found in
Appendix I of this study.

Table 4.69 — Comments on Blackboard

 

 

 

 

 

 

. a Category of Response g Number of Students
Very good site, easy to use 2
In other courses it has been very helpful & fun 2

 

Table 4.69 shows that two students responded that Blackboard was easy to use.

Two other study participants stated in other courses it had been very helpful and fun.

77

SW of Survey Findings and Additional Comments from the Focus Group

This section of the study summarizes the survey data presented. In addition,
additional thoughts and reflections from the focus group are included.
Deliveg Tym and th_e Four Interactions

Table 4.70 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Delivery
Type Shows the study participant mean interaction rating for each of the delivery types.

Table 4.70 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions based on Delivery Type

 

Delivery Type Student - Student - Student - Student —
Instructor Student Content TechnologL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Face-to-face 3.58 3.11 3.88 3.11"
Hybrid 3.93 2.93* 3.93 4.13
Online 3.95 3.90* 4.28 4.21"
"' Difference for Student — Student Interaction that can be attributed to Hybrid and Online
delivery type (>.05)

“ Difference for Student - Technology Interaction that can be attributed to Face-to-face
and Online delivery type (>.05)

Table 4.70 Shows that the mean interaction ratings for each of the hybrid and
online delivery types appear higher than the face-to-face mean ratings with the
exception of one, student — student interaction. Overall, study participants felt
instructors encouraged the four interactions more in technologically mediated courses.
In fact, the interaction ratings increased progressively from no technological delivery in
the class, to some technological delivery and finally courses completely delivered via
technology — with the exception of student - student interaction.

College Division and the Four Interactions
Table 4.71 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on College

Division shows the study participant mean interaction ratings for courses based on the

78

college division - either Business and Media Careers Division and Liberal Studies
Division.

Table 4.71 -— Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on College

 

 

 

Division
Division Student- Student— Student - Student 4—
Instructor Student Content Technolpg;
Business and Media 3.97 3.47 4.19 4.22
Careers
Liberal Studies 3.65 3.26 3.86 3.65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.71 shows that the mean interaction ratings for all four types of
interaction appear higher for courses in the Business and Media Careers Division.
Overall, study participants who took courses fiom the Business and Media Careers
Division provided a higher average rating for the four interactions than study
participants who took courses from the Liberal Studies Division.

Agaand the Four Interaction_s

Table 4.72 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Age shows
the study participant mean interaction rating for the age grouping “Young Half” and
“Old Half.”

Table 4.72 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Age

 

 

 

Age Student - Student — Student - Student —
Instructor Student Content Technoloi
Youpg Half 3.65 3.31 4.04 358*
Old Half 4.00 3.44 4.04 4.42“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Difference for Student — Technology Interaction that can be attributed to age (>.05)
Table 4.72 Shows that the mean interaction ratings appear higher for the “Old
Half,” 25 — 58 year, age group, except for student — content interaction where the mean

rating was the same. Overall, older study participants rated the four interactions higher.

79

_C_ogrp_rpter Skills and the Four Interactions
Table 4.73 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Computer
Skills shows the study participant mean rating for the low and high computer skill
groupings.
Table 4.73 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Computer

Skills

 

Computer Skills Student - Student 4- Student — Student -
i * . ' ' Instructor Student Content Technolm
Low 3.65 3.00 4.05 3.48“
High 3.97 3.67 4.04 4.41“

* Difference for Student — Technology Interaction that can be attributed to computer skills
(>.05)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.73 shows that the mean interaction ratings appear higher for study
participants who had “High,” advanced or expert, computer skills. The one exception
was student — content interaction where the mean ratings were almost identical.
Overall, study participants who had higher computer skills rated the interactions higher.
Gender and the Four Interactions

Table 4.74 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Gender
shows the study participant mean rating by gender.

Table 4.74 - Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on Gender

 

 

 

* Gender Student - Student — Student - Student -
. Instructor y Student ~ Content Technology
Female 402* 3.49 4.1 1 4.00
Male 3.09* 3.09 3.91 3.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"' Difference for Student - Instructor Interaction that can be attributed to gender (>.05)

80

Table 4.74 shows that mean interaction ratings appear higher for female study
participants. Overall, female study participants rated the four interactions higher than
male study participants.

Pursuing Degrpe/Certificate and the Four Interacfiog

Table 4.75 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on
Degree/Certificate shows the study participant mean rating for each of the interactions
based on if a study participant was pursuing a degree or certificate at the institution
when the survey was returned.

Table 4.75 — Combined Ratings for the Four Interactions Based on

Degree/Certificate

 

Degree/Certificate Student - Student — Student - Student —

- ‘ Instructor Student Content Technolom
Yes 3.90 3.45 4.04 3.74
No 3.74 3.35 4.09 4.16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.75 shows that the mean interaction ratings for the student — instructor
and student - student interactions appear higher for study participants who were seeking
a degree or certificate. The mean ratings were almost identical for student — content
interaction. Study participants who were not seeking a degree or certificate rated
student — technology interaction higher.

