MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: A REPLICATION STUDY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS REGARDING MOTIVATING AND INHIBITING FACTORS IN DISTANCE LEARNING
Mary I. Dereshiwsky
Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Abstract
This study is a replication of Linda Peters' "Through the Looking Glass - Student Perceptions of Online Learning," published in the Sept./Oct. 2001 issue of The Technology Source (retrieved from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=907). In this article, Peters hypothesized five motivating or inhibiting factors related to online learning as perceived by students: 1) computer access; 2) computer hardware; 3) computer skills; 4) time management issues; and 5) personal contact issues.
The study was replicated with ten doctoral candidates in education enrolled in the author's Web-based research design course. The author/instructor moderated an asynchronous discussion in the course posting area centered on these five topics. In addition, she added a final emergent, grounded theory 'any other issues' option. Each of these six total motivating/inhibiting factors was discussed for an entire week via student postings and interaction in the course area.
Results revealed that: 1) the computer hardware and software issues appear to be neutral or only slightly relevant to students—during the weeks of their discussion, many students chose to focus on other issues perceived as motivating or inhibiting factors; 2) far more salient were issues of personal time management, motivation and quality of communications with one's instructor and fellow students; 3) students particularly focused on a perceived painful tradeoff between flexibility of self-pacing on the one hand, and forming such close bonds with fellow students on the other hand, that they missed the opportunity to interact with them in real time.
The above results suggest that course planners and instructors should focus more on issues of interpersonal communication and community building and perhaps be less concerned about strictly technological issues when preparing students for online instruction. The results also indicate that some student decision points regarding online course enrollment are both motivating and inhibiting in terms of the trade-off (i.e., the aforementioned flexibility as compared to losing the opportunity to connect face-to-face). This study is intended to serve as a pilot test for a broader-based replication of group interviewing with online education graduate students to further identify the components of motivating and inhibiting factors in online instruction.
Introduction
Any learning experience critically depends on "the eye of the beholder" in terms of how it is perceived by the learner. Student perceptions regarding their instructional experience are frequently an unpredictable mix of past experiences, expectations and their own readiness for success.
Along with perceptions come motivations to persist and excel. Such motivating factors may be both facilitating and inhibiting.
The Web-based instructional environment adds the element of novelty to the mix. Technologically mediated instruction is still relatively new. As such, some students face the challenge of adaptation to change, as well as possibly inappropriate expectations and comparisons to the traditional brick-and-mortar face-to-face instructional environment.
What are the types of student motivators, both facilitating and inhibiting, perceived by learners in a Web-based doctoral level research design course? This study is a replication of the research conducted by Linda Peters (2001). In this study, she categorized such emergent student motivators into the following five general categories: 1) issues of computer access; 2) issues of computer skills; 3) issues of computer hardware; 4) issues of time management; and 5) issues of personal contact. These factors were shared with students in an asynchronous discussion designed to elicit their perceptions of such factors, both positive and negative, as well as any additional emergent factors they felt were salient to their online instructional experience.
Methods and Procedures
The study sample consisted of ten doctoral education majors enrolled in an all-Web-based required course in research design at Northern Arizona University (NAU). All students enrolled in this course agreed to participate in the study.
The instructor created asynchronous discussion folders for the purpose of the study. At the start of each week, she invited the students to post their reactions to one of the preceding five factors. She added a sixth open-ended grounded theory discussion item, "Are there any other factors, either positive or negative, which I have not yet asked you about but which you believe are relevant to your online instructional experience?" This final grounded theory discussion item allowed for the emergence of unanticipated, yet salient, factors as perceived by the study subjects.
The students were informed that all responses are valid and valued, be they positive or negative. Furthermore, while a new discussion topic (factor) was introduced at the start of each week, students were welcome to continue posting on a discussion topic even after the week was over, and until the official end of the course.
Findings and Results
Results will be summarized for each factor (discussion topic) below.
Factor #1: Computer Access
Three students felt that computer access, in and of itself, was not a key issue. They felt that in the current information age, access was readily available at some location, be it home or school. However, as one student cautioned, "…we are probably a self-selecting population. We wouldn’t opt for a web-class if we didn’t have convenient access." As another stated, "I would be ruined if I did not have my own computer or access to the Internet anywhere else besides the NAU lab."
