To The University of Wyoming: The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Barbara Gail Niklason presented on March

8, 2012.

Dr. Doris U. Bolliger, Chairperson

Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, External Department Member

Dr. John Cochenour

Dr. Cliff Harbour

Dr. Kathleen Sitzman

APPROVED: Dr. Mary Alice Bruce, Department Head, Professional Studies Dr. Kay A. Persichitte, Dean, College of Education

Niklason, B. Gail,

Faculty satisfaction and student outcomes in the online learning environment, Ed.D., Department of Professional Studies, May, 2012

A modified survey instrument, designed to measure faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment, was administered to the online faculty at a large, public institution of higher education in the western United States. The survey was administered in support of this studys first research question; what is the general level of satisfaction with online teaching and learning at this institution? The findings indicated that the level of satisfaction was generally moderate (3.74 on a 5 point scale) though pockets of less satisfaction were detected. A focused analysis of the six subscales that comprised the survey was conducted. Of the six subscales; student-to-student interaction, teacher-to-student interaction, course design/develop/teach, institutional support, attitudes, and affordances; affordances recorded the highest satisfaction level while student-to-student interaction recorded the lowest. Further analysis was done based upon several areas of faculty demographic including, home college, age, gender, and experience with online teaching. Highly significant differences were found between home colleges and age groups of the responding faculty. The second part of the study involved gathering student outcomes, specifically the rate of successful completion of online courses taught by the responding faculty during the two semesters of study; Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. Those outcomes were analyzed for overall rates of successful completion, defined as the percent of students registered for a course who completed the course with a grade of C- or better, as well as analyzed by college within which the course was taught. The College of Health Professions had the highest average rate of successful completion, 90.45%, while the College of Science had the lowest average rate of successful completion, 72.66%. Differences between colleges were statistically significant.

Finally, efforts were focused on determining the nature of the relationship between faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment and rates of successful online course completion. A small, but positive and significant correlation was found. When similar analyses were conducted between each of the subscales and the average rate of student success, small but significant correlations were seen. The student-to-student interaction subscale indicated the highest correlation with student outcomes of the five significant outcomes. The findings of this study have implications for professional development efforts for online instructors. First, helping instructors understand the relationship between their satisfaction and their students outcomes is important. Secondly, ensuring that online instructors know the potential for student-to-student interaction in an online course and giving them the tools and knowledge to implement those interactions, is key. The study has implications for institutional policy around online learning, in particular around areas of student readiness to be successful in their online learning efforts and in the consideration of requiring professional development for online faculty.

FACULTY SATISFACTION AND STUDENT OUTCOMES in the ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

by B. Gail Niklason

A dissertation submitted to the University of Wyoming in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in EDUCATION

Laramie, Wyoming May, 2012

Acknowledgements I have thoroughly enjoyed my journey through the University of Wyomings Instructional Technology program. I appreciate the support of my chair, Dr. Doris Bolliger, and the commitment of the faculty of both the ITEC and Adult Learning programs; I learned much in your classes. I want to thank Dr. Kathleen Sitzman for her support and encouragement; Kathy has been a wonderful mentor and a good friend. I look forward to continuing to work with her and to be inspired by her. Most importantly, I want to express thanks to my three sons, Erik, Jack, and Ian. Their support and willingness to fend for themselves more often than not during these past years while I have been pursuing my degree are so greatly appreciated. Thank you for being interested in my progress and in my pursuit. I truly hope that your educational endeavors are as fulfilling and fruitful as mine have been.

ii

Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Study ............................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 - Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3 - Methodology .............................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 4- Results ......................................................................................................................... 54 Chapter 5 - Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 82 References ................................................................................................................................... 955 Appendix A...107 Appendix B....111 Appendix C112 Appendix D113 Appendix E....114 Appendix F....115 Appendix G....116

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Online Faculty Characteristics: Age and Gender...55 Online Faculty Characteristics: College Represented and Years of Online Teaching Experience..55 Items, means, standard deviations for questions 1 36.59 Mean Scores by Subscale...62 Overall Faculty Satisfaction by College... 63 Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by College.63 Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Gender.65 Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Age..66 Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Experience...68 Overview of means comparison by factor.69 Rate of Successful Completion of Online Courses....71 Significant Difference between College Rates of Successful Completion73 Mean Rate of Successful Completion by College.74 Significant Difference between Faculty Age-group Rates of Successful Completion.75 Mean Rate of Successful Completion by Years of Online Teaching Experience..76 Correlation between Mean Rate of Student Success and Faculty Satisfaction Subscales79

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Attitudes and variables that potentially impact student outcome....4 Pillars of effective online learning ....33 Histogram of faculty satisfaction overall.......61 Rate of successful completion of online courses.......71

Chapter 1 - Introduction to the Study Online learning is challenging the status quo at many institutions of higher education in the United States. Indeed, evidence of the embracement of online education is provided through the analysis of online enrollment trends over the last decade. From the Sloan Consortium, through their annual surveys of online learning, compelling evidence of this growth has been documented since 2002. From a recent survey (Allen & Seaman, 2010) it appears that almost 30% of students in higher education take at least one online course during their program of study and that the annual growth rate of online enrollment is estimated to be 21.1% as of fall, 2009. The current economic downturn has increased demand for both online courses and programs; it is expected that this trend will continue. As institutions invest in online learning, often as a critical component of their strategic planning (Allen & Seaman, 2010), the importance of partnering closely with the institutional faculty should not be underestimated. The quality of online offerings are affected by both the faculty and the institution (Meyer, 2002) and the need to understand how individual qualities of the faculty, such as age and motivation, as well as issues of policy and satisfaction impact online learning is critical. It is not a stretch to suggest that the members of the faculty who are satisfied teaching online are more likely to continue teaching online. The focus of this research was to develop a better understanding of the level of satisfaction among online faculty at one public institution of higher education, and to see what sort of relationship exists between satisfaction and student success in online courses.

Background The percentage of adults in the United States aged 25-34 who have completed at least an associates degree is 39%; this figure translates into a 12th place ranking world-wide. In his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama expressed concern with this ranking and proposed that by 2020 the U.S. ranking return to first position (The Whitehouse, 2009). Since this call-to-action at the national level in 2009 several states have jumped on the degree completion bandwagon as well. Individual states are responding with state-level initiatives to buoy the education level of their citizens. The state of Utah, for example, would like to see 55% of the workforce having earned an associates degree or higher by the year 2020 (Utah System of Higher Education, 2010). The state of Utah presents an excellent example of both a predicted need and a call-toaction to address that need. According to a 2010 study by the Georgetown University Center of Education and Workforce, by 2020 66% of the jobs in the state of Utah will require education beyond high school and 55% of those jobs will require at least an associates degree (Utah System of Higher Education, 2010). To achieve this goal the state is seeking input on ways to increase both capacity and degree or program completion within higher education. A significant challenge, however, is presented by the fact that in the wake of the current economic recession state budgets have been woefully underfunded. By necessity cutbacks are passed on to state funded higher education institutions that are paradoxically faced with economy-driven increases in enrollment at the same time. The Emergence of Online Education Recent trends in the increased availability of online learning opportunities as well as growth in the number of students who take online courses have caught the attention of legislators

and higher education administrators in Utah, as well as other states. The potential for online education to increase the capacity of higher education institutions demanded by the 2020 objective is exciting. Online learning provides higher education access to adults who previously could not be accommodated due to time constraints imposed by work and family as well as constraints of proximity to an institution (Abel, 2005). Abel also points out that instead of increasing physical capacity through the addition of new buildings, institutions are able to accommodate additional students through technology-mediated instruction. Yet, despite growth in online enrollments in higher education of 21% during 2009, in comparison to less than 2% growth in the overall student population in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2010), online learning continues to come under scrutiny. According to Allen and Seamans 2010 report on online education in the United States, a sizeable minority of higher education chief academic officers still considers online education to be inferior to traditional, face-to-face education. While a propensity exists to compare online and face-to-face, traditional courses one against the other, it is extremely difficult to do so effectively. Howell, Laws, and Lindsay (2004) point to the need to move beyond comparisons to evaluate success and completion within the scope of online and distance education given the situational characteristics of the distance student. Conceptual Framework Given the potential for online learning to support the higher education needs of the United States over the next decade, it is critical that institutions offering online courses and programs develop a keen understanding of how to enable success of online students. The construct of student outcomes, even with the operational definition of successful completion, is a complex phenomenon. In an attempt to organize the different variables that

could impact student outcomes, a conceptual framework has been developed for this study that provides a way to systematically approach research into this issue. The framework was derived from two models: Menchaka and Bekeles (2008) Model of success and success factors in Internet-supported learning environments and Osika and Camins (2002) Concentric model for evaluating distance learning programs. Both focus on the interplay of many factors in creating an online learning environment. Factors relevant to student outcomes were selected from these models and put together to develop the framework used for this study. The framework suggests the complexity that encompasses student outcomes while also suggesting three primary areas of focus: (a) student-related, (b), institution-related, and (c) instructor-related (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Attitudes and variables that potentially impact student outcomes Students, for example, display a variety of attitudes about online learning. They may view it as easier or less rigorous and therefore worthy of less effort. Online students may manifest characteristics that contribute to lower outcomes such as working part or full-time, or other time constraints that compete for the students time and attention. Institutional factors may also contribute to online student outcomes. For example, if online learning does not play a

significant role in the mission of the university, it is possible that the institution does not provide adequate support for online students and faculty, or adequate resources may not be allocated towards the online efforts. Technology and infrastructure are specific institutional factors that play a role in the online learning experience. If the technology used to support online learning is not reliable and consistently available, online students and their eventual outcomes may suffer. Finally, faculty-related factors such as attitude about and experience with online learning represent a third area that has potential to impact online learning outcomes, both positively and negatively. For example, do online instructors really embrace the modality or are they being forced or coerced to teach online? Research has shown that there is a strong relationship between faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning and student outcomes (Hartman, Dzubian, & Moskal, 2000). Faculty attitude towards online learning has also been shown to be experiencerelated (Ulmer, Watson, & Derby, 2007). Professional development opportunities, geared towards helping online instructors better understand the challenges and the potential of online learning have a positive effect on faculty satisfaction with online learning (Lee, 2001). Problem Statement This study focuses on faculty-related issues in the online learning environment. The problem to be addressed by this study is the effect faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning might have on the outcomes, specifically rates of successful completion, of online students at a large, public institution of higher education. Weber State University, the institution of study, is a public, regional university in northern Utah. The university has a teaching focus and offers associate, bachelor, and selected masters degrees through seven colleges. Established in 1889 the institution has grown to over 23,000 students as of the fall, 2010 semester. In 1997 Weber State University began to consider

the feasibility of online courses and in 1998 the first online courses were offered. By the fall, 2010 semester online enrollments accounted for 17% of total enrollment. While there are only four full programs online, through the College of Health Professions and the Bachelor of Integrated Studies program, students have approximately 250 online courses from which to choose. Students are able to satisfy all of their general education requirements online, if they choose to do so. Purpose of This Study The purpose of this quantitative study was two-fold. The initial focus of this research study was to measure the level of satisfaction with online teaching of the online faculty at Weber State University. This part of the study made use of a validated survey instrument developed in 2010 by two colleagues of the researcher. Secondly, results of that survey were combined with course data that indicated the rate of successful completion of online courses taught by this same faculty. The goal of this phase of the study was to develop a better understanding of the relationship between faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment and student success in online courses. Various factors exist that help to describe and define the faculty experience of online education. These include perception of and satisfaction with online teaching and learning, experience, professional development focused on online teaching, and perhaps other demographic factors such as age, gender, or department/college in which the faculty teaches. A consideration of these factors helps to frame the question to be answered by this study. Specifically, what affect do these factors have on learning outcomes of online students? Are there measurable aspects of these factors that can be correlated to higher or lower rates of successful completion of online students?

Research Questions and Hypotheses There are four questions to be answered by this study. 1. What is the general level of satisfaction with online teaching at this institution? 2. What are the mean rates of successful completion (defined as a grade of C- and above) of online courses at the institution of study? 3. What is the nature of the relationship between faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning and rates of successful online course completion? 4. What is the nature of the relationship between any of the subscales of faculty satisfaction and rates of successful online course completion? The first two questions are descriptive in nature. The third and fourth questions, however, are inferential and speculation of the results can be qualified by the development of appropriate hypotheses. The following hypotheses were examined in this study: 1. A significant correlation exists between the measured level of online faculty satisfaction and rates of completion of that facultys online students. For example, the higher a faculty rates on faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning, the higher the rate of successful completion of that facultys online students. 2. Alternatively, the associated null hypothesis indicates that any correlation that exists between the measured level of online faculty satisfaction and rates of completion of that facultys online students is non-significant. 3. A significant correlation exists between each of the measured subscales of faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning; student-to-student interaction, student-to-instructor interaction, issues of design, development, and teaching, institutional support, attitudes, and affordances; and rates of completion of that facultys online students.

4. Alternatively, the associated null hypothesis indicates that any correlation that exists between the measured subscales of faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning, and rates of completion of that facultys online students is non-significant. Study Significance A report published by the Chronicle of Higher Education focusing on the college of 2020, provides evidence that institutions of higher education must embrace online learning in order to meet the changing demands of students (Parry, 2009). The traditional demographic of college students, 18 to 25 year old, single, and full-time, will have changed considerably by the year 2020. The new demographic of college students will be older and perhaps married with children, more likely to be a member of a minority group, and work part or full-time. Successful institutions will be those that can offer coursework and degree programs in a variety of formats with a high degree of flexibility in order to meet fluctuating market needs (Van Der Werf & Sabatier, 2009). Members of the faculty play a key role in the success of any institution of higher education. If it can be determined that faculty attitude towards and experience with online learning are correlated to student outcomes, then professional development programs can be developed for online faculty that help support the development of positive attitude towards online learning. Those responsible for hiring online faculty may be able to use the survey instrument to determine whether a specific instructor is a good fit for the assignment of online teaching. Finally, helping online faculty develop an awareness of how their attitudes can potentially impact student outcomes may encourage those teaching online to carefully consider their approach to online teaching and request the training and institutional support that is needed.