Additional thoughts/reflectionp from the Focus Group

Upon completion of examining the data from the four interactions, focus group
participations were asked to reflect back upon the time they had spent and to provide
additional thoughts. Focus group participants originally weren’t sure they would like

online or hybrid, but now they stated they liked it better. Respondents Shared that

81

online courses offer more flexibility, however the delivery method Should be based on
the instructor or subject. They also reiterated their earlier comments that instructors
should assess learning styles and that the technology will help them with their current
jobs. They felt the college Should move more support services online — e. g. counseling
center, and technology could help with parking, meetings, and student services. They

suggested that orientation at the college could be done online.

82

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction

The conclusions, implications, and recommendations from the study’s data
collection and analysis are presented in this chapter. Sections include: Purpose,
Research Questions, Discussion, Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations.

Eagle

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between
student perceptions of each of the four interactions student — instructor, student —
student, student — content, and student — technology and the delivery type of the course
in which the student is enrolled, face-to-face, as a hybrid, and online. Data from this
research will assist institutions in making informed decisions regarding the adoption of
technology in instruction based on which delivery methods promote the highest student
— instructor, student — student, student — content, and student — technology interactivity.

This section presents the conclusions that were drawn from the research and
discusses each of the four interactions as they relate to the delivery type of the course in
which the student was enrolled. Implications will be drawn from the conclusions and
recommendations made regarding fiuther research in the area of interactivity in higher
education.

Research Questions
Six research questions were used to guide the study. Each of the following

questions was asked to determine student perceptions of the interactions and if age or

83

gender played a role in how the students responded to the survey. The six questions are
included here from Chapter One of this study for the reader’s review.

Research estion 1:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the
instructor?

Research Qpestion 2:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the other
students in the class?

Research Question 3:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the course
content?

Research estion 4:

In what ways do student perceptions differ when students in face-to-face, hybrid, and
completely online environments are asked to identify their interactions with the

technology used in the class?

Research mestion 5:

Is age a differentiating factor when student identified interactions in the three different

classroom settings are compared?

84

Research Question 6:

Is gender a differentiating factor when student identified interactions in the three

different classroom settings are compared?

Discussion

In 1989, Michael Moore proposed a theory of distance education based on the
need to accommodate within the distant classroom three essential interactions: learner-
content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner (Moore, 1989). Hillman, Willis and
Gunawardena (1994) augmented Moore’s model with a fourth interaction, leamer-
interface. This interaction addresses learners’ accommodation to technological learning
platforms. This section presents the conclusions that were drawn from the research and
discusses each of the four interactions as they relate to the delivery type of the course in
which the student was enrolled. In addition, related literature will introduce each of the
interactions.
Student — In_structor Interaction

Moore’s second type of interaction, regarded as essential by many educators and
as highly desirable by many learners, is the interaction between the learner and the
expert who prepared the subject material or some other expert acting as instructor
(Moore, 1989). In this interaction, instructors attempt to achieve aims held in common
with all other educators. First having planned or been given a curriculum or a program
of content to be taught, they seek to stimulate or at least maintain the student’s interest
in what is to be taught, to motivate the student to learn, and to enhance and maintain the

learner’s interest including self-direction and self-motivation (ibid, 1989). The

85

instructor is especially valuable in responding to the learners’ application of new
knowledge. The learners do not know enough about the subject to be sure that they are
(1) applying it correctly, (2) applying it as extensively as possible or desirable, or (3)
aware of all the potential areas of application (ibid, 1989). This was the first interaction
this study examined.

The student responses to the ways in which interaction between the instructor
and student was encouraged support a traditional teaching methodology by asking and
answering questions and by lecture and class discussion. These statements support the
traditional delivery of instruction, face-to-face.

Overall, students felt the interaction between the instructor and students was
good. However, when examining how students rated the interaction between the
instructor and student by delivery type, face-to-face rated this interaction 3.58 (average
to good), hybrid 3.93 (good), and online 3.95 (good). This study shows a trend that
student — instructor interactions are impacted favorably by the use of technology in the
classroom, not only by face-to-face interaction with the instructor.

The focus group responses support the previous statement that interactions
between the instructor and student are impacted favorably by the use of technology in
the classroom. Members of the focus group indicated that they agree the mean scores
increased from face-to-face to online as an expectation of interaction increased in the
online environment. Delivery of information changes from face-to-face to online and
quiet students may interact more online due to a perception of less peer pressure.
Everyone gets his or her say online. Instructors tended to encourage interaction online

versus a face-to-face class where the instructor would typically lecture.