However, the above belief was counter-balanced by two students living in remote locations. They bemoaned the unreliability of dependable computer connectivity at such remote sites and felt it was a hindrance to their continued successful engagement in online study.
Interestingly, opinions as to whether home or school connections were better were split. Some students applauded the convenience of studying at a home computer: "it’s great being able to go to class in pajamas via the Web," as one subject put it. However, others experienced faster and more reliable connections at the work place. Students also praised the ability to ‘stay connected’ to one’s class even while traveling for work or personal reasons.
Surprisingly, a couple of subjects chose to discuss other factors, such as time management, problems with procrastination, and the desire to have synchronous chat sessions to reinforce understanding of the research material.
Factor #2: Computer Skills
Four students characterized their computing skills as being adequate: "…proficient, but not outstanding," in the words of one respondent. These students felt comfortable in navigating the Web generally, as well as copying and pasting text content into asynchronous posting areas in the course room. In general, students also felt that computer skills get better with time and practice. They were able to compare how far they have come in these areas and to appreciate how much more proficient they currently feel in these basic skills.
Three subjects would have, in their own words, been lost without having a support person: i.e., a computer-savvy spouse or a helpful lab aide. One of them recounted a recent horror story in having to switch computers and spend over an hour re-opening a transferred file with her husband’s help. "I must say a prayer for those whose computer knowledge is not quite where my husband’s is, though I believe sheer stubbornness will get you pretty far." Another student whimsically mused, "Has anyone met a user-friendly manual yet?"
In their responses to this factor, a number of students referred to issues of server crashes, unreliable dial-ups and related problems with computer hardware. They did not seem to perceive this ‘computer skills’ factor as being separate and apart from the above other technological issues.
Factor #3: Issues of Computer Hardware
Students spoke of their need to be versatile in this regard: to be able to work on a variety of different computers at home and at work and in the computer labs, and often with mixed results. Typically, they found themselves preferring one type of computer to another, and yet at the same time not having the luxury of getting to work on that particular computer for all of their course work.
Another student bemoaned having to work on outdated equipment at school–"dinosaurs," as she put it–with the attendant slow transfer speeds. Once again, as with the preceding two technological factors, speed and reliability of connections, as well as having a knowledgeable and ‘user-friendly’ support person accessible, were mentioned.
As with the first computer access factor, one student felt that hardware per se was not a key motivating or inhibiting factor in and of itself. "The hardware neither motivates nor detracts. For me it is like the pen and paper I take to a standard class. As long as it works, it is not an issue. If the pen works and the paper does not get lost, I’m happy. It is the same with the hardware. If it works and I can get my work done, I’m happy. Sorry, no rich details from me on this one, it just seems to be a non issue for me."
Factor #4: Issues of Time Management
In contrast to the three preceding technology factors, this issue generated more than twice as much engagement and discussion on the part of the study subjects. In addition, as will become apparent below, students also chose to discuss related issues of personal contact (Factor #5) in conjunction with time management issues.
Proper planning and self-discipline were repeatedly mentioned as ‘must-have’ student practices. Otherwise, according to the respondents, the danger of missing important announcements, procrastination, and getting behind loomed large. Several students mentioned that they have a set time of day, such as early morning, during which they have disciplined themselves to log in to their course.
On the plus side, the convenience of flexible, individual self-pacing was seen as a major strength of online learning. "This is a very unique setting and I feel that it allows individuals to perform ‘at their best’…because they have some major flexibility in when research is done, what time of the day it is done, what is worn when doing research, what food or drink items are consumed, when breaks are taken, etc."
One student noted the variation that exists among different Web-based and Web-enhanced courses. She observed that issues of individual course format, layout and instructor expectations were significantly related to this overall issue of time management.
Nevertheless, several students felt a bit of disorientation and the pervasive feeling of ‘having missed something major’ in terms of a due date or similar expectation, due to not having the more traditional face-to-face verbal reminder of ‘what’s due.’
With regard to this ‘disembodied’ nature of interaction, one respondent strikingly put it directly to the instructor in this way: "So Dr. D: How does it feel for you? You don’t get a chance to see our little smiley faces or those of us who may be snoozing in the back of the class at 10:30 a.m…I’m a touchy feely type person and realize I have missed knowing my classmates in the third dimension."