Study Limitations and Delimitations There were several limitations inherent in this study. First, students self-select into online courses and while there are many reasons for their choices, this study did not address that issue. Surveys introduce other limitations. Responses were voluntary and the data were self-reported. Asking already busy faculty to take time to answer a survey often presents a challenge and could possibly have resulted in lower-than-expected returns. This study was limited to one institution. This fact suggests that caution should be used in generalizing the results to other higher education institutions. Many factors play a role in student outcomes in both traditional and online courses; it is a complex issue. The concept map shown previously suggests that there are factors and characteristics of the students and of faculty that impact outcomes as well as institutional factors. This study focused specifically on faculty-related factors and the role they play in student outcomes. Further study may be called for that focuses on the role of student and institutionalrelated factors in the outcomes of students in online courses. Methodology This study was a two-phased, quantitative study. Phase 1 focused on the collection and analysis of survey data. A survey designed to measure faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning was distributed to all instructors who taught online at the institution during the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters. The survey yielded seven measures of faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment: a student-to-student interaction subscale, an instructor-tostudent interaction subscale, a course-design, development, teaching subscale, an institutionalsupport subscale, an attitudes subscale, an affordances subscale, and an overall satisfaction score. During the second phase of the study, course completion rates were collected about the online

courses taught by the faculty who completed the survey. Those data were first analyzed using descriptive statistics. Course completion data were then combined with the appropriate faculty satisfaction data and analyzed using inferential methods. Chapter 3 of this paper provides additional information about the study methodology. Researchers Role and Motivation Online courses at Weber State University (WSU) are taught through a partnership between the Universitys Continuing Education (CE) division and each of seven colleges and the library. The CE unit financially sponsors most online courses, while individual department chairs are responsible for providing instructors for online course. CE also provides the course management system through which online courses are delivered, faculty training in how to use the online tools, professional development that supports best practices in online teaching and continuous improvement of courses, instructional design support, student support, and finally, a secure testing system that includes a proctor support system. At the time of the study, the researcher filled the role of Associate Dean of CE with oversight responsibility for this operation. This represented a professional investment in the online program at WSU. The researcher was formally tasked with monitoring the ongoing health of the online program as well as overseeing the provision of professional development opportunities for online faculty. As such, it was determined that a quantitative study would be the best way to develop an objective understanding of the depth and breadth of the perceived problem. The researcher is a strong supporter of online teaching and learning and also has experience as an online instructor and an online student. This level of involvement in online teaching and learning by the researcher has the potential to introduce a bias in favor of the online learning environment, but care was taken to report objectively, accurately, and fairly.

10

Findings of the study, if significant, may be used to develop, modify, and improve professional development programs for online faculty. Significant findings will be shared with college deans and department chairs responsible for selecting faculty to teach online courses. Looking forward, this quantitative study may also provide focus for a later qualitative study that will allow for more in-depth understanding of the faculty role in online student learning outcomes. Terminology Online learning is commonly defined as any course in which 80% or more of the content is delivered via the Internet (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). However, at the institution of study, a course can be considered an online course only if there are no face-to-face meeting requirements, in other words, 100% of content is delivered via the Internet. Face-to-face, traditional learning encompasses courses taught in the traditional classroom with varying techniques, but often focusing on the instructor-delivered lecture. More and more, these courses are enhanced with online tools, but there is no reduction in scheduled seat time. Distance Learning or distance education is a term often used interchangeably with online learning. For purposes of this study, however, distance learning is a broader term that includes any course in which the student and faculty are separated by time and/or location. This can include courses taught synchronously with IVC (Internet Video Conferencing) and online courses taught as independent study. No Significant Difference (NSD). This term refers to the large body of research collected and compiled by Thomas Russell (1999). The term suggests the overwhelming findings that the

11

systems used to deliver content; radio, audiotape, television, computer, Internet, etc., do not impact learning outcomes. Online Learning Environment (OLE), includes the notion of online teaching, the notion of online learning, as well as the infrastructure put in place to support these activities. Student outcome is a broad term that encompasses both what a student learns and how well a student learns. For the purpose of this study, student outcome references how well a student achieves prescribed goals and outcomes and is operationalized as successful completion. Successful completion is a measure of student success. For the purposes of this study successful completion is defined as the percentage of students who complete a course with a grade of C- or better. The percentage was calculated as (the number of students completing the course with at least a C-/the total number of students enrolled in the course).

12

Chapter 2 Literature Review Introduction The objective of this literature review is to provide the reader with a picture of the context within which this study will be presented. The review begins with a broad overview of distance education with a focus on the evolving nature of the field. The emergence of online learning, as a unique manifestation of distance education is considered next, followed by a section focusing on the theory that supports online learning. The theory is essentially a convergence of distant education theory and adult learning theory and helps to ground this study. Because no study of online learning can completely avoid the propensity towards comparison of the online versus traditional classroom, a portion of the literature review will focus on the no significant difference phenomenon. Finally, consideration will be given to the areas of faculty satisfaction, student satisfaction, and student outcomes in the online learning environment (OLE) as the intersection of these topics is a primary focus of the study. Distance Education An Overview Distance education is defined as formal, institutionally based learning that is characterized by the separation of instructor and student in time and location (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Distance education, particularly in the last two decades, is further characterized by the use of interactive communication technologies that are used to connect student to teacher, student to student, and student to content and resources (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009; Simonson et al., 2009). Moore and Kearsley (2005) suggest that distance education is further defined by the use of deliberate course design and selection of instructional techniques. Both Taylor (1995) and Moore and Kearsley (2005) describe the evolution of distance education from a generational perspective. While each evolving generation can be considered

13

separately, there is considerable overlap between the generations of distance education. In fact, distance education today is characterized by a combination of generational approaches and technologies. A generational framework is useful because it aligns with the evolution of information and communication technologies over the last 50 to 60 years. First generation distance education. The U.S. Postal System provided the infrastructure for early correspondence study, considered by Moore and Kearsley to be the first generation of distance education. Several formal correspondence programs were developed including the department of correspondence study at the University of Chicago in 1890 (Simonson et al., 2009) and the Chautauqua Correspondence College in 1881 (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Characterized by the exchange of lessons, guided readings, and homework between an instructor and an individual student via the U.S. Mail, correspondence study was developed to provide access to education to those who otherwise did not have access. Women in particular, but also men who did not live in the vicinity of an institution took great advantage of correspondence study to achieve their educational objectives. William Rainey Harper, the first president of the University of Chicago, was confident of the role of correspondence study to provide education at least as good and perhaps superior to the education that could be obtained in the classroom (Simonson et al., 2009). By 1930 correspondence study was serving about two million students (Bittner & Mallory, 1993) and by 1968 approximately three millions students (MacKenzie, Christensen, & Rigby, 1968). During this time span courses became less vocationally focused and more academically focused. Indeed, correspondence study courses were often used by traditional, oncampus students to resolve scheduling conflicts. Also referred to as home study or independent study, correspondence courses began to move from print-based format to an electronic format by

14

the early 2000s. These and other technological developments in the field of distance education were reflected in the 1982 decision by the International Council for Correspondence Education to change its name to the International Council for Distance Education (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Second generation distance education. The second generation of distance education was defined by the use of radio and television. While radio technologies did not do much to advance the field of distance education, educational television was successful in doing so. Due in large part to contributions from the Ford Foundation, in the form of grants to encourage the development of educational broadcasting, educational television became a fixture of distance education during the 1950s and 60s. Programs were developed and delivered through the auspices of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Instructional Television Fixed Services (ITFS), and independent cable television and telecourse producers (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). By the mid-1980s around 200 college courses had been produced and delivered either independently or with support of the CPB. The Adult Learning Service of the CPB, with support from the Annenberg Foundation oversaw the development of many university-level telecourses that were used at schools throughout the country. Many high-quality, innovative courses have been developed through these cooperative efforts. Third generation distance education. The third generation of distance education, as defined by Moore and Kearsley (2005), represented advances in processes and general thinking about distance education, rather than advances in technology. The University of Wisconsin at Madisons Articulated Instructional Media Project (AIM), directed by Charles Wedemeyer, established the idea of a systematic course design process that brought together a team of instructional designers, technology specialists, and content experts (Wedemeyer & Najem,

15

1969). Wedemeyers work and travel led him to a meeting with administrators from Oxford University in England to discuss and flesh out the idea of an open university (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). The British Open University incorporated technologies, primarily the 2nd generation technologies television and radio, to support and extend print based instruction with an emphasis on systematically and well-designed courses (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Developed as an entity independent of established, traditional universities, the British Open University has been a very successful endeavor and has addressed the need in Great Britain to provide higher education access to individuals not served by the more traditional institutions. Both the systematic aspect and the aspect of openness have spread to other countries, including China, India, Turkey, Korea and others. Curiously absent from the list is the United States. A branch of the British Open University was established in the U.S. in 1999, but closed in 2002 due to lack of revenue and enrollments (Casey, 2008). Most likely, the distributed nature of the control of higher education in the U.S. contributed to this failure; state-level university systems were already in place and a national-level institution was not embraced (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Fourth generation distance education. Teleconferencing, supported by an evolving set of communication technologies represents the fourth generation of distance education. Initially enabled through satellite technology, distance education through teleconferencing was supported by the development of several consortia established in the 1980s to allow for sharing of courses between institutions. Both the National University Teleconferencing Network (NUTN) and the National Technological University (NTU) provided a means to pool expertise and resources to deliver courses and full degrees to prospective students (Moore & Kearsley, 2005).

16

As the field of teleconferencing matured, greater capability was evident. From one-way live video through satellite, to two-way audio with one-way video, to two-way audio and video, constantly improving, real-time interaction became an expectation. Two-way audio/video to the desktop through the Internet is now possible and has the advantage of reducing overall costs (Simonson et al., 2009). Use of the Internet and the desktop computer eliminates the need for special high-end equipment. As institutions and corporations expand the bandwidth capabilities of their organizations, high quality audio and video to the desktop can serve both academic and administration needs. Statewide teleconference education networks were established in several states during the 1980s and 1990s. Oklahoma, Kentucky, Alaska, Texas, and Utah were among the states that developed courses and partnerships to augment primarily K-12 education. Several states extend this support and infrastructure to higher education customers as well. Fifth generation distance education. The advent of the Internet and the proliferation of low-cost computers paved the way for the fifth generation of distance education. As the network infrastructure that supports the Internet became more fully and broadly developed, the World Wide Web, an application that sits within the Internet provided a means to share documents between users separated by time, distance, and location. Easy-to-use web interfaces, called web browsers, allowed those without any technical computing skills to access, create, and upload content. By 2002, 66% of American adults were accessing the Internet (Greenspan, 2002). Web-based programs became evident at several institutions of higher education in the 1990s. The availability of these programs mushroomed so that by the beginning of the new century, 84.1% of public universities and 53.8% of private universities offered courses via the Web (Green, 2001). This proliferation was a catalyst for the rethinking of distance education

17

(Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Web technologies continued to evolve and were able to support the convergence of text, audio, and video, helping to fuel continued growth and interest in online learning. By 2009 online learning accounted for 29.3% of total enrollments in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The emergence of online learning. The early 2000s saw a convergence of various factors that yielded essentially a perfect storm for online learning. The growing global need for an educated workforce prompted the need for independent learning opportunities for working adults. At the same time advances in digital technologies including increased capacity and reach of the Internet, buoyed by Y2K investment, faster and cheaper desktop computing and the increasing sophistication of communication applications provided an affordable infrastructure for the growth of online learning. Over the next eight years enrollments in online learning at degreegranting postsecondary institutions would grow at an annual rate that varied from a low of 9.7% in 2006 to a high of 36.5% in 2005. The average annual growth rate of online learning between 2002 and 2009 was 17.29%, far outpacing the growth of traditional higher education enrollments (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Distance Education Theory As distance education has evolved to accommodate new information and communication technologies so too has the theory that supports distance education evolved. Theory is critical to the field of distance education because it provides a means of legitimizing the field. Additionally, by emphasizing theory it is less likely that distance education will be relegated to the periphery of education (Keegan, 1988). Grounding a study of online learning in theory lends credibility to the study findings. Having a body of theory that supports distance education helps practitioners make decisions

18

about methods, media, and support as well as other areas with a degree of confidence that wouldnt exist without theory (Keegan, 1995). According to Holmberg (1988) theory provides indications of essential characteristics of effective distance education and provides a means against which efforts in distance education can be gauged. Theory provides a structure for developing and testing hypotheses within the field of distance education. Holmberg (1988) points out that the iterative process of hypothesizing, testing, and ultimately refuting or supporting various hypotheses helps to pave the way to practical methodological application of that theory. Subsequent decisions about distance education, be they instructional, administrative, political, or social, can be made with confidence when made from a theoretical basis (Keegan, 1995). Finally, theory allows for some level of explanation and prediction when used as a basis for the development of distance education resources (Keegan). This section of the literature review will provide an overview of various theories that have been used to define and guide the field of distance education. The development of distance education theory has been supported by three approaches: learner autonomy and independence, the industrialization of teaching and learning, and a final approach that combines theories of interaction and communication (Keegan, 1986). In recent years new theories have been emerging in response to the infusion of new telecommunication technologies into distance education (Simonson, Schlosser, & Hanson, 1999). Emerging theory is guided by the idea of equivalency of the learning experiences no matter how instruction is delivered, by the concept of social presence, and by a concern for the sociocultural context in which distance learning takes place (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996).