86

Members of the focus group felt that instructors at the college Should use the
data presented in this study to identify what works well with students, as different
learning styles suit different learners. Instructors need to attempt to change their
techniques and to survey students before class to see what they would like to learn.
During the semester the instructors need to “check in” with students on teaching
progress and to see if student expectations are being met. Instructors need to be willing
to take questions, comments, and criticism from students.

When testing for significance between the variables delivery type, computer
skills, course type, pursuance of a degree or certificate, and age the results were all
negative in relation to student — instructor interaction. However, when comparing
gender and Student — instructor interaction rating, the level of significance is at .030,
which shows there is an apparent difference between the study participant’s gender and
student — instructor interaction at a 95% confidence level. When reviewing the data
female study participant’s rated the student — instructor interaction “Good,” 4.02, versus
male study participants who rated the student — instructor interaction “Average,” 3.09.

The student rating by delivery type presents the ever-increasing role technology
has in the classroom and how instructors must change their way of thinking about the
integration of technology with instruction. It is not surprising that the focus group
highlighted the fact that student - instructor interaction increased as the technology
became the delivery method. Instructors must learn to transition from strict lecture to
facilitative learning regardless of the delivery method of the instruction. Adopting a
“guide on the side” mentality versus a “sage on the stage” philosophy will enable

instructors to see how technology can actually increase interaction with their students.

87

Another important point indicated by the open-ended questions and the focus group
related to checking in with students both at the beginning of and during the semester.
By adapting lessons to the needs of the students in the class and ensuring their
individual learning styles are being accounted for, an instructor will increase the
students’ level of satisfaction of the learning experience.

Student - Student Interaction

The third interaction Moore proposes is inter-leamer interaction between one
learner and other learners, alone or in group settings, with or without the real-time
presence of an instructor (Moore, 1989). Through the history of education the class or
educational group has more often than not been organized for reasons that have nothing
to do with learners’ needs (Moore, 1989). At present many classes are organized
because the class is the only organizational form known to most teachers and because in
the short term, though not usually the long term, it is the cheapest way of delivering the
teaching acts of stimulation, presentation, application, evaluation, and student support
(Moore, 1989). This was the second interaction to be addressed by this study.

The student responses to the ways in which interaction between and among the
students was encouraged included working in teams/ group projects, via class discussion,
by comparing/ sharing notes, and by working in a laboratory environment. With the
adoption of Blackboard as a course management tool, working in teams/ groups and
holding a class discussion can be facilitated through the use of technology.

Overall, students felt that the interaction between and among students was
average. In fact, 11 of the 13 student — student interactions were rated below 3.5 (good).

The student - student interaction ratings were the lowest of all forms of interaction

88

studied. Interaction has long been considered the key to success in traditional classroom
(F ulford and Zhang, 1993). Students experiencing higher levels of interaction have
been shown to have more positive attitudes and higher levels of achievement than those
experiencing less interaction (ibid, 1993). One of the keys components of good
teaching is the intellectually stimulating exchange of ideas, those meaningful
interactions that occur between teachers and students and among students themselves
(V rasidas and McIsaac, 1999). This student — student interaction is critical to
supporting the learning environment, regardless of delivery type. However, when
examining how students rated the interaction between and among students by delivery
type, face-to-face students rated this interaction 3.11 (average), hybrid students 2.93
(average) and online students 3.90 (good). Again, this study shows a trend that student-
student interactions are impacted favorably by the use of technology in the classroom,
especially for completely online courses where the instructor may grade students based
on their interactions between one another.

The focus group targeted two points relating to student - student interaction, the
fact that online interaction between students was encouraged and the instructors
assigned group projects. Student - student interaction online was rated good as
compared to average for the hybrid and face-to-face delivery. This data was the same as
what the focus group expected as online interaction between and among students was
not only encouraged, but the student’s final grade depended on participating in
discussion forums and posting responses to other students’ work and group projects.
The only problem the focus group had with group projects required for online courses

was an inequity created among group members when one of the group failed to

89

participate - or goes “AWOL,” absent with out leave, a military acronym, as they put it.
Many instructors have prepared for this inequity by having group members evaluate
each other’s contribution and that being a portion of the student’s grade.

The focus group felt it would be beneficial to have more group projects and
allow students to work with one another and share ideas. The hybrid class would be an
excellent way for group work to continue even when the class meets only half of the
time face-to-face.

When testing for significance between the variables computer skills, course type,
pursuance of a degree or certificate, age, or gender the results were all negative in
relation to student — student interaction. However, when comparing hybrid to online
delivery types, online study participants rated student — student interaction higher than
hybrid study participants.

Student — Content Interaction

The first type of interaction Moore introduced in 1989 is between the learner and
the content or subject of study. Without interaction with course content, there cannot be
education since it is the process of intellectually interacting with content that results in
changes in the learner’s understanding, the learner’s perspective, or the cognitive
structures of the learner’s mind (Moore, 1989). This was the third interaction addressed
in this study.