A couple of respondents missed the face-to-face interaction. They also wondered whether all coursework could be similarly accommodated to all-online formats…or whether some traditional residency requirements with face-to-face instruction should continue to be built into programs of study. "How strange it is to consider that [physicians] can be trained completely online. I must wonder how much credence is given to a doctoral degree obtained online. Do you think they get employed?" Another student shared an example of "…a brilliant surgeon who coaches other physicians in orthoscopic medicine via visual conferencing."
Factor #5: Issues of Personal Contact
As seen in the preceding time-management discussion, this ‘humanistic’ factor was a big area of focus for study subjects. Opinions were consistently split down the middle with regard to whether Web courses are facilitating or inhibiting on this issue.
On the one hand, respondents applauded the flexibility of pacing made possible by Web courses, and how this impacts their participation in the course. "I think the anonymity offered by online courses is a plus," one student shared. "The cyber classroom lacks the usual trappings that may occur in a traditional class–the judgments that may be made by observing and listening to others." According to another student, "I feel that the loss of personal contact in a cyber course is far outweighed by the ability to ‘speak’ freely at my own pace and without any interruption. I can give more thought to what I have to say and how I want to say it." In addition, Web-based interaction "…adds an air of mystery and curiosity. And isn’t curiosity the big force behind our research?"
However, on the minus side, the majority of students also bemoaned the loss of face-to-face personal interaction. One of them noted the loss of body language and voice inflections as additional channels of communication. As vividly observed by another student respondent, "It upsets me to know that I could pass any one of my cybermates on campus at NAU and we would not realize that we know each other." "My father once told me that college has several purposes, one of them being making connections that will last a lifetime, both personal and in general networking…it would be nice to associate a name with a face," replied another student.
A key moderating factor in whether personal contact was seen as a minus or plus, according to several students, was the communication style of the instructor. They felt that if the instructor created clear course expectations, and modeled a comfortable and facilitative open style of communication in all online interactions, this made for a positively balanced learning experience. Study subjects also expressed concerns about incoming college freshmen not being ready for all online course work, and their opinion that some courses should have face-to-face components at all levels.
Other Emergent Factors
As mentioned earlier, the researcher created a final posting area for students to bring up any additional motivating or inhibiting factors. This created an emergent grounded-theory opportunity for subjects to share salient issues not already discussed.
Interestingly, this final discussion-topic yielded additional discussion of pros and cons mentioned earlier–particularly with regard to human relations issues.
- There was wide agreement with one poster’s observation as follows: "The ability to interact with other students in a setting which eliminates judgment by body language, dress, gender, or styles, but rather allow individuals to truly express themselves without fear of how they may be perceived, in cyberland only academic perceptions are allowed and this eliminates other distractions which might otherwise influence interactions among students."
- Flex time in studying online was also brought up again as a relative plus.
- Several students reiterated the importance of having an instructor who is organized and facilitative of open and accepting communication in cyberspace.
- Subjects also lauded prompt and detailed feedback from the instructor as a positive factor.
- One student mentioned being initially resistant of fixed due dates in the Web course, only to become convinced later on that this helped promote continual engagement and thus, a sense of group cohesion.
- Finally, the very fact of students having to stay current with technology in order to participate successfully in a web course was seen as a benefit by one poster.
At the same time, respondents also reiterated concerns about ‘missing something’ such as key due dates.
- Students continued to feel challenged by having to communicate in cyberspace as well. "I truly love to be involved in intellectual discussions related to readings assigned in class, but when I’m reading them off the page, I get a little frustrated that I might misinterpret what is being expressed. I keep reading that communication is about 65% nonverbal and 30% vocal (a measly 5% is the words), and I think that severely impedes effective communication in web courses."
- Two others worried about how to convey humorous intent in postings without danger of misinterpretation by the receiver. "Sometimes it is more difficult to express humor when writing as opposed to having voice inflections, facial expressions and body language. Just writing ‘ha ha’ after a sentence isn’t nearly as funny."
- This in turn led one student to muse, "I wonder if there is a scientific name for non visual and non verbal communication within cyber space? We have proxemics and kinesics. Let’s make one up."