19

Industrialization. Peters (1988) saw distance education as a complement to the industrial and technology age and intimated that distance education could only be successful if industrial techniques were applied to both the development and the delivery of instruction at a distance. In developing his economic and industrial theory of distance education he emphasized the need for planning and organization from the onset. Great economies of scale could be achieved through the use of a rationalized and mechanized, assembly-line approach to distance education. Though costs would be high, quality would be as well and costs could be amortized over the large distribution of the material developed. Garrison (2000) and Moore and Kearsley (2005) both indicated that Peters theory was more an organizational theory than a theory of teaching or learning. We can see evidence for Peters approach in many of the for-profit institutions in place today where both standardization and mechanization are tenets of their success. Peters saw industrialization as a means of transforming the traditional university into an institution of selfstudy and distance teaching (Garrison, 2000). This theory generated a debate around the variables of independence and interaction. Because interaction tended to be more resourceintensive, and therefore expensive independence was seen as a more cost-effective approach to distance education (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Recent technologies have provided a means of including interaction at a low cost, making the debate less of a resource issue (Garrison, 2000). Autonomy and independence. Wedemeyers theory of independent study emphasized the independence of the distance learner (1981). He supported the use of technology as a means to implement student independence. Wedemeyers ideas were some of the earliest that acknowledged the greater responsibility of the student in the learning process. He encouraged a mix of both media and method within a course that had the potential to be more effective for the

20

student and that would relieve the instructor of many of the custodial-type duties that were apparent in traditional correspondence study. Wedemeyer suggested that providing a self-paced learning environment allowed students the autonomy needed to be successful and allowed students to leverage their individual differences in learning preferences. Finally, Wedemeyer identified the relationship that developed between the teacher and the student as a key to success in the independent study paradigm. Moore presented another theory of independent study in the early 1970s that incorporated two variables: learner autonomy and distance between teacher and learner (Simonson et al., 2009). In 1986, Moore used the term transactional distance to describe the concept of distance between teacher and learner (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Transactional distance is a balancing of the amount of structure and the amount of dialog that is present in a course and is a term of relativity. A course where structure is high and dialog between teacher and student is low has high transactional distance. As structure decreases, that is, as the student gains more control over the learning process, and dialog between teacher and student increases, transactional distance is reduced (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Interaction and communication. Holmberg (1983) placed significance in the interaction between teacher and learner by stating that an emotional involvement contributed to learning pleasure, which in turn supported student motivation to learn. By 1995 Holmberg had developed an eight-part theory of guided didactic conversation for distance education that had roots in communication theory. First he recognized that distance education served a heterogeneous group of students who could not or chose not to participate in traditional face-to-face learning and that distance education was a means to support both student freedom of choice and independence. Holmberg (2005) showed evidence that distance education could support deep

21

learning and could support various modes of learning including behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist. Holmberg further emphasized the importance of the learner-teacher dialog through his suggestion that it was actually a fundamental characteristic of distance education (Simonson et al., 2009). Interaction is a critical component of effective distance education programs (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996). Moore (1989) differentiated between three types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner. Together these modes of interaction provide intellectual support, support for social negotiation of meaning and knowledge construction as well as support for feedback and motivation mechanisms. Anderson and Garrison (1998) similarly described three types of interaction that can be found to varying degrees in distance education courses: student-teacher, student-student, and student-content. In an attempt to determine what the appropriate mix of these interaction types might be so that deep and meaningful learning occurred, Anderson (2003) developed a theorem of equivalency of interaction. In essence, Andersons theory suggests that as long as one type of interaction is present at a high level, a diminished presence or even absence of the other types of interaction will not reduce the educational experience. He provides a caveat, however, that a high level of presence of at least two of the interaction types will lead to a more satisfying learning experience. Equivalency an emerging theory. Simonson et al. (1999) proposed that learning experiences of distance learning students should be equivalent to those of students in the traditional classroom. The proposal, and subsequent theory of equivalency, has been developed in response to the impact new telecommunication technologies are having on the field of distance education. Distance education can be supported with a variety of technologies in synchronous or

22

asynchronous environments. Students can be across the country or down the street and they may be traditional students or non-traditional. Simonson (1995) had earlier stated that students should expect learning experiences that are able to accommodate their specific situations. He felt that the more similar the learning experience was for distance students, as compared to students in the traditional classroom, the more similar would be the learning outcomes of the students. Equivalency theory has been supported by several subsequent studies (Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Lapsley, Kulik, Moody, & Arbaugh, 2008). Lapsley et al. particularly targeted online learning in their comparative study with a specific focus on testing equivalency theory. Their findings supported equivalency theory provided GPA was controlled for in the analysis. The ever-changing technologies that support distance education, and online learning specifically, present a challenge for the establishment of theory. While theory can provide a degree of prediction within the field and therefore help shape practice, practice itself contributes to the ongoing development of theory (Spector, 2008). This iterative nature of practice and theory along with a constantly changing technology environment necessitates an adaptive approach to theory development. Online learning, as a subset of distance education, appears to be an area of expected, continued growth in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2010). As technological innovation continues to alter the landscape of online learning, the theory that supports it will need to evolve alongside the innovation. Adult Learning Theory Adult learning theories are particularly applicable to online and distance education as these modes of instruction appeal to the adult learner (Simonson et al., 2009). Andragogy, selfdirected learning, transformational learning, and various theories of adult motivation to learn are

23

adult learning approaches or theories that help to support good online course design and management. As well, these theories can provide insight into the reasons students are successful or unsuccessful in the online learning environment. Adult learners bring experiences, focus, and a variety of motivations to the learning environment. Knowles recognized this as he developed the practice of andragogy and many have come to see that practice as a theory of distance education (Simonson et al., 2009). He purported that as people mature they shift from being a dependent personality towards becoming a more self-directed individual. At the same time they accumulate experiences that contribute to a body of knowledge that can be shared and developed. Adult motivation shifts from an external focus to an internal focus and adult learners tend to be focused on learning as a means to solve a problem or a perceived lack of knowledge (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Day and Baskett (1982) proposed that andragogy could be thought of as an educational ideology. Knowles himself acknowledged the question of whether andragogy was actually a theory of adult learning, and suggested that it should be considered, together with pedagogy, as a continuum between teacher-directed learning and student-directed learning (Merriam, 2001a). The appropriate approach is not based solely upon the learner, but also upon the situation or context of the learning. Online learning, by its nature, is well served by a student-directed, andragogical approach where abilities, maturity, and life experiences can be leveraged in the teaching and learning process (Nevins, n.d.). As she does with andragogy, Merriam (2001b) considers self-directed learning to be a pillar of adult learning theory. Emerging as a field of study around the same times as andragogy, self-directed learning considers the learner, the content of the learning, as well as the nature of the learning that is to take place. Grows (1994) model of staged self-directed learning (SSDL),

24

for example, encourages instructors to develop instructional strategies that match students selfidentified levels of readiness. Naturally, student readiness within a given course may vary widely, so the use of scaffolding or the provisioning of various levels of structure in the learning environment (Dabbagh, 2003) becomes important. The key is to provide each student with the appropriate amount of structure; that which best suits their level of self-directed readiness. Merriam et al. (2007) point to the need to acknowledge and foster self-directed learning in the context of the online learning environment. There is speculation that the ability to be a self-directed learner positively correlates to student success in online learning. Kerka (1999) suggests that students who have grown up with access to the Web often termed digital natives may be developing an orientation of self-directed learning with that exposure. Kerka cautions that self-directed learning should be considered as a multi-faceted concept (p. 2), and not with a single definition. This will help to promote the continued study of self-directed learning as a means to support the diversity of multicultural learning preferences enabled by access to the Web. Based upon the ideas of Mezirow and first introduced in 1978, transformational learning focuses on how adults make sense of their life experiences. Transformational learning is a result of a dramatic, fundamental change in the way individuals see themselves and the world in which they live. It combines a mental construction of experience, inner meaning, and reflection (Merriam et al., 2007). The four main components of transformational learning are (1) experience, (2) critical reflection, (3) reflective discourse, and (4) action. Mezirow suggested that learning occurs through a linear process of moving through the components. Later research by Taylor shows the

25

process to be much less linear and more individualistic (Mezirow, 1991). The process becomes fluid and recursive as the individual works to consider, reflect, resolve, reflect more, put into action some change, and consider again, for example. Proponents of transformational learning see it as a form of lifelong personal development. Daloz saw education itself as a transformational journey and emphasized the importance of dialog and storytelling as individuals work to expand their worldviews (Merriam et al., 2007). Freire focused on transformational learning as part of a larger framework of radical social change. He promoted transformational learning as a means of emancipation and as a way to acknowledge social inequities while championing liberation. According to Merriam et al., (2007) this is in contrast to Mezirows focus on cognitive aspects of transformation though both Mezirow and Freire see transformational learning as an aspect of constructivism. They dont see knowledge as an entity to be gotten, but as a creation that results from interpretations and reinterpretations based upon new experience (Baumgartner, 2001). Considerations of context and experience resonate with andragogy, self-directed learning, and transformational learning. As more instruction moves to the online environment, designers would do well to incorporate principals of these theories into their course design. Additionally, a thorough understanding of the techniques and approaches that enhance adult motivation to learn can aid in the development of effective online learning environments. Adult learning theory applies to both the on-campus and the online learning experience. As will be shown in the next section, which looks at the no significant difference phenomenon, while there is a propensity to compare the experiences and outcomes of the on-campus and online learning experience each can be effective when created and conducted using sound principals of instructional design backed by supported theory.

26

No Significant Difference Much has been written around the No Significant Difference (NSD) phenomenon, a phrase popularized by Russell in his 1999 compilation of comparative media studies. This section will focus on the NSD literature of the last decade that looked primarily at comparing online learning to learning in the traditional classroom. One goal of this literature review is to develop a better understanding of the types of studies that have been conducted and the nature of the conclusions reached in those studies. Specific attention will be given to recent studies that have actually found online learning to be more effective in terms of student outcomes than traditional classroom learning. Finally, a discussion of the criticism that surrounds many of the studies that compare online learning with traditional classroom learning will be provided along with a consideration of what the criticism implies for the direction of this study. Outcomes and experiences of students in traditional, face-to-face coursework have established a de facto benchmark against which outcomes and experiences of coursework delivered in nontraditional ways are compared. There are likely many reasons for conducting comparisons, but surely quality of experience is paramount (Shachar & Neumann, 2010). It seems that a flurry of comparative studies is done anytime a new medium for delivering education is introduced. From the radio of the 1930s to the Internet of the new century, media come into vogue accompanied by hopes of transformation for education. Online and distance learning are changing the landscape of education and while some see the technologies that support these new ways of learning as progressive, others see them as a threat to the traditions of academe. In an often-referenced 1983 article that focused on research conducted on learning and media, Clark emphasized the idea that media used for teaching have no impact on student

27

learning. New media are often greeted with great expectation for their potential to transform education. We witnessed this hope with movies and film, radio, and computers. The recent debut of Apples iPad and the enthusiastic embrace by some in academia provide evidence that this trend continues. Headlines on the web such as Will the iPad and Similar Technology Revolutionize Learning? (Lenz, 2010) point to the resilient belief that media, and technology in particular, have a direct impact on student learning. Russells (1999) compilation of studies around the No Significant Difference (NSD) phenomenon further supports the idea that the medium used to deliver learning does not have a direct impact on that learning. Providing evidence from studies that employed a variety of media, including traditional correspondence learning, instructional radio, motion pictures, instructional television, instructional video, and early computer mediated instruction, Russell shows that students learn equally well in any of the environments. Russell (1999) states emphatically: The fact is that the findings of comparative studies are absolutely conclusive; one can bank on them. No matter how it is produced, how it is delivered, whether or not it is interactive, low-tech or high-tech, students learn equally well with each technology and learn as well as their oncampus, face-to-face counterparts even though students would rather be on campus with the instructor if that were a real choice. (p. xviii) Later research considered by Russell, from 1996 through 1998, focused on the use of computers and the Internet. As distance learning evolved to take advantage of these technologies the focus of NSD studies shifted to online teaching and learning. A plethora of studies have been completed since the last publication of Russells book in 1999 that continue to support the NSD

28

phenomenon. In fact, some researchers go so far as to indicate that it has become a foregone conclusion that there is no significant difference in student learning outcomes between face-toface versus online delivery modes (Larson & Sung, 2009, p. 31). In an attempt to better understand the focus of more recent research, a review of several studies that have been completed since 2001 is presented. Many studies in the last decade have provided a comparison between a single online course (ONL) and its on campus equivalent (ONC). The advantage of this approach to a comparison study is that care can be taken to control some independent variables. Neuhauser (2002) reported on two sections of Principles of Management that she taught. She wanted to determine whether significant differences in learning activities, learning preferences/styles, student perceptions of the course, computer familiarity, and finally, test scores, and final grades were apparent. Significant differences were not detected in any of the areas and Neuhauser concluded that this research was supportive of the notion that online learning is as effective as traditional, face-to-face learning. Another interesting finding of this study was that even though students self-selected into either the ONL or ONC sections, there were no significant differences in student demographics between the sections. Another study that looked at students who had self-selected into either the ONL or the ONC section of a teacher education conceptual methods course also found no significant difference in the resulting student demographics (Caywood & Duckett, 2003). The outcomes of three tests were compared between the two groups as well as the quantitative student teaching ratings of the groups, and again, no significant difference in outcomes was detected. Jennings and Bayless (2003) came to similar conclusions in terms of final outcomes and student demographics, that is, no significant differences were detected. Further, this study reviewed the

29

cumulative GPAs of students in both the ONL and the ONC sections prior to the course and found no significant difference between them, suggesting that prior knowledge of students was not a factor in the final grades of those students. Numerous other studies have been completed that showed similar, no significant difference results between online and traditional, on-campus courses (Brown & Kulikowich, 2004; Dell, Low, & Wilker, 2010; Parsons-Pollard, Lacks, & Grant, 2010; Warren & Holloman, 2005). Summers, Waigandt, and Whittaker (2005) found no significant difference between the final grades of ONL and ONC introductory undergraduate statistics students, but did find a significant difference in student satisfaction between the two modalities. Despite similar grade outcomes, ONL students expressed less satisfaction overall with the learning experience than ONC students. This study serves as a good reminder of the limitations inherent when comparisons focus only on final grades, that is, there are other dimensions that might be important to consider. A recent compilation of studies provides even more compelling support for the efficacy of online teaching and learning. Shachar and Neumann (2010) provide evidence of a trend towards students in online courses actually outperforming students in traditional courses. A meta-analysis of comparison studies conducted between 1990 and 2009 was completed that considered the results of 125 studies and calculated a common standardized metric called an effect size for each of the studies. The mean of those pooled effect sizes was then calculated to derive an estimated effect size for the entire study. Amazingly, the findings show that online and distance learning students outperformed their counterparts in traditional courses and that the trend became more positive over time. This meta-analysis used final course grade as the dependent variable for all 125 of the studies included, with the notation that grades are the

30

measure of choice in numerous studies in higher education to assess learning and the course impact on the cognitive development of the student in the subject-matter (p. 320). Some of the studies that compared outcomes between ONL and ONC courses found lower outcomes for ONL students (Russell, 1999; Shachar & Neumann, 2010; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). Some of the comparative studies were criticized for not providing better control of alternative explanations of differing outcomes (United States Department of Education, 2009). But overwhelmingly, comparative studies have shown that online instruction is at least as effective as traditional instruction in terms of student learning outcomes. Howell, Laws, and Lindsay (2004) urge caution in the use of comparison studies when researching course completion. They equate most of the comparisons to apple and orange analyses due in large part to the inability of researchers to use random selection of subjects in their studies. That is, comparative studies report on classes into which students self-select. That self-selection introduces complexities that are not adequately controlled for in most studies. Howell et al., suggest that the inconsistencies that are apparent when traditional (classroom) and nontraditional (distance or online) are compared can be avoided with a focus on measuring completion among classes in the same delivery format. This strategy in turn encourages a shift in focus towards research that identifies tactics for improving completion and retention of online students. If we take the NSD research at face value we can be confident that when significant differences in student outcomes between comparable online and face-to-face courses do occur, the teaching medium is not suspect. Moore and Kearsley (2005) in fact, urge researchers to move beyond the realm of no significant difference to consider studies within the medium of online

31

learning. They suggest that research in the OLE focus on determining what characteristics or approaches promote successful completion of online endeavors. The question that might be asked, then, is where do we look to determine the source of low rates of successful completion of online courses? Wiley (2002) tells us, without reservation, that ongoing differences in learning outcomes are due to the instructional approach taken by the instructor. Understanding that student demographics help to explain some of the challenges faced by online students (Howell, Laws & Lindsay, 2004), Wileys suggestion that effects of faculty should also be considered provides the next area of focus. Faculty Satisfaction with the Online Learning Environment The Sloan-C Organization, a consortium of institutions and organizations committed to quality online education, outlines five pillars of effective online learning (Moore, 2009). The pillars are student satisfaction, learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness and institutional commitment (recently renamed as scale), access, and faculty satisfaction, and are very much inter-related (see Figure 2). Faculty and student satisfaction, for example, play a role in learning effectiveness and vice-versa. As well, issues of institutional commitment or scale impact access and learning effectiveness. System theory supports the notion that change made to one part of a system affects all other parts of the system (Maguire, 2009).