The student responses to the ways in which interaction between the course
content and student was encouraged were all over the board. The only multiple

response was “Lecture, class discussion, intemet, book” where 2 students answered this

90

way. This indicates that instructors at the college need to encourage students to interact
with course content, perhaps by providing more course content online.

Overall, students felt the interaction between the course content and students
was good. However, when examining how students rated the interaction between the
course content and student by delivery type, face-to-face rated this interaction 3.88
(good), hybrid 3.93 (good) and online 4.28 (good). This study shows a trend that
student — content interactions are impacted favorably by the use of technology,
especially for online courses where all of the course content is online.

The focus group agreed with the data, especially in regards to the fact that
instructors put more content online and required students to interact with that content in
online classes. In fact, the students in the focus groups wished more instructors would
use the technology to put more content online regardless of delivery type. They would
like to see Blackboard used in the following ways for all classes: intemet links,
announcements, syllabus, assignments, lecture notes, discussion, group work, and email.
If a student missed class for any reason, he or she should be able to access the system to
see what was missed.

When testing for significance between the variables delivery type, computer
skills, course type, pursuance of a degree or certificate, age, or gender the results were

all negative in relation to student — content interaction.

Student - Technology Interaction

 

In 1994, Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) augmented Moore’s model
with a fourth interaction leamer-interface. This interaction addresses learners’

accommodation to technological learning platforms. The leamer-interface interaction

91

provides access to instruction, and access permits learners to participate in the other
essential learner interactions (Hillman, et a1, 1994). Ifthe learner-interface interaction
fails to occur, students might not participate at any level in other learner interactions
(ibid, 1994). In effect, adequate and reliable leamer-interface interaction is the keystone
to learner involvement. If it fails, learning fails. A desirable outcome of the learner-
interface interaction is to render the technology user friendly and transparent (ibid,
1994). The fourth research question in this study deals with the interaction between the
technology and the students.

The student responses to the ways in which interaction between the technology
and students was encouraged were a majority “Blackboard was not used.” This can be
attributed to the follow-up question “Did Your Class Use Blackboard?” and will be
addressed later. Overall, students who used technology in their class liked the course
management system — Blackboard.

Overall, students felt the interaction between the technology and the students
was good. However, when examining how students rated the interaction between the
technology and students by delivery type, face-to-face rated this interaction 3.11
(average), hybrid 4.13 (good) and online 4.21 (good). It is not surprising that
technology-student interactions are impacted favorably by the use of technology in the
classroom. It is interesting to point out that the student - technology interaction rating
for the hybrid class (face-to-face and online) was very close to that of the online rating.

The focus group agreed that student — technology interaction was impacted
favorably with the use of technology in the classroom, especially since hybrid and

online courses required the use of Blackboard. The focus group had many good

92

suggestions which included the college’s course catalog should reflect technology
knowledge as a requirement and that the college should provide a technology Skills
assessment with follow up workshops on technology use. The overall theme from the
survey and focus group is that all classes should take advantage of the technology
available. This is critical, as once students graduate from college they will be expected
to use technology in their professions, and the college should prepare them for this
challenge.

When testing for Significance between the variables course type, pursuance of a
degree or certificate, or gender, the results were all negative in relation to student —
technology interaction. When comparing delivery type and student — technology
interaction rating, the level of Significance is at .014, which shows there is an apparent
difference between the delivery type and student — technology interaction at a 95 %
confidence level. This is not surprising due to the fact that the level of student —
technology interaction is much greater in courses that are delivered directly via
technology or a substantial portion of the course is delivered via technology. In
addition, when comparing computer skill groupings, the “High Computer Skill” group
rated student — technology interaction higher than the “Low Computer Skill” group.
The level of significance is at .014, which Shows there is an apparent difference between
the skill level grouping and student — technology interaction at a 95% confidence level.
It makes sense that study participants who report having better computer skills would
rate student - technology interactions higher than those who report having novice or

intermediate computer skills.

93

The study participants in the “Old Half” age grouping, 25 — 58 years, rated
student — technology interaction higher than the “Young Half” age grouping. This also
showed a level of Significance at .03 0, which shows there is an apparent difference
between the age and student — technology interaction at a 95% confidence level. One
could conclude this is based on the experience an older worker has using technology in
the workforce versus younger students who may have better computer skills, but less
experience in application of the technology. As computer use and the adoption of
Blackboard by instructors for their face-to-face course increases, the researcher
theorizes that the difference between delivery type and the student - technology
interaction would decrease.