- Students also reiterated a loss of face-to-face communication and enjoyment of such real-time live interaction with classmates.
- Another student noted that "lack of real time feedback on discussions and input to the syllabus" is a drawback. "Adult learners traditionally want input to their learning. Distance learning has the feel of a pedagogic learning environment."
- In an interesting twist of the Impostor Phenomenon, one poster shared that "…due to perhaps a real lack of self confidence, I am emerging from both my web classes wondering if I have displayed true learning via my completed assignments or if I was able to hide behind this computer and put forth an elaborate fake…due to the cyber nature of these courses, it is easier for me to believe I may have indeed faked my way through the course."
- With regard to computer hardware, software and access problems, one student again mentioned these as inhibiting factors. However, the bulk of the volunteered comments in this ‘anything goes’ final discussion opportunity focused on non-technology related issues.
Discussion
The preceding results suggest a number of conclusions and recommendations:
- Computing hardware, software
and access issues, while certainly relevant, were not as predominant
in students’ minds as the other, more personal and interpersonal
issues (i.e., time management; quality of communication with instructor
and peer learners, etc.);
- This in turn suggests
that greater attention needs to be paid to these ‘human relations
issues’ in student orientation, preparation, course planning
and execution. In the past there seems to have been considerably
more focus on ‘the technology’ in terms of planning an
optimal student learning experience in Web courses. Yet at the
same time, results such as the preceding suggest that other issues
may be more salient. Perhaps, for example, orientation to online
learning needs to focus proportionally more time on such areas
as preparing students for time management, as well as how to maximize
optimal communication via the printed word, rather than focusing
on technological skills such as copy and paste or Web access;
- Students’ discussion
of the human-relations tradeoffs of online courses was particularly
revealing in one respect. On the one hand, they acknowledge and
appreciate the flex-time convenience of online coursework. On the
other, however, they also bemoan the lack of traditional live face-to-face
interaction. It struck the author that students’ expectations
in this area may be a case of ‘wanting it all.’ Until
such time as home audio/videoconferencing becomes much more technologically
sophisticated and user-accessible than it is at present, such an
optimal combination may not yet be feasible;
- This then raises the
issue of how best to prepare students for the inevitable tradeoffs
that are currently inherent in one form of instruction (i.e., the
traditional live face-to-face classroom) vs. another (i.e., the
Web-based or Web-enhanced classroom). Students need to be encouraged
to candidly assess their own individual learning styles and preferences
in order to make the best possible selection of classroom environment
to maximize their strengths. Research on learning style and its
correlation to type of classroom needs to continue. Student orientation
needs to focus on realistic student preparation for the comparative
features of the two types of classrooms, as well as what specific
learning strategies will need to be deployed to be successful in
each one;
- Such prior understanding
of tradeoffs, as well as careful student preparation for what to
expect (both facilitators and inhibitors), is far preferable to
some currently prevalent stereotypes regarding the online classroom
that lead students to make inappropriate self-selection decisions.
These include the pervasive myths that "Online learning is
easier (takes less time) than the traditional face-to-face courses" and "Online
learning is totally self-paced. I can begin and end the course
anytime I choose, and submit my assignments to my instructor entirely
whenever it is convenient for me to do so."
- As Peters herself acknowledged,
there is a plethora of intervening variables whose effects need
to continue to be researched with regard to student motivations
and online learning. These include level of learner, specific subject
matter being taught, and the student’s prior experience with
online instruction, to name but a few;
- Finally, the role of the instructor in planning, organizing and communicating throughout the online course is integral with respect to student motivations. As the preceding discussion illustrates, initial student expectations can be significantly modified by how the instructor sets the tone for the course and communicates with students throughout its duration.
Concluding Comments
Peters’ 2001 article takes its title from a student feeling like Alice falling through the looking glass when it came to online learning. To stretch this analogy, the "mirror, mirror" title of this study reflects (yes, pun intended) the importance of self-awareness in terms of one’s motivations re: the online classroom experience. Prior awareness and preparation, by both students and instructors, can indeed help tip the balance of motivating factors in the direction of maximally positive learner productivity.
Reference
Peters, L. (2001). Through the looking glass: Student perceptions of online learning.
TCC Online Conferences
Kapi`olani Community College
University of Hawai`i
Honolulu, HI