32

Figure 2. Pillars of effective online learning (Sloan Consortium, 2010)

Taking the idea of faculty satisfaction with the OLE as a multi-faceted phenomenon further, this review will focus on three aspects of that premise: extrinsic and intrinsic factors associated directly with faculty, student-related factors, and institutional-related factors. Bolliger and Wasilik (2009), Menchaca and Bekele (2008), and Osika and Camin (2002) provide support for these areas of focus. A study of general faculty satisfaction, not exclusive to OLE faculty, by Ambrose, Huston, and Norman (2005), provides an interesting framework from which to consider satisfaction in the OLE. The study found both internal, intangible factors and external, tangible factors can impact a faculty members decision to stay at or leave an institution. Many studies of faculty satisfaction in the OLE present findings using a similar dichotomy. Factors tend to be classified as intrinsic versus extrinsic, motivating versus inhibiting, and/or promoting satisfaction versus promoting dissatisfaction (Clay, 1999; Cook, Ley, Crawford, & Warner, 2009; Giannoni & Tesone, 2003; Schifter, 2000). Cook et al. (2009) classified factors as intrinsic or extrinsic and investigated the impact those factors had in contributing to the motivation or inhibition of experienced online faculty to continue teaching in the OLE. Intrinsic factors included desire to help students, opportunity to try something new, intellectual challenge, personal motivation to use technology, overall job 33

satisfaction, the ability to reach a broader student audience, and the opportunity to improve teaching. Extrinsic factors included release time, support and encouragement from institution administrators and departmental colleagues, merit pay, monetary support, technical support provided by the institution, workload concerns, and quality concerns. Overall, this study indicated that intrinsic factors positively contribute to ongoing and increased motivation to participate in the OLE while failure to adequately address extrinsic factors can be found to contribute to greater inhibition to participate in the OLE. Giannoni and Tesone (2003) used a similar classification. Intrinsic factors identified included personal satisfaction, teaching development, professional prestige, intellectual challenge, and recognition. Identified extrinsic factors included release time, technical support, monetary issues, job security, and promotion. Their findings indicate that a mix of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to faculty satisfaction with the OLE. Clay (1999) determined that intellectual challenge, opportunity to develop new ideas, the opportunity to work with more motivated students, release time, and the availability of support services were all factors that contributed to faculty motivation to participate in the OLE. At the same time increased workload, lack of technical and administrative support, and the negative attitudes of colleagues inhibited faculty from participating in the OLE. Schifter (2000) designated factors related to the OLE as inhibiting or motivating. Ideally, the removal of inhibiting factors such as concern about workload, concern about loss of prestige, or lack of distance education training would greatly enhance the appeal of teaching online. She points out, however, that in the likely absence of the ability to eliminate all inhibiting factors the effort to at least acknowledge those issues as legitimate would be a positive step forward. This is further validated in Cook et al. (2009).

34

Several studies illustrate the impact of faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment on student outcomes. Hartman et al. (2000) suggest a co-linear relationship exists between student outcomes and faculty satisfaction with online learning and that each impacts the other. The authors point out in the review of their study that faculty satisfaction is influenced by a number of environmental factors including infrastructure, faculty development opportunities, faculty support and recognition, as well as institutionalization of online learning. Their conclusion, that faculty satisfaction drives student outcomes, and vice-versa, that student outcomes drive faculty satisfaction provides a unique perspective on the inter-relatedness of factors within the online learning environment. Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) report that a positive correlation exists between faculty satisfaction with online learning and student performance, which implies that a faculty dissatisfied with online learning may in some way contribute to lower student outcomes. Bolliger and Wasilik developed a survey tool, the Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) that can be used to determine faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in terms of studentrelated, instructor-related, and institutional-related factors. A valid, reliable measurement instrument, as this tool was deemed to be, provides the ability to survey faculty and use the findings in conjunction with other measures such as student outcomes. This has the potential to provide further validation and support for the idea that faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning can impact the outcomes of the students taught by these members of the faculty. Ulmer et al. (2007), developed a survey instrument that attempts to measure faculty perception of the comparative value and efficacy of distance education, as well as the perception of status of distance teaching. Though no attempt was made to correlate the survey results with student outcomes, the authors suggest that would be a likely next step. The study did show that

35

instructors who have experience with distance education have a better perception of it than those who have not had that experience. This suggests that experience may also play a role in overall faculty satisfaction with online and distance learning. The point is made that a successful distance education program is reliant upon a dedicated and committed distance faculty. A positive perception of distance education and satisfaction with the distance-learning environment are likely contributors to that success. Faculty satisfaction is a complex idea; it is an interaction of conditions related to the students, the institution, the department and even an instructors own experiences and attitudes. Developing a deeper understanding of the aspects of faculty satisfaction that have the potential to positively and negatively impact student outcomes will be very useful when creating professional development programs for online faculty. Faculty who feel well-supported by their institutions, who have, for example, adequate technical and pedagogical support, and adequate professional development opportunities are reported to be more satisfied with online teaching overall (Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008). Student Satisfaction It would be remiss to consider faculty satisfaction in the OLE without also considering student satisfaction. The interaction between faculty satisfaction and student satisfaction is both complex and recursive; each impacts the other. Student satisfaction is a critical consideration because it has been shown that students who are more satisfied with their online courses are more likely to complete them, thus contributing positively to overall successful completion (Swan, 2001). Menchaca and Bekele (2008) were able to show a positive correlation between student satisfaction with their online educational experiences and their willingness to continue taking online courses at the same institution. Jackson, Jones, and Rodriguez (2010) substantiated

36

similar findings while pointing out the importance of student satisfaction to student retention in online programs. Indeed, student satisfaction and success are excellent indicators of online program quality (Sampson, Leonard, Ballenger, & Coleman, 2010). Numerous studies have been conducted to determine factors associated with student satisfaction in the OLE. A study by Ortiz-Rodriguez, Tieg, Irani, Roberts, and Rhoades (2005) revealed that four factors could be linked to student satisfaction: communication and timely feedback, good course design with rich media, administrative issues such as good software, and good support. Similarly, Evans (2009) was able to determine that faculty involvement, curriculum, student engagement, and flexibility were factors that significantly contributed to student satisfaction. Of special interest to this study is the frequency with which faculty-related factors have been shown to contribute to student satisfaction with the OLE. Bolliger and Martindale (2004) demonstrated that the instructor is the main predictor of student satisfaction. Of note, 64.48% of the variability in measured student satisfaction was found to be due to instructor/instruction factors. Strong relationships have been found between timeliness/accessibility of the instructor and student satisfaction. Clearly stated expectations by the instructor as well as instructor enthusiasm have been shown to have a positive correlation with students perceived value of the online course (Jackson et al., 2010). Swan (2001) reported that students who had high levels of perceived interaction with the instructor also had high levels of satisfaction with the course. Those same students also reported higher levels of learning. Instructor feedback was determined to be the most significant transaction in support of quality communication in online courses (Ortiz-Rodriguez et al., 2005).

37

It is evident that aspects of student satisfaction in the OLE, and by extension, successful completion by students in the OLE are tied to faculty-related issues. Hartman et al. (2000) uncovered a strong relationship between faculty satisfaction and student outcomes. This is an excellent indication that most members of the faculty are motivated by, and feel rewarded by student success in their online learning endeavors (Meyer, 2002). Frederickson, Pickett, Shea, Pelz and Swan (2000, p.258) confirmed this idea; Those who felt that their on-line students did better also felt significantly more satisfied with on-line teaching. Working to better understand this relationship has potential for improving professional development programs geared towards online instructors and improving the overall quality of online programs. Review of Factors Contributing to Faculty Satisfaction Considering the varied factors that influence faculty satisfaction with the OLE six significant themes emerge from the literature. An overarching theme of interaction; interaction amongst students and interaction between students and instructor; is evident. A theme that focuses on the mechanics of online learning, that is, the planning, designing, and delivering of online instruction becomes apparent. The nature of the institutional support provided to and perceived by the online faculty, in both breadth and depth of support describes a fourth theme. Finally, instructor attitudes towards online teaching as well as views of the affordances provided by the OLE substantiate the fifth and sixth themes of online faculty satisfaction. Each of these themes has been framed by the previous discussion, but a focused look at each element will help to define the parameters of the survey used for this study. Interaction is seen by some to be not just an important aspect of online learning, but the core of online learning (Simmons, Jones, & Silver, 2004). The ability for students to communicate and interact with other students, as well as with the course instructor is seen as

38

instrumental to the online environment (Frederickson et al., 2000; Hartman et al., 2000). Interaction is seen as a means of encouraging critical thinking and problem solving (ADEC, n.d.). Student-to-student interaction. Online courses are often characterized by a requirement for students to actively participate through online discussions or chats (Anderson & Haddad, 2005). More active involvement may also be required; students may be asked to comment on or peer review each others projects, offering suggestions for improvement which has the potential to generate both mutual support and learning (Simmons et al., 2004). Pointedly, Wasilik and Bolliger (2009) found that lack of student involvement in the online course contributed to overall dissatisfaction with the experience. Wasilik and Bolliger also determined that high levels of interaction and the sharing of resources between students are considered to be positive aspects by the online instructors. Faculty-to-student interaction. Active communication with students contributes positively to online faculty satisfaction (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). Moore and Kearsley (2005) support this idea as well, indicating that the faculty-to-student interaction is essential in teaching and learning online. This interaction allows faculty to fulfill their responsibility for providing feedback and building effective intervention to improve online student performance. It also provides the primary means of responding to student needs and questions. As well, faculty who are more satisfied with online teaching report a high level of interaction with online students (Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009, p. 177) as contributing to that satisfaction than do faculty who are less satisfied with online teaching. Course design, development, and teaching. The time required to design, develop, and teach an online course can contribute to faculty satisfaction with online teaching in both positive

39

and negative ways. While some found online teaching to take less time than teaching an equivalent face-to-face course (DiBiase, 2000), others found it to be more time consuming (Conceio, 2006; Visser, 2002). Overall, workload including preparation, time for design and development, and time for teaching were faculty concerns that have the potential to impact faculty satisfaction with online teaching (Betts, 1998; OQuinn & Corry, 2002). Assessment is an important component of an online course (Simmons et al., 2004), and online course tools provide multiple means to assess in both formative and summative ways. The availability of these tools and the know-how to use them contribute to faculty satisfaction. Consequently, the lack of viable tools for assessment may contribute negatively. Several aspects of online teaching impact faculty satisfaction. For example, when student performance in the OLE is better, faculty satisfaction is higher (Frederickson et al., 2000). Student motivation and issues of conflict resolution within the OLE contribute to satisfaction as does the instructors perceived quality of the online experience he or she is delivering (Betts, 1998; Bower, 2001; Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009). Institutional support. Milheim (2001) indicates that one of the most important issues (. . .) is the overall institutional support for the development and implementation of distance education (p. 538). Concerns that should be addressed by the institution include those of release time (Betts, 1998; OQuinn & Cory, 2002), compensation (Bower, 2001; Milheim, 2001; Simonson et al., 2009), technical support (Betts ; OQuinn & Cory), training (OQuinn & Corry), and reliable technology (ADEC, n.d.; Betts, 1998; Fredericksen et al., 2000). In general, institutional policy encompassing all of the topics indicated bears a significant weight in terms of faculty satisfaction with online teaching.

40

Instructor attitudes. The degree to which an online instructor looks forward to teaching online in the future is an indication of their level of satisfaction with the OLE (Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009). Many factors contribute to this attitude, but of note are issues of technologyrelated problems (Arvan & Musumeci, 2000; Wasilik & Bolliger), the intellectual challenge presented by the OLE (Betts, 1998; Panda & Mishra, 2007), the professional development opportunities that online teaching provide (ADEC, n.d.; Bower, 2001; Hartman et al., 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 2001), and the potential to promote positive student outcomes (Sloan Consortium, 2006). Students present additional sources of frustration and joy, both of which contribute to instructor attitude towards the OLE. Faculty can become frustrated when students are not prepared to learn online and have poor time management, technology, or written communication skills. As well, unrealistic expectations that students have regarding instructor availability can lead to frustration (Wasilik & Bolliger). On the other hand, some online faculty indicate the enjoyment they derive learning from students and describe their online teaching experiences as stimulating, invigorating, exciting, rewarding, satisfying, gratifying, and empowering (Conceio, 2006, p. 40). Positive online teaching experiences contribute to overall job satisfaction (Betts, 1998). Affordances. The OLE presents affordances to both faculty and students, both of which can contribute to faculty satisfaction. Instructors gain scheduling flexibility with online teaching while students gain flexibility in course access (Wasilik & Bolliger, 2009), which provides opportunities for students they might not otherwise have. The likelihood of attracting a more diverse student population is a positive aspect of the OLE (ADEC, n.d.; Betts, 1998; Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Wasilik & Bolliger). The OLE also presents faculty with

41

opportunity to integrate a variety of resources into an online course and provide students with easy access to those materials (Bolliger & Wasilik). Summary Online learning is a relatively new player in higher education that has a rich history in distance education. This review included an overview of that history as well as a consideration of the theory that supports distance education and online learning. The large numbers of studies that overwhelmingly show no significant differences in student outcomes between online and traditional courses, and especially the more recent findings that online students are outperforming traditional students (Shachar & Neumann, 2010), are reassuring to administrators of online and distance learning programs. Yet this focus on comparison studies is likely misleading. Howell and Laws (2004), point to a need to focus evaluation on the last crop of apples with the current crop all within the same institutional orchard (p. 250). They encourage a move away from comparison studies to a focus on identifying and encouraging best practices within the OLE. The online learning environment is complex. Student-related, institutional-related, and faculty-related factors all play a role in contributing to the complexity. Though that complexity creates challenge, that challenge cannot be an excuse to forgo the work required to better understand the environment and how those factors impact the online learning experience. Clark (1983, 1994) alluded to this complexity by suggesting that observed differences between online and face-to-face learning outcomes can be attributed to a vast array of variables and interpretation of those differences becomes virtually impossible. Reducing the complexity by singling out specific factors is one step towards providing better online experiences for students and instructors. This study will focus on faculty-related factors, particularly faculty satisfaction

42

with the online learning environment, to try and better understand how faculty may influence student outcomes. The study should be viewed as part of a more comprehensive evaluation of online learning. The next chapter outlines the methodologies that were employed in the study. The methodologies were chosen with the goal of developing an understanding of the relationship between faculty-related factors within the online learning environment and the construct of student outcomes, operationally defined as the rate of successful online course completion.