Blackboard

Survey question five asked students to indicate if Blackboard was used in their
class. Overall, 41 out of a total of 53, 77.4%, students who participated in the survey
stated they used Blackboard in their class. This is a fascinating fact, as 5 students out of
the total 17 in face-to-face delivered courses must have used the Blackboard course
management system in their class. Fall semester 2001 is the first semester all courses at
the college had Blackboard course Sites available for instructors to use. Further
investigation would be needed and a follow-up study performed to see what the
adoption rate of this technology was during that first semester. F ace-to-face instructors
could have used Blackboard for communication, discussion, and quizzes or as a place to
post content. The purpose of this study was not to discover this; however, it is

interesting to the researcher that almost thirty percent of the respondents in the face-to-

94

face delivery stated they used Blackboard the first semester it was available to
instructors for use.

The next part of the data presented was how instructors used Blackboard in their
classes. Students could select how Blackboard was used in eight different categories.
Out of the total 227 responses, 38 students indicated they used the announcement and
syllabus feature of Blackboard in their course; this represented 16.7% of the total
responses respectively. Thirty-six students indicated they used course documents and
the discussion board or 15.9% of the total responses. Twenty-nine students indicated
that email was used in Blackboard, or 12.8% of the responses, followed by 25 who
indicated assessments in their courses were delivered via Blackboard, 11% of the total
responses. Finally, 17 indicated group work (7 .5%), and 8 used the Blackboard chat
feature (3.5%).

It is not surprising that the announcement, syllabus, course documents,
discussion board, email, and assessment features were used as often as shown above.
These are the integral components of any course management system, and for a hybrid
or online class to be successfirl, any or all of the key features listed previously would be
critical components of course design and delivery of course content. In fact, the college
has adopted an online instructor-training program which demonstrates the use and
application of these various features in order to ensure a successful learning experience.

Comments from students regarding the use of Blackboard as a course
management tool ranged from very easy to use to “a real pain Since the computer isn’t

trustworthy.” Students were quick to state that their course wouldn’t have worked well

95

in Blackboard, supporting the focus group’s point that not all courses are suited for a
completely online environment.

Since this was the first semester the college implemented a data integration
project between the student information system and course management system
(Blackboard), some technical difficulties were experienced at the beginning of the
semester. Many of the problems noted by students participating in the study and focus
groups were due to difficulties with their own computer equipment and/or their intemet
service provider. Slow connection speeds to the intemet will continue to be an issue
until high speed access is available and affordable to student populations.

mom

This study has demonstrated that the use of technology can actually increase
student perceptions relating to the four interactions found in the classroom, even though
the results cannot be generalized beyond the students who participated due to the limited
number of responses. In addition, the study also provides examples of how instructors
encouraged these interactions. The other important finding is that instructors Should be
well versed in education technology, and colleges and universities need to prepare
students in the use of technology. Students today will be expected to use technology in
the work place, and it is up to institutions of higher education to better prepare these
students for the challenges they will face while on the job. i

It is important to note that the online students rated the four interactions slightly
higher than both the face-to-face and hybrid students. In a few cases, the difference was
significant and demonstrates a commitment fiom instructors to encourage interaction

between and among the students, and to ensure the online students have access to course

96

content. The fact that the student — technology interaction and delivery type test for
significance was positive should provide the institution with incentive to provide
training to both faculty and students so the technology skills of both groups will
improve.

When asked to reflect on the hour and a half spent discussing the four types of
interaction, the focus group had some interesting thoughts and suggestions to enhance
the learning for the students. Initially, members of the group were skeptical about
taking a class online or as a hybrid. Now, however, they like their experience better in
those types of classes even though it boils down to the instructor teaching the section.
They were also quick to add that the delivery method selected for courses should be
based on the subject, as not all subjects are suited for online delivery, and instructors
should be well prepared and know the subject as well as the technology before trying to
teach a hybrid or online class.

Focus group members also reiterated a need for assessing the learning styles of
students at the beginning of the semester and for instructors to “check in” during the
semester on the progress of the course. More college services need to take advantage of
technology and adopt alternatives to delivering student services fiom traditional, face-
to-face methods. Finally, the students were happy the college was allowing them the
opportunity to use technology and for emphasizing it in the instruction they received, as
the students are well aware that they will be expected to use technology in the
workforce.

In conclusion, technology, like any other classroom instructional tool, is only as

good as the user. Preparation of instructors and students is critical to the successful

97

III

infusion of technology in the classroom. This study has demonstrated that the four
interactions in higher education can be supported as well, if not better, through the use
of technology and that student’s perceptions of the interactions validate that these
interactions need to be encouraged regardless of the delivery type.

lrnplications

This study has implications for college and university administrators in planning
course delivery and provides valuable student opinions of the interactions they
encounter while taking courses in one of the three delivery methods: face-to-face,
hybrid and online. In addition, instructors can use the data gathered here to better
understand how the four interactions student — instructor, student — student, student -
content and student — technology work in the various delivery methods and how to
leverage technology to assist the instruction, not to be the instruction.

Technology can be used by instructors to communicate with students, store
documents and course content, and as a way for students to interact with one another. It
is important that the technology used in the class does not take away fi'om the
instruction but assists the instructor in facilitating the learning. The technology should
support the learners and provide a vehicle for delivering the instruction, not as an “add
on” which doesn’t increase the experience of the students.

Instructors need to be sure to ask students about their expectations and learning
styles at the beginning and during the course. By checking in the instructor will ensure
the student is comfortable with the course content, the use of technology in the
classroom, and with other students in the course. It is important that the instructor

examines his or her class teaching style and facilitates the learning with the student. It

98

is apparent from the comments made during this study that the students are motivated
and have expectations to learn specific topics. They are willing to sit through lectures.
However, students participating in this study rated technologically facilitated learning,
hybrid and online, higher in all four interactions with the exception of student - student
where face-to-face was rated slightly higher than hybrid delivery.

In addition, colleges and universities that infuse technology across instruction
will better prepare students for the challenges they face in the job market, as they will be
expected to use technology while at work. Again, for the population of this study the
students are expected to use technology in the workplace, and they expect the instructors
to be well versed on not only the technology of their field but of using technology in the
classroom.

Recommendations

Colleges and universities should use the data presented as supportive of the use
of technology in instruction. Students are willing to use technology to access
information and in many cases, prefer being able to access their course anytime and
anyplace. Preparation of instructors and the conversion of face-to-face materials online
need to be carefully planned and implemented remembering :that the technology Should ’93
gno’t replace the instruction but rather enhance or reinforce the course content. ’,
Instructors need to ensure they are checking inwith students at the beginning, middle,
and at the end of the semester to make sure course objectives are being met. Different
student learning styles also need to be planned for and met.

The various course management systems available today make it possible for

instructors to promote all four interactions found in traditional, face-to-face classes

99

through the use of the tools the technology offers. By using discussion boards, email,
and chat, instructors are able to increase interactions with and among their students.
Course documents and announcements allow students to access course content which
otherwise might not have been available to them in a face-to-face class. In addition, an
online grade book allows students to keep track of their progress throughout the
semester.

Finally, student’s demand for enhancing their technology skills is increasing as
they understand that future and continued employment may well be based on how adept
they are at using technology in the workplace. Colleges and universities across the
nation need to understand and ensure they are preparing students for the challenges they
will face in competitive job markets. Many times students who are familiar with and
are willing to use technology will get a job over an individual who has better academic

preparation but who is unfamiliar with current technology used in the workplace.

Suggestion; for Future Resea_r_ch
Trend data needs to be gathered throughout the academic year. This study only
offers a look at the first semester when Blackboard was used by seven different courses

via three different delivery methods, face-to-face, hybrid, and online. Although the

 

online study participants appear to rate the interactions higher in all cases, the small

‘-——c———----‘1..
_ ,_‘

 

M“

sample size prevented the researcher from drawing concrete conclusions and a larger

v’ f

w .-'

study would provide more conclusive data. During the fall semester in 2002, the college
offered over 30 different courses using the three different delivery methods. In addition,

more than 400 instructors have received training on how to adopt technology in the

100

classroom. It would be interesting to see how these instructors have fared using the
three different delivery methods.

Based on this study and the open-ended responses for the different interaction
types, a taxonomy of potential forms of interaction, student — instructor interactions,
student — student interactions, student — content interactions and student — technology
interactions, could be developed and used by study participants to share their
perceptions of the interactions they encountered. This taxonomy could also be
developed for instructors to see if the interactions they encouraged matched the ones the

“w”-.. . - ‘- . hp ,_

students experienced.

Finally, it would be interesting to check on instructor perceptions on the four
interactions using the three delivery methods, especially since many instructors are now
teaching in multiple delivery formats. How did your face-to-face, hybrid, and online
classes compare with one another? Have you made any changes to the way you teach
due to the infusion of technology in your classroom? How much has the use of

technology impacted your other classes? Are you spending more/less time preparing or

delivering your instruction?

101

REFERENCES

Borg, W.R. & Gall, MD. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York,
NY: Longman Publishing Company.

Fulford, C. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of Interaction: The Critical Predictor in
Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 7 No. 3. 8 -
21.

Green, K. C. (2000). Campus computing, 2000: The national survey of desktop
computing in higher education. Encino, CA: Campus Computing.

Hillman, D., Willis, D., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Leamer-Interface Interaction in
Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for
Practitioners. American Jomal of Distance Education. Vol. 8 No. 2. 30 - 42.

 

Hohnberg, B. (1989). Theogy and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.

3mi-

Hopkins, W. (2000). A New View of Statistics. Available at
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/ttest.html

Institute for Higher Education Policy. What ’s the Difierence? A Review of
Contemporary Research on the Eflectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher
Education. Washington, DC: Available at
http://www.ihep.com/Publications.php?parm=Pubs/Abstract?9

Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croom Hehn.