43

Chapter 3 - Methodology Introduction This chapter describes the methodology employed for the research study. First, the rationale for using a quantitative approach will be shared along with an overview of the research design. A description of the population studied and the specific sampling techniques used will be described, followed by a review of the instruments used to collect data. The plan undertaken for data collection and analysis will be discussed. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of validity and reliability as well as ethical considerations and study limitations. Correlational research is a quantitative methodology that seeks to examine the strength and direction of relationships between two or more variables (Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorensen, 2006). One objective of this study was to determine the extent of the correlation between faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment and successful course completion of online students. A quantitative approach to the study opened the door to projecting the findings to a larger population of online teachers and learners. Additionally, a quantitative approach provided a means to aggregate faculty and student data from across multiple disciplines and subjects which, in turn, increased the breadth of the study. A survey was the source of primary data for the study; a measure of faculty satisfaction. An institutional report, the Completion Report, was the source of secondary data for the study; the rate of successful online course completion. For the purposes of this study successful completion was defined as the percent of students who complete an online course with a grade of C-or better. It should be noted that students self-select into online courses and almost always have the option of selecting a face-to-face course instead of the online version. This was a nonexperimental study in which variables of study were defined, but not manipulated. The rate of

44

course completion was the dependent variable, the faculty satisfaction index and relevant subindices were the independent variables. Access to Online Faculty As the Associate Dean of Continuing Education, with oversight responsibilities for online faculty development, the researcher had ready access to the population of online faculty at the institution. This established relationship supported the study in a positive way, at least in terms of response rate to the survey. The findings of the study were of particular interest to the researcher because of the potential to inform and direct ongoing professional development for online faculty at Weber State University. Sampling - Source of Participants and Rationale for Selection Because this study focused on faculty who teach online at a specific institution, a convenience sample was used that consisted of all online instructors at the institution willing to respond to the survey, potentially 244 instructors in the course of the 2010/2011 academic year. The survey and invitation to participate was sent to all online instructors with the goal of getting as many to participate as possible. Higher participation increases the power of the study and makes it more likely that findings will be significant (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). In order to achieve a 95% level of confidence, with a margin of error that does not exceed 5%, a return of 152 surveys was needed, and indeed 172 were returned. The responding faculties work in one of seven academic colleges or the library. Their online teaching experience varied, at the time of the survey, from 1 semester to 13 years and most had participated in formal training in the use of the learning management system that supports online teaching at the institution. Instrumentation Bolliger and Wasilik (2009) developed an Online Faculty Satisfaction Survey (OFSS) in

45

2007 that was designed to help identify and confirm factors that have an influence on faculty satisfaction in the online learning environment. Bolliger, Inan, and Wasilik (in preparation) revised and expanded the OFSS after an extensive review of the literature. This careful review was important because it contributed to both the face validity and content validity of the instrument (Rudestam &Newton, 2007). The revised faculty satisfaction instrument contained 42 questions; six demographic questions and 36 questions that were scored using a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument included six constructs: (1) student-to-student interaction, (2) teacher-to-student interaction, (3) considerations of course design/development/teaching, (4) institutional support, (5) attitudes, and (6) affordances. The instrument underwent expert review to ensure content validity and was piloted at a western research university to confirm satisfactory reliability. The validated instrument was then administered to this studys online faculty. Additional questions were included in the survey that sought to determine instructors pedagogical beliefs. While this information is not directly relevant to this study, it was gathered for use by the University of Wyoming researchers in other studies. This study contributed to the ongoing effort to establish instrument validity (Appendix A). The survey was used to gather information from online faculty at Weber State University during the Spring 2011 semester. Faculty response to the survey was then used to arrive at faculty satisfaction indices related to the six survey subscales previously described, as well as an overall satisfaction score. Other Data Sources At the conclusion of each semester, a Completion Rate Report is run for the Provost and the Dean of each college at the university. This report was developed to tabulate final grade data

46

from the student information system and provides a summary of final grades for every course taught at the university. Each line of the report reflects a single course and provides a unique course reference number (CRN), the modality in which the course was taught (ONL, ONC, Hybrid, Independent Study, Lab), the total number of students in the course, the total number of A, B, C. D, F, I, CR, NC, W, UW grades, average final grade for the class, the percentage of W, UW grades, the percentage of successful completion (all grades C- and above), the percentage of standard completion (all grades D- and above), and the percentage of unsuccessful completion (all F and UW grades). CR and NC grades are not included in the average final grade calculation, but are included in the successful and unsuccessful completion categories (see appendix B for a sample report). W grades represent students who withdrew from a course after the third week of the semester, but before the 12th week. No formal grade distinction is given to students withdrawing from a course within the first three weeks of the semester. A UW grade represents students who simply stopped attending the class without official notification. Because a UW grade is included in a students GPA calculation in the same way as a failing grade, those grades are tabulated in the unsuccessful category. The data extracted for the study included CRN (which allows for the identification of the course instructor), number of students enrolled, percent of successful completion, average final course grade, and department and college of course ownership. These data were harvested only for those instructors who had both completed the OFSS and had given permission for retrieval of course grade data for association with their survey results. Only relevant online course data were retrieved; on-campus and hybrid course data were not be included. The data were placed in a data set with the following fields:

47

Instructor Dept College Term CRN (online course identifier) Number of Students Average Final Grade percent of successful completion percent of official withdraw percent of unofficial withdraw

Data Collection Part I faculty satisfaction data. Faculty satisfaction and relevant demographic data were gathered from the satisfaction survey previously discussed. All members of the faculty who taught online during the period of study, August of 2010 through April of 2011 were invited to participate in the study. Process. The following steps were taken to gather data: Subjects were identified from the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 master course schedules for Weber State University. All faculties who taught an online course during one or both of those semesters were invited to participate in the study. The subjects received an e-mail (Appendix C) asking them to complete a web-based informed consent form (Appendix D) and the web-based survey. Two Word attachments were included in the e-mail: the cover letter (Appendix E) and the informed consent form. 48

The cover letter provided potential participants with information about the study including what specifically was being surveyed (Appendix E). Participants were advised that while participation was voluntary, the survey was not anonymous so that survey results could be matched with the appropriate course completion data. Confidentiality of results, however, was promised.

Participants simply had to click the link to the survey provided in the email to initiate the instrument. The informed consent was presented as the first question in the survey. Participants were advised that their consent was given with a Yes response to the first question. Anyone choosing not to give consent was asked to indicate No to the first question and was then directed to stop the survey and exit.

The Likert-scale items on the survey range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The survey encompassed six satisfaction sub-scales: student-to-student interaction; instructor-to-student interaction; course design/development/teaching; institutional support; attitudes; and affordance. The survey also included six demographic questions.

Participants were advised that the survey would take approximately 15-20 minutes of the respondents time.

The research took place at Weber State University, Ogden, Utah. The subjects were able to terminate their participation in the study at any point by exiting the survey window, if they desired.

The researcher at WSU followed up with non-respondents after one week through e-mail. Follow-up messages continued until the survey closed on April 30, 2011.

49

Survey results were stored within the survey application, Chi Tester, an assessment application developed at Weber State University and used widely throughout the institution.

Results were downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet and then imported into an SPSS data base. Respondent names were included with the responses at this point, in order to allow the merging of relevant course completion data, as outlined in part 3, below. Part 2 final course grade data. Final course grade data were gathered from a standard

report, the Completion Rate Report that is run at the conclusion of every semester and provided to the Provost as well as to the Deans of each of the colleges. The report provides a means to collect and tabulate final course grades for all courses taught at the institution and is organized by department within college. The report does not include instructor name, but does include a unique course reference number (CRN) that in conjunction with the term field was used to associate results with a specific instructor. The Completion Rate Report is not a public document, but permission for use was obtained from the Office of the Provost. These data were gathered for the fall 2010 and spring 2011 semesters, only for those members of the faculty who had returned a useable survey. Based upon those criteria 471 courses were included in the study. Part 3 merging survey data and course grade data. The data sets were merged by faculty name and resulted in a 471 record dataset. Once the dataset was merged, respondents names were removed from each record. Confidentiality and protection of data. The survey was not anonymous because results of the survey had to be associated with the appropriate course completion data. However, steps were taken to insure the confidentiality of responses. Data from the faculty satisfaction survey was shared with researchers at the University of Wyoming, but the shared data did not include

50

any personal identifiers. The researcher at the institution of study, Weber State University, removed all identifiers prior to sharing the data set. Only the researcher had information that tied a username to an individual instructor. Individual identities were not relevant to the study. Compiled data were stored on an external flash drive, with a back-up stored on a password-protected cloud application, Dropbox, to which only the researcher had access. Campus-networked computers were used to analyze this data, but the data were never transferred to or stored on these computers. All generated reports were stored on the flash drive as well, not on any networked drives or computers. Two backups of the data were maintained at all times, again on drives or devices external to any networked computers. Collected data were accessed only by the research team and will be destroyed at the conclusion of study, by the end of 2012. Data Analysis The survey data were examined for missing data, outliers, and multicollinearity. In order to review instrument reliability a Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated to verify that internal reliability was still acceptable. The result for the overall scale was high (a = .90). Reliability results for the subscales attitudes (a = .83), student-to-student interaction (a = .79), affordances (a = .78), and institutional support (a = .75) were high. Reliability coefficients for the subscales instructor-to-student interaction (a = .65) and course design (a = .58) were acceptable. An overall faculty satisfaction index was calculated for each participant as well as an index for each of the six subscales. These indices became the independent variables in the next phase of the study. The values of the indices ranged from 1 to 5 on a continuous scale, with lower numbers indicating less satisfaction and higher numbers indicating more satisfaction. Several items on the survey were written with a reverse scale (1 indicating higher satisfaction, 5 51

indicating lower) and were subsequently reverse-coded prior to any other calculations. These data were then analyzed using standard descriptive statistics. Measures of central tendency and variability were calculated in order to develop an understanding of the general level of satisfaction with the online learning environment. Demographic data gathered in the survey, such as the college in which each instructor has membership, were introduced into the analysis to provide a more complete picture of faculty satisfaction with online learning at this institution. For example, looking at faculty satisfaction by college allowed for a cross-tab analysis that helped determine if a significant difference in satisfaction is evident between colleges. Similar post-hoc analyses were conducted with other independent variables including gender, age, and years of online teaching experience. This type of analysis, in which comparisons are made between subscales that comprise an overall score, i.e., families of data, can be problematic if not handled conservatively. Whenever more than one single test of significance is conducted on the same data, familywise error (FWE is introduced (Hays, 1994). FWE is the probability that any one set of significance tests is a Type I error. As more of these tests are done there is an increased likelihood that detected significance is due to chance. To counter FWE, a more conservative post-hoc analysis was conducted on the data using a Bonferroni test. Bonferroni uses a modified significance level to test hypotheses which divides the acceptable overall risk of a Type I error, .05% for this study, by the number of hypotheses tested (Olejnik, Li, Supattathum, & Huberty, 1997). In this study, the six subscales suggest six hypotheses; therefore the significance level was modified to .05/6, or .00833. Student success rates were then gathered for the online courses of those members of the faculty who participated in the study. Success rates were gathered for two semesters yielding 471 combined records of faculty satisfaction scores and student success rates. Descriptive analyses

52

and analysis by factor; college, age, gender, and years of online teaching experience; were conducted. In the next phase of the study, the overall faculty satisfaction score, the independent variable, was analyzed along with the percentages of successful completion, the dependent variable, to determine the extent of the relationship between faculty satisfaction and student success. As both the independent and dependent variables were interval variables, a simple correlation analysis was conducted to determine the extent and strength of the relationship. A partial correlation analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which factors other than overall faculty satisfaction contributed to student success results. A regression equation was calculated in the interest of developing some sort of model for predicting average student success rate from a faculty satisfaction score. This test assisted in helping to determine how much of the variance in the dependent variable could be explained by using the regression line for predicting the value of the dependent variable instead of using the simple mean (Rhea & Parker, 2005). Finally, the demographic information gathered through the survey was combined with the satisfaction subscale variables derived from the survey and considered together to determine their effect on student completion in online courses. A step-wise regression analysis was conducted on this combined data set to see the extent to which the variation in student completion rates could be explained.

53

Chapter 4- Results Introduction This chapter presents the results of the faculty satisfaction survey as well as analysis of other data gathered in support of the study. Results of the faculty satisfaction survey include demographic information about the population of surveyed faculty and results of the statistical analyses of the survey responses within the context of the four research questions introduced in the first chapter. A significance level of .05 is assumed unless otherwise noted; p values are indicated throughout the statistical analysis. Faculty Demographic Information The survey was administered to the entire population of 241 members of the faculty who had taught an online course during the semesters of study, fall 2010 and spring 2011 at Weber State University. One hundred seventy two surveys were returned for a response rate of 71%. Four surveys were discarded because one third of the data were missing, yielding 168 usable surveys; a useable response rate of 70%. Demographic information collected is provided in tables 1 and 2.

54

Table 1. Online Faculty Characteristics: Age and Gender (N = 168) Characteristic Age 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 + Non response Gender Female Male Non Response 80 77 11 47.6 45.8 6.5 n % of Total

2 22 41 43 46 14

1.3 13.1 24.4 25.6 27.4 8.3

Females made up 47.6% of the respondents to the survey (n = 80) while males made up 45.8% of the respondents (n = 77). Eleven respondents (6.5%) chose to not indicate their gender. While 8.3% of respondents chose not to disclose their age, 53% of those who did were 50 years or older (n = 89). The remaining respondents ranged in age from 26 through 49. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the faculty respondents by the college in which they teach and the number of years of online teaching experience each respondent claims.

55

Table 2. Online Faculty Characteristics: College Represented and Years of Online Teaching Experience (N=168) Characteristic Years of Online Teaching .5 - 1 1.5 3 3.5 5 5.5 10 >10 College Represented Arts & Humanities Business Applied Science Education Health Professions Science Social Sciences Library 28 19 28 13 35 15 22 8 16.7 11.3 16.7 7.7 20.8 8.9 13.1 4.8 n % of Total

7 26 33 39 63

4.2 15.5 19.6 23.2 37.5

Over half of the responding faculty members have been teaching online for more than five years (60.7%, n = 102) and 37.5% (n = 63) have taught more than 10 years. Weber State began offering online courses in 1998, 13 years prior to this study, so a high number of the respondents have been teaching online since the modality was made available at the institution.