Krueger, R., & Casey, M. (2000). Focu_s Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Moore, MG. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education. Vol. 3 No. 2. 1 - 7.

Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education - A Systems View. Boston,
MA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Russell, T. L. 1999. The no significant dijference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office
of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University. Also
available at http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifi‘erence/

Shale, D. & Garrison, DR. (1990). Communications technology. Education at a
Distance 41 - 52.

 

102

Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and Distance Education: A
New Discussion. American Joumg of Distance EducationLVol. 13 No. l. 60 -
75.

Sewart, D. (1982). Individualizing Support Services. Learning at a Distance: A World
Persmctive. Edmonton: ICCE Athabasca University, 114 - 122.

Thomerson, J .D. & Smith, C. (1996). Student Perceptions of the Affective Experiences
Encountered in Distance Learning Courses. American Journal of Dista_n_pc;
Educaa'on. Vol. 10 No. 3. 37 - 48.

Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, M. (1999). Factors Influencing Interaction in an Online
Course. American Journal of Distance Educatiop, Vol. 13 No. 3, 22 - 36.

Wagner, E. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. American
Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 8 No. 2. 6 - 27.

103

APPENDIX I: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES FOR EACH INTERACTION

STUDENT — INSTRUCTOR INTERACTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category of Response Number of Students
Asking/answering questions 10
Lecture, class discussion 5
Office hours 2
During experiments the instructor would walk 1
around the room to check on the students
We consistently held group discussions about the 1
topics we were learning in class
Instructor went over homework eveg'day 1
It wasn’t encouraged, the teacher just stood in 1
front of the class talking for hours

‘ By giving assignments
Scenarios 1

 

STUDENT - STUDENT INTERACTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Catggory of Response N umber‘of Students
We had to work in teams/ group projects 5
Class discussion 5
Compared/shared notes 2
Worked in labs for one session each week, 2

allowed for discussion between lab partners

 

 

 

 

 

We never did anything together as groups. I never 1
even knew any of the student’s names
None was encouraged 1

 

STUDENT - CONTENT INTERACTIONS

 

 

 

Category of Response ( , I Number of Students
Lecture, class discussion, intemet, book 2
Wehad5—6“case study”papersto do 1

throughout the semester in which we were
“forced” to use concepts from our book
Omitting the traditional exams, quizzes, & tests 1
and working on a project similar to real world
rojects - developinga marketing plan

 

 

 

We were given several weekly assignments as 1
well as bi-weekly papers to stay on task
Had to write a report of our choice on a topic 1

 

 

covered in class. This allowed the students to

 

 

104

 

more deeply explore a topic of interest

 

Example htrnl files on the instructors website and
other code fi'om another web page on the intemet

 

The course followed the syllabus and all students
had to work on the experiments that was assigned
for that date

 

Homework was assigned each time class met and
the previous assignment was gone over by the
instructor, then a test was given on the material

 

All we did was take notes and take tests. We did
do one book rgport, but that’s it

 

Attend study groups and access the answer book
for the problems

 

 

Lectures on every chapter using slides, worksheets
and practice quizzes

 

 

STUDENT - TECHNOLOGY INTERACTION

 

" Category of Response

Number of Students

 

Blackboard was not used

10

 

Used Excel to chart lab results

1

 

Blackboard was a wonderful help in this class,
announcements, practice quizzes and assignments
were put on so it could be accessed at your own
convenience

l

 

We posted reports for extra credit and to retrieve
assignments if we were unable to attend class

 

Website assignments

 

 

Grade and assignments on blackboard

 

 

COMMENTS ON BLACKBOARD

 

 

 

- .. y Catagorjy of Response . . Number of Students ’
Very good site, easy to use 2
In other courses it has been very helpful & fun 2

 

Not all courses can use Blackboard. This course
especially wouldn’t have worked out by using
Blackboard (Marketing 200)

l

 

 

Ok, but a real pain since the computer isn’t
trustworthy - crashes a lot or the intemet isn’t
dialing up correctly

 

 

105

 

 

 

APPENDIX 11: CLASS SURVEY IN STRUIVIENT

The purpose of this study is to compare the opinions of students about the interactions
they encounter while taking college courses in a face-to—face, hybrid, and online
environment. The study uses a survey instrument asking you to identify interactions in
four categories; student-instructor interactions, student-student interactions, student-
content interactions and student-technology interactions. You will then be asked to rate
the interactions on a scale of one (poor) to five (excellent). Your participation in the
survey is voluntary, and you indicate your voluntary consent by retmning the survey
instrument in the stamped envelope provided. You may skip certain questions if you
want and stop your participation at any time without penalty. Please contact Tim
Brannan at (517) 483-1703 if you have any questions.

1. In what ways was interaction between the instructor and students encouraged?

 

 

Please rate the interaction between the instructor and students:
Poor 1 2 3 4 , 5 Excellent
Comments:

2. In what ways was interaction between and among the students in the class encouraged?

 

 

Please rate the interaction between and among the students:
Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent
Comments:

3. In what ways was interaction between the course content and students encouraged?

 

 

Please rate the interaction between the course content and students:

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent

Comments:

106

4. In what ways was interaction between the technology (Blackboard) and students
encouraged?

 

 

Please rate the interaction between the technology and students:

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent
Comments:
5. Did your class use Blackboard? Yes No

IfYES, please check the lines below to indicate how Blackboard was used during the semester.

Announcement
Email

Syllabus

Course Documents
Discussion Board
Assessment

Chat

Groupwork

Comments about Blackboard:

Your Age:

Your Computer skills: No experience Novice Intermediate
Advanced Expert

Are you seeking a degree at LCC?: Yes No

If YES which degree?

Sex: Male Female

 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! Please return in the enclosed envelope
or mail to Tim Brannan, PO Box 20, Dewitt, MI 48820.

107

APPENDIX III: FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENT

The purpose of this study is to compare the opinions of students about the interactions
they encounter while taking college courses in a face-to-face, hybrid, and online
environment. The study uses a focus group to validate the survey’s findings relating to
interactions in four categories; student-instructor interactions, student-student
interactions, student-content interactions and student-technology interactions. You will
then be asked the following questions and your responses tape-recorded. Your
participation in the survey is voluntary, and you indicate your voluntary consent by
signing the consent form. You may skip certain questions if you want and stop your
participation at any time without penalty

What meaning/understanding can you draw fi'om the data presented?

Is the data different from or the same as you expected or experienced?

In what ways can this data help instructors do a better job?

 

Your Age:

Your Computer skills: No experience Novice Intermediate
Advanced Expert

Are you seeking a degree at LCC?: Yes No

IfYES which degree?

Sex: Male Female

108

APPENDIX IV: INFORMED CONSENT FOR FOCUS GROUP

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group addressing learner interactivity
in higher education. By signing this form, you give the research team your permission
to share data collected from a focus group detailing with three different types of
instruction: face-to-face, hybrid, and online.

Your participation in this focus group is completely voluntary. The researchers will be
the only people seeing your remarks and your input will be kept confidential and
anonymous. Lastly, your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law.

Thank you again for your cooperation and help with improving learner interactions in
higher education. Ifyou have any particular questions about this study, please contact:

Dr. Joe Levine Dr. Dave Krueger Tim Brannan
Dissertation Chair Co-interviewer Co-interviewer
409 Agriculture Hall 409 Agriculture Hall 11685 Prestle Ct.
Michigan State University Michigan State University Dewitt, MI 48820
(517) 355-6580 (517) 355-6580 (517) 668-0104

Ifyou have questions about being a human subject of research you may contact Ashir
Kumar, M.D., Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
355-2180 or ucrihs@msu.edu.

I, , agree to participate in the Learner Interactivity in
Higher Education Focus Group conducted by Dr. Krueger and Tim Brannan.

I, , agree to allow my voice to be audio-taped while
participating in the Learner Interactivity in Higher Education Focus Group conducted by
Dr. Krueger and Tim Brannan.

Signed:

 

Date:

 

109

APPENDIX V: SURVEY COVER LETTER

{Date}
Dear {Name}:

I am writing you to ask your cooperation in completing the enclosed survey instrument
to determine interactions found in Lansing Community College courses fall semester
2001. The purpose of this study is to compare the opinions of students about the
interactions they encounter while taking college courses in a face-to-faee, hybrid, and
online environment. The study uses a survey instrument asking you to identify
interactions in four categories; student-instructor interactions, student-student
interactions, student-content interactions and student-technology interactions. You will
then be asked to rate the interactions on a scale of one (poor) to five (excellent).

Your participation in the survey is voluntary, and you indicate your voluntary consent by
returning the survey instrument in the stamped envelope provided. The survey has been
designed for you to respond in approximately 20 minutes. No individual respondents
will be identified in any results or research reports. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

A follow-up focus group is planned to occur over the summer. If you are interested in
participating in this even, please indicate your interest on the enclosed postcard and
mail. The focus group is designed to take approximately one hour and will be tape-
recorded.

If you have questions about being a human subject of research you may contact Ashir
Kumar, M.D., Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
355-2180 or ucrihs@msu.edu.

Thank you in advance for taking time to Share your options regarding interactions you
encounter while taking courses at Lansing Community College. Ifyou have any
particular questions about this study, please call Dr. Joe Levine at (517) 355-6580 or
myself at (517) 483-1703.

Sincerely,

Tim Brannan
Director of Distance Learning

110