56

All colleges at the institution and the library were represented in the study with the College of Health Professions showing the highest percent of total participation at 20.8% (n = 35). The respondents taught a total of 471 online courses during the two semesters of study. To summarize the demographics, the respondents were evenly split along gender lines, were generally older, and had extensive online teaching experience. This demographic information provides context from which to view the responses to the four research questions. Research Question 1 The participating faculty was asked to respond to 36 questions related to the online learning environment. The questions, delivered through an online survey tool were grouped in six subscales, each with a different focus on online teaching. Each subscale addressed a different aspect of online teaching that has been shown to contribute to overall faculty satisfaction with teaching in the online learning environment. The collected responses aid in answering the first research question; what is the general level of faculty satisfaction with online teaching at Weber State University? Table 3 displays the question text, mean, and standard deviation of each question in the survey. A brief overview of each subscale aids in reading the table. The student-to-student interaction subscale measured the extent to which interaction between students in the online environment contributed to faculty satisfaction, while the student-to-teacher interaction subscale measured the contribution of interactions between students and teacher in both types and quality of interaction. The design-develop-teach subscale considers the impact of concepts such as time required to design, develop, and teach online courses as well as issues of course quality and conflict resolution on faculty satisfaction. The institutional support subscale addresses the contribution of institutional issues such as policy, training, and compensation to faculty

57

satisfaction. The final two subscales attitude and affordances consider general faculty attitudes about online teaching and learning, and how the faculty views the affordances that the online learning environment provides both students and instructors.

58

Table 3. Items, means, standard deviations for questions 1 - 36 (N=168) where scores range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree
Student-to-student Interaction Subscale Item 1. My online students share resources with each other within the course 2. My online students participate enthusiastically. 3. *My online students are somewhat passive in their interactions. 4. My online students actively collaborate. 5. My students appear to be part of an online community. 6. My students work well together online. Subscale Instructor-to-student Interaction Subscale 7. My interactions with online students are satisfying. 8. I like using various online communication tools to interact with my students. 9. My online students receive quality feedback. 10. My students contact me when they have questions. 11. *I do not get to know my online students well. 12. I am accessible to students in online courses. Subscale Design-develop-teach Subscale 13. *It takes a lot of time to develop an online course. 14. I am satisfied with how I assess students in online courses. 15. I am pleased with the quality of student work in online courses. 16. I am satisfied with students motivation in online courses. 17. I am satisfied with the content quality of my online courses. 18. I am satisfied with how I handle conflicts in my online courses. Subscale 3.99 4.21 4.40 2.87 4.57 3.99 1.58 4.01 3.73 3.30 4.07 3.96 3.44 .793 .667 .693 1.073 .565 .470 .770 .823 .844 .951 .751 .695 .462 M 3.48 3.59 2.95 3.01 3.22 3.12 3.23 3.90 SD .972 .720 .943 .957 .969 .888 .635 .794

59

Table 3 cont. Items, means, standard deviations for questions 1 36 (N = 168) where the scores range from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree Institutional Support Subscale Item M SD 19. At my institution, teachers are given sufficient time to design and develop
online courses. 20. I have adequate technical support by my institutions. 21. My needs for training to prepare for teaching online have been met. 22. My institution provides fair compensation or incentives for teaching online. 23. I am satisfied with online teaching policies that have been implemented by my institution. 24. My institution provides the necessary technology tools (equipment and software) for teaching online. Subscale Attitude Subscale 25. I look forward to teaching online. 26. I am enthusiastic about teaching online. 27. Technical problems do not discourage me from teaching online. 28. I enjoy learning about new technologies that can be used for online teaching. 29. *Online teaching is often frustrating. 30. I consider online teaching to be fulfilling. Subscale Affordances Subscale 31. Online courses provide a flexible learning environment. 32. I am satisfied with the convenience of the online learning environment. 33. Online teaching allows me to reach a more diverse student population. 34. I am satisfied that my students can access their online course from almost anywhere. 35. Online courses allow students to access a wide range of resources. 36. In online courses every student has an opportunity to contribute. Subscale Overall Note. * indicates a survey item that was reverse-coded 4.48 4.15 4.07 4.21 3.74 .547 .692 .783 .509 .401 4.03 3.06 3.65 3.82 4.27 4.26 4.03 .858 1.054 .923 .652 .770 .701 .905 4.02 3.99 4.18 .858 .862 .720 3.94 3.73 .920 .627 3.47 .941 3.30 4.21 4.16 3.29 1.075 .832 .704 1.111

60

The standard deviations varied between .55 and 1.11 with four items; 11, 19, 22, and 29; in excess of one standard deviation. The mean overall faculty satisfaction score was 3.74. The histogram in figure 3 shows a normal distribution of the scores, with a slight negative skew.

Figure 3. Histogram of faculty satisfaction overall.

Mean score and standard deviation for each of the subscales are displayed in table 4, along with the minimum and maximum scores for each subscale. The student-to-student interaction scale showed the lowest overall mean score (M = 3.23) while the affordances scales showed the highest overall mean score (M = 4.21).

61

Table 4. Mean Scores by Subscale (N=168) Sub-scale Items Student-to-student interaction 16 Teacher-to-student interaction Course Design/Develop/Teach Institutional Support Attitudes Affordance 7 11 12 17 18 23 24 30 31 - 36

Min Score 1.17 2.50 1.33 2.00 1.83 2.50

Max Score 4.67 5.00 4.67 5.00 5.00 5.00

M 3.23 3.99 3.44 3.73 3.82 4.21

SD .635 .470 .462 .627 .652 .509

The faculty survey participants were asked to provide information about their home college, gender, age, and their years of experience teaching online. Analyzing the survey results by each of these factors provides a rich body of contextual information. Analysis by college. Table 5 displays results of the measured overall level of satisfaction by college. The college of Social & Behavioral Science registered the lowest level of satisfaction with a mean score of 3.56 (n = 22) while the College of Health Professions registered the highest level of satisfaction with a mean score of 3.89 (n = 35). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the relationship between college membership and overall faculty satisfaction. The independent variable, college membership, included eight levels; Arts & Humanities, Business & Economics, Applied Science & Technology, Education, Health Professions, Science, Social & Behavioral Science, and the Library. The ANOVA result was not significant, F(7,160) = 1.69, p = .115. Data from the separate colleges can be combined.

62

Table 5. Overall Faculty Satisfaction by College (N = 168) College n Minimum Arts & Humanities 28 2.39 Business & Economics Applied Science & Tech. Education Health Professions Science Social & Behavioral Science Library 19 28 13 35 15 22 8 3.03 3.00 3.42 3.39 2.61 2.39 3.25

Maximum 4.56 4.28 4.25 4.42 4.53 4.56 4.31 3.94

M 3.77 3.65 3.73 3.77 3.89 3.76 3.56 3.57

SD .509 .342 .360 .276 .314 .454 .483 .234

Table 6 displays the mean score and standard deviation for each subscale of the survey, by college. Table 6. Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by College (N = 168)
1 College Arts & Humanities Business & Economics Appl. Sci. & Tech. Education Health Professions Science Soc. & Beh. Science Library n 28 19 28 13 35 15 22 8 M 3.25 2.91 3.24 3.21 3.56 3.02 3.20 2.88 SD .58 .66 .56 .52 .57 .87 .61 .49 M 4.05 3.89 3.92 3.96 4.23 4.09 3.71 3.88 2 SD .51 .47 .44 .34 .37 .38 .61 .23 M 3.49 3.36 3.51 3.58 3.54 3.51 3.16 3.17 3 SD .70 .35 .40 .31 .28 .45 .50 .30 M 3.71 3.82 3.74 3.79 3.57 3.69 3.89 3.73 4 SD .80 .44 .51 .59 .58 .70 .77 .54 M 3.85 3.79 3.72 3.87 4.07 4.04 3.48 3.52 5 SD .71 .60 .70 .62 .47 .52 .77 .62 M 4.29 4.11 4.24 4.19 4.34 4.2 3.96 4.27 6 SD .59 .49 .45 .41 .48 .57 .53 .48

Note. (1 = student-to-student interaction, 2 = student-to-teacher interaction, 3 = design, develop, teach, 4 = institutional support, 5 = attitude, 6 = affordances) Because the analysis was run on the six correlated scales, the required probability level for significance was determined to be .05/6 (Olejnik, Li, Supattathum, & Huberty, 1997). Thus an analysis showing p < .0083 was considered a highly significant result. Using a Bonferroni

63

calculation is a conservative approach to the comparison of means that reduces the potential for Type I error. Interesting, but not highly significant differences will also be noted. Analyses resulting in p values greater than .00833 and less than or equal to .05 will be highlighted as interesting. When the subscale responses were analyzed by home college highly significant differences were detected in the student-to-student interaction and the student-to-teacher interaction. The design-develop-teach and attitude subscales showed interesting differences, that is, where p < .05, but not less than .0083. The College of Health professions showed the highest satisfaction with student-to-student interaction (3.56), whereas the Library and School of Business showed the lowest satisfaction in this subscale (2.88 and 2.91, respectively). This difference is highly significant, F(7,160) = 2.84, p = .008. The home college had a large effect (Cohens d = 1.279) between the College of Health and the Library, and a slightly smaller effect between the College of Health and the School of Business (Cohens d = 1.054). The difference between means in the student-to-teacher interaction subscale was also highly significant, F(7,160) = 3.113, p = .004), with the College of Social Science presenting the lowest mean score, 3.71, and the College of Health Professions presenting the highest mean score at 4.23. The effect of home college was again large (Cohens d=1.031). Both the design-develop-teach and attitude subscales showed interesting differences between colleges, F(7,160) = 2.38, p = .024 and F(7,160) = 2.319, p = .028 respectively. In the design-develop-teach subscale, the highest mean score was seen in the College of Education (M = 3.58) while the lowest (M = 3.16) was seen in the College of Social Sciences.

64

An interesting difference in attitudes was evident, F(7,160) = 2.32, p = .028. The College of Health Professions had the highest mean score in the attitude subscale (M = 4.07) while the College of Social Sciences had the lowest (M = 3.48). Analysis by gender. Table 7 illustrates the mean score for overall satisfaction and each subscale by gender (N = 157). Several participants chose to not disclose their gender. Table 7. Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Gender (N=157)
Gender Female Male n 80 77 1 M SD 3.35 .60 3.10 .65 2 M 4.03 3.94 SD .51 .44 M 3.46 3.42 3 SD .45 .48 4 M SD 3.64 .61 3.80 .63 5 M 3.85 3.79 SD .65 .67 M 4.23 4.18 6 SD .49 .54 Overall M SD 3.76 .40 3.70 .41

Note. (1 = student-to-student interaction, 2 = student-to-teacher interaction, 3 = design, develop, teach, 4 = institutional support, 5 = attitude, 6 = affordances) Females rated higher on overall satisfaction and in all subscales with the exception of institutional support. However, the only interesting difference of note was found in the studentto-student interaction subscale, F(1,155) = 6.152, p = .014. Analysis by age. Table 8 provides a view of the mean overall satisfaction score and each subscale mean score by age. Participants were grouped into one of six age categories. Not all survey participants chose to disclose their age (N = 154).

65

Table 8. Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Age (N = 154)

1 Age 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 60+ All n 2 22 41 43 46 154 M 2.58 3.02 3.23 3.30 3.24 3.21 SD .85 .66 .65 .57 .64 .63 M 4.42 3.76 3.94 3.99 4.08 3.98 2 SD .35 .56 .52 .43 .40 .48 M 3.5 3.11 3.43 3.52 3.52 3.44 3 SD .47 .62 .39 .47 .38 .47 M 3.92 3.35 3.86 3.83 3.69 3.73 4 SD 1.30 .62 .59 .63 .56 .62 M 4.5 3.46 3.73 3.94 3.89 3.81 5 SD .24 .66 .72 .63 .55 .65 M 4.25 4.00 4.18 4.26 4.26 4.20 6 SD .12 .60 .56 .48 .43 .51 Overall M SD 3.86 .51 3.45 3.73 3.81 3.78 3.73 .49 .39 .38 .33 .40

Note. (1 = student-to-student interaction, 2 = student-to-teacher interaction, 3 = design, develop, teach, 4 = institutional support, 5 = attitude, 6 = affordances) Faculty belonging to the 30 39 year old group consistently showed lower levels of satisfaction throughout the survey. The only exception to that finding is in the subscale of student-to-student interaction where the 20 29 year old group showed a lower level of satisfaction than the 30 39 year old age group and every other age group. That difference, however, is not significant. A highly significant difference in means by age was found in the level of overall satisfaction, F(4,149) = 3.55, p = .008. The 30 39 year old age group had the lowest score (M = 3.45) while the 20 29 year old age group had the highest mean score (M = 3.86). A post-hoc analysis revealed that the highly significant difference was actually between the 30 39 year old age group and the 50 59 year old age group (p = .006). Age accounted for 14% of the variability in scores between these two groups (Cohens d = .821). The design-develop-teach subscale mean score results indicated a highly significant difference, F(4,149) = 3.043, p = .006. Again, the 30 39 year old age group had the lowest mean score (M = 3.11) while the 50 59 year old and 60+ year old groups shared the highest mean score (M = 3.52). The post-hoc analysis indicated the difference between the 30 39 year 66

old group and the 50 59 year old group was significant with p = .006, and a p of .005 when the 30 39 year old group was compared to the 60+ year old group. Age had a medium effect on the variability in mean scores between these groups; 12% between the 30 39 and 50 59 year old groups and 14% between the 30 39 and 60+ year old groups (Cohens d = .7452 and Cohens d = .7973, respectively). Interesting, but not highly significant differences were detected between age groups for the institutional support subscale. Even though the 20 29 year old group scored highest on this subscale (M = 3.92, n = 2), a post-hoc analysis indicated the significant difference was between the 30 39 year old group (M = 3.35, n = 22) and the 40 49 year old group (M = 3.86, n = 41). The attitude subscale also presented interesting differences in mean scores by age, F(4,149) = 3.023, p = .02. The 30 39 year old group mean was the lowest at 3.46 while the 20 29 year old group mean was the highest at 4.5. Neither highly significant nor interesting differences were detected in the student-tostudent interaction, the student-to-teacher interaction, or the affordances subscales. Analysis by years of experience of online teaching. Faculty participants were grouped by their years of experience teaching in the online learning environment. Groups were differentiated at 0 1 years of experience, 1.5 3 years of experience, 3.5 5 years of experience, 5.5 10 years of experience, and more than 10 years of experience. All survey participants provided this information (N = 168). Table 9 shows the mean scores for each subscale by age group.

67

Table 9. Faculty Satisfaction by Subscale by Experience (n=168) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Years n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD 01 7 3.67 .41 4.36 .24 3.79 .36 3.60 .84 4.05 .46 4.50 .33 3.99 .27 1.5 3 3.5 5
5.5 10

26 3.03 .75 3.94 .53 3.31 .62 3.45 .61 3.67 .70 4.05 .71 3.57 .52 33 3.25 .62 3.88 .58 3.35 .44 3.71 .64 3.68 .75 4.04 .47 3.65 .40 39 3.21 .61 4.00 .42 3.44 .48 3.80 .70 3.85 .68 4.30 .48 3.77 .39 63 3.26 .62 4.02 .42 3.50 .37 3.82 .54 3.92 .56 4.28 .43 3.80 .34
168

>10 All

3.23 .64 3.99 .47 3.44 .46 3.73 .63 3.82 .65 4.21 .51 3.74 .40

Note. (1 = student-to-student interaction, 2 = student-to-teacher interaction, 3 = design, develop, teach, 4 = institutional support, 5 = attitude, 6 = affordances) Those participants who had been teaching online one year or less displayed the highest mean overall satisfaction score (M = 3.99) while those who had been teaching online one and one half to three years had the lowest mean overall score (M = 3.57). Differences between means of overall satisfaction, when analyzed by years of online teaching experience, were significant, F(4,163) = 2.68, p = .034. This overall score is significant at the .05 level. The only subscale that showed an interesting difference when analyzed by years of online teaching experience was affordances, F(4,163) = 2.864, p = .025. Those who had taught for one year or less had the highest mean affordance score (M = 4.5) and those who had taught between three and one half and five years had the lowest mean affordance score (M = 4.04). The one and one half to three years of experience group also had a low mean score (M = 4.05). Table 10 provides a quick overview of noted differences between group means. A single asterisk indicates a highly significant difference at a .0083 or less level, while two asterisks indicate an interesting difference at a level between .0083 and .05.

68

Table 10. Overview of means comparison by factor. Satisfaction Index By college Overall Student-to-student Student-to-teacher Design, Develop, Teach Institutional Support Attitude Affordances ** * * **

By age *

By gender

By years of exp. **

**

* ** ** **

Note. * = highly significant at < = .0083; ** = significant at > .0083 < .05 Initial analysis of the faculty survey shows a moderately high level of satisfaction with the online learning environment at Weber State University (M = 3.74). The mean scores in each of the subscales that define the idea of faculty satisfaction were no less than 3.23; all above average on a 5-point scale. Research Question 2 The second research question in this study focused on the mean rates of successful completion of online courses at the institution of study. During the semesters of study, Fall 2010 and Spring 2011, 776 online course sections were taught at Weber State University; 362 in the fall and 414 in the spring. Of the total 776 sections, 471 were taught by completers of the faculty satisfaction survey. Successful completion has been defined as the percent of students who complete a course with a grade of C, B, A (including any modifiers of + or -) or CR which indicates credit in a credit/no credit course. Because students who achieve a grade of D for a course are often required to repeat the course, especially if the course is a program-level requirement, those 69

scores are not considered successful. Failing grades, grades of W, grades of UW, and grades of NC are the other potential grades a student could receive for a course that is not included in the category of successful completion. Total student counts, upon which percentages of completion are calculated, are the numbers reported by the institution at the end of the third week of each semester. These are considered the official institutional counts that are reported to the State Board of Regents and do not include students who withdraw from courses within the first three weeks of the semester. Student withdrawals during the first three weeks of the semester are not relevant to this particular study. Table 11 shows the mean rate of successful completion of online courses during the course of this study. The first column shows the successful completion rate of all online courses, by college, while the second column shows the successful completion rate of all online courses taught by participants in the faculty satisfaction survey.

70

Table 11. Rate of Successful Completion of Online Courses % Success College n All Online Arts & Humanities 114 82.99 Business & Econ. Appl. Sci. & Tech. Education Health Professions Science Soc. & Beh. Sci. Library 74 131 60 239 64 86 28 77.57 82.74 81.92 90.45 72.66 74.30 81.08

n 79 42 81 35 125 41 51 17

% Success Survey Faculty 82.09 77.12 82.83 79.08 91.22 69.64 73.37 81.08

Figure 4 displays a histogram of the rate of successful completion for the online sections taught by participant faculty. It is interesting to note the number of courses with a 100% rate of successful completion.

Figure 4. Rate of successful completion of online courses

71

Successful completion by college. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the relationship between rates of successful completion of sections taught by survey participants and home college of the course and faculty. The result of the ANOVA was significant, F(7,463) = 18.682, p < .01, however, Levenes test of homogeneity of variances was also significant at <.01. This result indicates that the underlying variances at the college level are not equal between colleges. Under these conditions a univariate analysis of means is not trustworthy; a nonparametric analysis must be used instead. The analysis was repeated using Dunnetts C, a procedure that accounts for unequal variances. The result of that analysis showed a significant difference, at the 1% level of significance, of rates of successful completion between colleges, F(7,463) = 18.682, p <.01. The strength of the relationship between home college and successful completion is strong, as evidenced by the calculated 2 partial effect size. Home college accounts for 22% of the variance in the dependent variable, rate of successful completion. A post-hoc analysis using Dunnetts C was run to determine which colleges had mean rates of successful completion that were significantly different from other college means. Table 12 shows the comparisons that were significant.

72

Table 12. Significant Difference between College Rates of Successful Completion (N = 471) College A&H B&E AS&T ED HP Sci SBS A&H * * * B&E AS&T Ed CHP Sci SBS Lib Note. * = significant at < = .05 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lib

The mean rate of successful completion was lowest in the College of Science (M = 69.64, n = 41) and highest in the College of Health Professions (M = 91.22, n = 125). Table 13 illustrates the rates of successful completion for all colleges.

73

Table 13. Mean Rate of Successful Completion by College (N = 471) College n Minimum Maximum Arts & Humanities 79 45.50 96.30 Business & Economics Applied Science & Tech. Education Health Professions Science Social & Behavioral Science Library 42 81 35 125 41 51 17 50.00 31.80 46.90 40.00 23.70 38.90 60.70 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.30 100.00 95.50

M 82.09 77.12 82.82 79.08 91.22 69.64 73.37 81.08

SD 10.34 15.09 12.04 13.04 10.73 18.53 16.24 10.78

Successful completion by gender. The relationship between student success in online courses and the gender of the course instructor was not significant, F(1,439) = .661, p = .417. Online courses taught by female survey participants had a mean success rate of 82.23 (n = 231), while courses taught by male survey participants had a mean success rate of 81.09 (n = 210). Successful completion by faculty age. Faculty survey participants were grouped into one of five age categories; 20 29, 30 39, 40 49, 50 59, and 60 or over. The relationship between student success in online courses and the age group within which the instructor falls was significant, F(4,426) = 12.755, p < .01. Again, however, Lavenes test for homogeneity was significant, indicating unequal variances between the age groups. When the analysis was conducted using a Dunnetts C, the significance was confirmed. A post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in mean rates of online course completion between age categories at the 95% confidence level. See table 14 for information regarding these significant differences.

74

Table 14. Significant Difference between Faculty Age-group Rates of Successful Completion Instructor Age 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 20 29 * * * 30 39 40 49 50 59 >= 60 * * * * * *

60+ *

Note. * indicates significance at p < .05 The mean success rate of courses taught by faculty in the 20 29 year old group was low (M = 41.4, n = 5), while the highest mean rate of success was found in the 30 39 year old group (M = 85.68, n = 65). The effect of age appears to be very high in this comparison (Cohens d = 3.00). Whether this difference is due just to age or to some other external factor will be important to consider. Successful completion by years of experience teaching online. Finally, the relationship between student success in online courses and the years of online teaching experience of the course instructor was analyzed. Courses were grouped by the years of online teaching experience of the instructor in one of five categories; one year or less of experience, one and one half to three years, three and one half to five years, five and one half to ten years, and more than ten years of experience. This analysis proved not significant, F(4,466) = 1.51, p = .199. The group with one and one half to three years online teaching experience had the highest mean rate of successful completion (M = 84.31, n = 76). The lowest mean rate of success was evident in the courses taught by faculty with three and one half to five years of experience (M = 79.20, n = 80). Table 15 shows the mean rates of successful completion for all years-experience categories.

75

Table 15. Mean Rate of Successful Completion by Years of Online Teaching Experience (n=471) Years-experience n Minimum Maximum M SD .5 1 11 36.40 100.00 81.48 18.88 1.5 3 3.5 5 5.5 10 More than 10 76 80 115 189 23.70 38.90 31.80 45.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 84.31 79.20 80.88 82.74 16.98 15.23 15.60 12.13

Results in support of research question 2 have been presented. The question, meant to assist in better understanding the overall success rate of students in online courses at Weber State University was answered based upon the online courses taught by the faculty who participated in the study survey. Rates of successful completion were provided for all online courses at the institution and for just the subset of online courses completed by surveyed faculty. The online courses of surveyed faculty were then analyzed for comparison of means by college, by faculty gender, by faculty age, and by faculty years-of-online-teaching-experience. Research Question 3 The studys third research question sought to develop a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between faculty satisfaction with online teaching, as measured by the survey, and the mean rate of successful completion of students in those facultys online courses. Course completion data were gathered for each member of the faculty who participated in the survey, for the two semesters under study. The 168 participating faculty taught a total of 471 online courses during the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters. A correlation analysis determines both the direction and strength of the relationship between two variables. A Pearson correlation is used with interval data. Interval data is 76

continuous and interpretable, but has no natural zero (Hays, 1994). Both the mean rate of successful completion of online courses and the scores from the survey are considered interval data. Some might argue that rate of completion has a natural zero (when no one completes the course) and would be considered a ratio variable in that case. Pearson correlation is well-suited to ratio variables. Because this research question is inferential by design, a hypothesis was developed in order to test the question. The null hypothesis would indicate that there is no significant correlation between the measured level of online faculty satisfaction, the independent variable, and rates of successful completion of that facultys online students, the dependent variable. To test the hypothesis a correlation coefficient was computed between mean rate of student success and overall faculty satisfaction. The result of the analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship between these two variables (r = .211, p < .01). In general, the results suggest a positive relationship between student rates of successful completion and instructor satisfaction with the online learning environment. The effect, however, is small. Squaring the correlation coefficient yields an effect size of .045. This indicates that only 4.5% of the variance on the two variables is in common. A partial correlation analysis was conducted, controlling for college, gender, years of experience teaching online, and age. The analysis excluded any cases in which one or more of the variables were missing, resulting in an N of 429. The resulting correlation was very similar (r = .210, p < .01) indicating a very small role of those variables on the rate of mean rate of successful completion of online courses. A step-wise regression analysis was conducted to confirm this result. All variables except faculty satisfaction were excluded from the analysis,

77

resulting in a regression equation for predicting mean rate of successful completion of online courses of Predicted avg. rate of successful completion = ( 8.183 * Faculty Satisfaction) + 50.671 (1)

The results support the hypothesis. The corresponding null hypothesis, that no significant correlation exists between the independent and dependent variables, can be rejected. Mean rate of successful completion is related to faculty satisfaction. Research Question 4 The final research question provided a means to analyze the relationship between the mean rate of successful completion of online courses of surveyed faculty and the subscales that comprise the overall faculty satisfaction index. While a positive, but small correlation was found between overall faculty satisfaction, it is informative to determine the extent to which each of the subscales (student-to-student interaction, student-to-instructor interaction, design-develop-teach, institutional support, attitudes, and affordances) contribute to that correlation. Table 16 shows the correlations between mean rate of student success and each of the six subscales. Again, in order to control for familywise error, the more conservative Bonferroni significance calculation of .0083 is used. Only one subscale, institutional support, did not present a highly significant correlation. These findings mostly support the second hypothesis for the study. That is, a significant correlation exists between five of the six subscales of the satisfaction survey and the mean rates of successful completion of those faculty members online students.

78

Table 16. Correlation between Mean Rate of Student Success and Faculty Satisfaction Subscales SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 Pearson Correlation .304 .201 .159 -.089 .193 Sig. (2-tailed) n .000 471 .000 471 .001 471 .053 471 .000 471

SS6 .163 .000 471

Note. (1 = student-to-student interaction, 2 = student-to-teacher interaction, 3 = design, develop, teach, 4 = institutional support, 5 = attitude, 6 = affordances) The largest, significant effect (r 2 = .09) was found between mean rate of student success and student-to-student interaction. A step-wise regression analysis, conducted to determine the extent to which scores on the subscales could predict mean rate of successful course completion, yielded three models that had significant results. The prediction equation that yielded the highest effect included subscales 1 (student-to-student interaction), 4 (institutional support), and 6 (affordances) (r = .356, r2 = .127): Predicted mean rate of successful completion = (SS1 * 7.013) + (SS4 *-4.439) + (SS6 * 3.33) + 61.349 (2)

The three variables above account for 12.7% of the variation in rate of successful completion. Chapter Summary Results of a survey administered to faculty teaching online at Weber State University during the Fall 2010 and/or Spring 2011 semesters were presented in this chapter. Using descriptive statistics the survey results were analyzed in support of this studys first research question, what is the overall satisfaction of online faculty at Weber State University? As well, the survey data were analyzed based upon demographic information provided by the survey participants. Mean rates of overall satisfaction were calculated along with the mean rates of each 79

of the sub-categories that define faculty satisfaction for this study; student-to-student interaction, student-to-teacher interaction, design-develop-teach factors, institutional support, attitude, and affordances. Further analysis was conducted on the overall satisfaction and each sub-category mean rate of satisfaction by demographic grouping; home college of the faculty, gender, age, and years of online teaching experience. The survey was designed on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 indicating high satisfaction and 1 indicating low satisfaction. The overall level of satisfaction with the online learning environment at Weber State University is 3.74; a moderately high level. Sub-category mean rates ranged from a low of 3.23 (student-to-student interaction) to a high of 4.21 (affordances). Institutional data were gathered in support of the second research question of the study, what is the mean rate of successful completion of online courses at Weber State University? Descriptive statistics were used to answer this question for both the online courses of the faculty survey participants as well as for all online courses taught during the two semesters of study. While many courses have a 100% rate of successful completion, defined as a grade of C- or better, there exists a wide range of successful completion rates of online courses at the institution. Completion rates of participating faculty were further analyzed by demographic information; college, gender, age, and years of online teaching experience, in order to provide a better understanding of where differences occur. Differences were significant when analyzed by college and by age, but not significant for years of online teaching experience or gender. Data supporting the first two research questions were combined into a single data set in support of the third research question, what is the nature of the relationship between faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment and mean rate of success of those instructors online students? The resulting correlation analysis indicated a small, but significant correlation

80

between these two variables with a correlation coefficient of .21, considered to be between a small and a moderate relationship in social sciences (Ary et al., 2006). The same data set was used to address the final research question, what is the nature of the relationship between the sub-categories of faculty satisfaction? Five of the six sub-categories proved to have highly significant, positive correlation coefficients, albeit small. The correlation coefficients ranged from a high of .304, indicating an effect size of 9% for student-to-student interaction to a low of .159, indicating an effect size of 2.5% for design-develop-teach issues. Only institutional support proved to not have a significant correlation with the mean rate of successful completion of online courses. Finally, a regression analysis was completed in hopes of developing a predictive model for online student success based upon faculty satisfaction. An analysis was also done controlling for the demographic variables gender, age, home college, and experience, none of which proved to be relevant to the equation. In chapter 5 these findings will be discussed and implications considered.

81

Chapter 5 - Discussion and Recommendations Study Limitations A recap of the limitations of this study is useful prior to discussion of the study results and subsequent recommendations. Limitations place the findings in context and prevent invalid generalizations beyond that context. Care was taken to ensure validity of the survey; it was pilot-tested and reviewed by an expert panel. This measure of internal validity contributes positively to external validity. The survey that provided base data for this study was conducted at a single university, however. As well, a convenience sample of current online instructors was asked to participate. Both of these facts raise concerns of external validity and may reduce the extent to which the findings are generalizable to other universities. Setting This two-phased study sought to determine the level of faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment at a large, public institution of higher education in northern Utah, Weber State University (WSU), and to then examine the nature of the relationship between faculty satisfaction and the mean rate of successful online course completion of students of those faculties. Major conclusions derived from the survey, as well as implications and recommendations are provided in this final chapter. There are some practices and traditions around online teaching and learning at Weber State University that may have influenced the results of this study. By articulating those practices and traditions, readers of this study have additional context from which to interpret the findings and recommendations.

82

Online courses are most often taught in an overload capacity. That is, faculty are contracted to teach a (generally) 12 credit hour load each semester and any online courses are taught on top of the contracted load. A few colleges, specifically the College of Applied Sciences and the College of Health Professions, allow faculty to teach online courses as part of their contracted load. The decision, whether online courses may be taught in load or not, belongs to the dean of each college. Some of the programs that offer online courses come under outside accreditation standards. These standards often have implications for the online courses and for the faculty who teach them. For example, NCLEX standards for Nursing require the instructor to include interaction, between students and between students and the instructor, in all online courses. Those same standards also require that faculty participate in ongoing professional development in support of online teaching (K. Sitzman, personal communication, March 8, 2012). Finally, while some instructors approach their online course design with an eye to student collaboration others prefer a course design that encourages independent work by students. This is often a teaching strategy that is also seen in the face-to-face classes of those same instructors. Research Question 1 Discussion The first research question for this study asks about the level of satisfaction with the online learning environment. With an overall score of 3.74 out of 5.00, it appears that the online faculty is generally satisfied with the online learning environment at WSU. The overall satisfaction score is comprised of six subscales; student-to-student interaction, student-toinstructor interaction, issues of course design, development, and teaching, institutional support, attitude, and affordances. Issues of student-to-student interaction reduce overall satisfaction the most (M = 3.23) while issues of affordance increase overall satisfaction the most (M = 4.21).

83

Standing alone, the results of the survey at an aggregate level are not all that interesting. Either longitudinal studies at this institution or a comparative study between institutions would yield contextual information that would make the current findings more relevant. However, when the results of the survey are analyzed by participant demographics and by the subscales of the survey, the findings are quite interesting and significant differences surface. Because of the need to control for familywise error, as explained in chapter 3, and the need to compensate for that error with the use of a more stringent significance cut off (.0083 instead of the traditional .05), we can be very confident that the differences that became evident were not random. Highly significant results, those that meet the .0083 criteria, were found in both the student-to-student interaction subscale and the student-to-teacher subscale. The student-tostudent interaction subscale gives a picture of the extent to which instructors design interaction between students into a course. Higher scores indicate active use of student interaction such as collaboration, resource sharing, and the general development of a community of learners. Lower scores indicate courses where students work more independently. The College of Health Professions showed the highest score for this category (M = 3.56) while the library (M = 2.88) and the School of Business and Economics (M = 2.91) showed the lowest scores. These results raise several questions. Are these differences due to the nature of the fields in each college? That is, are the health professions more collaborative than a library or business profession? Or are the results due to differences in professional development? Are faculty members in the health professions more aware of the potential for student-to-student interaction and therefore more deliberate about incorporating those opportunities into their courses? The student-to-instructor subscale focuses on the quality, type, and opportunity for interaction between students and instructor in the online environment. Higher scores are

84

indicative of the use of multiple communication tools as well as high quality and satisfying interactions. Lower scores are indicative of minimal tool use and low quality interactions between students and instructor. This subscale again shows the College of Health Professions (M = 4.23) significantly outscoring other colleges. At the other extreme is the College of Social Sciences (M = 3.71). The question to be asked, again, is what lies behind this difference? As indicated previously, most College of Health Professions online students have been through a rigorous vetting process. Those students are expected to maintain a minimum GPA throughout their program. Does that standard contribute to a richer, more robust communication between student and instructor? Or is this again a question of professional development? Are the College of Health Profession faculty members simply more cognizant of the value of rich interaction and deliberately build that interaction into their online courses? Interesting differences, though not highly significant, were found within the design/develop/teach subscale as well as the attitude subscale. The design/develop/teach subscale, which focuses on course management, quality, and time invested, yielded the highest score from the College of Education and lowest scores from the Library and College of Social Sciences. Attitudes toward the online learning environment were highest among the College of Health Profession faculty and lowest among the College of Social Science faculty. Further study, perhaps of a qualitative nature would be helpful to better understand the dynamics and environment that contribute to these differences. When survey results were analyzed by age group of the faculty, highly significant results were found at both the overall satisfaction level and the design/develop/teach subscale. Post-hoc analyses indicated a highly significant difference between the 30 39 year age group and the 50 59 year age group in overall satisfaction, and between the 30 39 year age group and both the

85

50 59 and 60+ age groups on the design/develop/teach subscale. Actually, the 30 39 year age group displayed the lowest mean scores in every category; the overall satisfaction scale and each of the six subscales. This finding bears further exploration. It is fairly easy to speculate about these results. The 30 39 year age group is most likely to contain a high percentage of tenure-track faculty than either older or younger age groups. Tenure-track faculty are often more heavily involved in service to the University than their post-tenure or non-tenure colleagues, and often have conflicting demands on their time (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004). This group of faculty is likely newer to the university and involved in more course preparation while simultaneously pursuing research endeavors. Time demands on this group of faculty are considerable and this possibly manifests as lower satisfaction with the online learning environment, which is itself a timeintensive pursuit. Not surprisingly, the survey question about the time required to develop an online course yielded by far the most negative response of any item on the survey (1.58 on a 5 point scale). Focus groups or one-on-one interviews with faculty in the 30 39 year age group would help to confirm this speculation as well as assist in determining what institutional resources could best help these individuals. For example, are individual instructors in this age group able to take advantage of instructional designers available for supporting course development? An interesting, though not highly significant difference was detected between the 30 39 year age group and the 40 49 year age group on the institutional support subscale. The 30 39 year age group scored, on average, lower than all other age groups. This compels the question, is the 30 39 year age group of faculty taking advantage of institutional resources? If not, why not? Are new means of support needed, such as providing this group access to graders in support of their

86

online teaching efforts? Determining the kinds of support needed by this age group, in particular, would be a fruitful focus. When overall faculty satisfaction scores were analyzed by faculty experience, that is, years of online teaching experience, significant differences were detected at a p level of .035. As a reminder, difference in the overall score is considered significant at p < .05, because the overall score is not subject to familywise error. The least experienced group, those who had taught online one year or less, reported the highest satisfaction level. It would be interesting to follow this group over time to determine if their satisfaction scores decline once they gain enough years of experience to place them in the next category, those with one and one half to three years of experience. This second group reported the lowest overall satisfaction. One wonders if a pattern is evident here; initial enthusiasm followed by disenchantment which slowly rebounds with additional experience. If this pattern appears ongoing it would be helpful to either pull first year online faculty together as a cohort for professional development and peer support or develop a mentoring system that matches new online faculty with experienced online faculty. Structured mentoring programs for faculty new to online teaching have proven effective (Marek, 2009; Runyon, 2010). Data were gathered and analyzed in support of research question one; what is the general level of faculty satisfaction with online teaching at Weber State University. The results are encouraging; the institution appears to have faculty generally satisfied with the online learning environment. Findings that warrant further investigation include the significantly different levels of satisfaction between colleges, the overall lower satisfaction of faculty in the 30 39 year age group, and the dip in satisfaction between faculty in their first year of online teaching and those

87

in the second year. These findings would be even more compelling if replicated either longitudinally or at a similar institution. Research Question 2 Discussion The second research question focused on determining the rate of successful completion of online students of the faculty participating in the survey. Successful completion was defined for this study as the percent of students who complete an online course with a grade of C- or higher, or a grade of credit in a credit/no-credit option. Results of the analysis of successful completion by college were eye-opening. The College of Health Professions produced higher success rates than every other college by a considerable amount. That colleges success rate of 91.22% was followed by the College of Applied Sciences success rate of 82.83 %. At the other extreme, the College of Sciences overall success rate for the semesters of study was 69.64%. The other colleges fell between these extremes. A possible contributor to the disparity is the fact that most College of Health Profession online courses are taken by students who have gone through an admissions vetting. Students cannot take major classes in Health Professions, online or face-to-face, unless they have been admitted to one of the colleges majors. Admitted students generally have grade point averages at or above 3.0 (Y. Simonian, personal communication, January 9, 2012). The only other college that has a similar admission requirement is the School of Business. That college, however, offers numerous online courses that can be taken by students not yet admitted to the major. Clearly there are many factors that impact student success. While it seems an obvious conclusion that better students are more successful in their online courses, it might be wise for the institution to consider some sort of GPA minimum, or some other sort of vetting criteria, as a

88

pre-requisite for enrolling in online courses. The Colleges of Science and Social Science, in particular, might see higher rates of successful online course completion if course access was limited to students who have previously demonstrated a pattern of success, as evidenced by a minimum GPA. Consideration should also be given to the role of faculty preparation in the disparity between student outcomes in the various colleges. It would be useful to determine if one colleges faculty have participated in more professional development for online teaching than the other colleges. Because of demands of accreditation, for example, most College of Health Professions faculty are required to receive advanced training in online pedagogies before they are allowed to teach in the online environment (K. Sitzman, personal communication, January 19, 2011). Might this additional training by faculty contribute positively to student success? A significant difference in successful completion was found when analyzed by the age of the faculty. In direct contrast to the satisfaction scores, which indicated that the younger, 20 29 year age faculty had the highest satisfaction while the 30 39 year age faculty had the lowest, successful completion was lowest in the 20 29 year age group and highest in the 30 39 year age group. A closer look at the courses taught by these two groups is clarifying. The younger group taught developmental math courses exclusively while the 30 39 year age group taught courses across the University. Is the low rate of success of the younger group due to their ages or some other factor related to developmental math courses? Again, replicating the study either longitudinally or at other, similar institutions would help answer this question. Research Question 3 Discussion Combining faculty satisfaction ratings with course completion data provided the basis for a correlation analysis. The third research question sought to better understand the relationship

89

between overall faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment and the rates of success of their online students. As shown in the previous chapter, a small but significant, positive correlation exists between these two variables. This confirms findings of previous studies (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Hartman et al., 2000). Student success is related to faculty satisfaction with online learning at Weber State University. As such, ongoing investment in faculty satisfaction through ongoing attention to the development of appropriate policy, through the provisioning of professional development, and through the provisioning of adequate information technology is warranted. By far, of all the instructor variables considered in this study; age, gender, experience, and satisfaction; the instructors satisfaction with the online learning environment has the most impact on student success in an online course. Again, the impact is small, but in a competitive, academic environment students would be well-suited to find an online instructor who loves online teaching! Research Question 4 Discussion Finally, the fourth research question considered the relationship between each of the subscales of faculty satisfaction and student success. While most of the subscales, the only exception being the institutional support subscale, showed statistically significant correlation with student success, the student-to-student interaction subscale showed the largest correlation. What is so interesting about this finding is that even though this subscale showed the highest correlation with student success, of all the subscales, this subscale had the lowest overall mean in the faculty survey. The components of online teaching that the subscale addresses, ideas such as student collaboration and resource sharing, student passivity and enthusiasm, and the general feeling of community, are likely under-utilized or under-supported by the online

90

instructors at WSU. This finding points clearly to the need for additional professional development sessions that focus on supporting faculty in the development of student-to-student interactive activities and in the development of community within the online course. It would also be useful to develop a better understanding of faculty perception of studentto-student interaction in the online course. For example, are some instructors fearful that by encouraging collaboration and resource sharing in an online course they may also be encouraging cheating? This information would be best gathered through one-on-one faculty interviews. Information gathered through the interviews could be used in developing professional development activities. It may not be enough to simply direct instructors in ways to develop and integrate student-to-student interaction and community; misperceptions about the use of these activities must be addressed as well as acknowledgement that cheating can occur. The professional development activities could provide support for faculty interested in mitigating and avoiding circumstances of cheating in the online class. The student-to-instructor interaction subscale showed the second largest correlation with student success. Together these two findings support the idea that . . . courses must be structured to encourage interaction and collaboration [to promote learning effectiveness] (Bourne & Moore, 2000). This finding is also supported by Vygotskys theory of social development which points to the need for social interaction in cognitive development (Wertsch, 1985).

91

Conclusion Like much research this study introduces at least as many questions as it answers. The findings of this study point to the need for additional research. The replication of this study at Weber State University would allow for a longitudinal analysis that would contribute to both instrument reliability and validity of the findings. Administration of the survey instrument at other institutions of higher education would contribute to the external validity of this study. Finally, a qualitative approach to this study, through the use of faculty focus groups and one-onone interviews with online faculty would help to better understand differences detected in this study. In particular, the differences in overall satisfaction, as well as at the subscale level, detected between age groups of the faculty should be studied along with the vastly differing rates of successful completion of students in online courses of the various colleges. Ongoing professional development that focuses on the online learning environment will continue to be important to the successful delivery of online courses and programs. This study provides suggestions for that professional development. It is also important that institutional administrators keep an eye on policy that impacts the online learning environment so that the policy keeps pace with the ever-changing environment of online learning and is seen as relevant and supportive of the faculty who teach online. As online learning continues to gain legitimacy and foothold in institutions of higher education, understanding what contributes to faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment which, as determined by this study, in turn contributes to student success in the online learning environment, is important. While it is reasonable to think that similar findings would be found in a study of the traditional, face-to-face learning environment the surge in online course enrollments during the last decade and the expected continued growth (Allen &

92

Seaman, 2011) suggests efforts focused specifically on online learning will be fruitful. Frank Mayadas, occasionally referred to as the Father of Online Learning (Parry, 2009) places faculty satisfaction at the cross hairs of online program sustainability (Bourne & Moore, 2000). Indeed, given the ever-growing strategic importance of online learning to the higher education institution (Allen & Seaman, 2011), faculty satisfaction with the online learning environment must be nurtured. Recommendations for future research Suggestions to replicate this study either longitudinally at Weber State University or at other, similar institutions have been made. Other research opportunities that look at the same type of study in different academic environments may also be derived. Online courses are becoming increasingly evident and strategic at the community college level. Community colleges are seeing online growth rates that exceed those of 4 year institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Replicating this study at a community college may be a fruitful effort by providing both strategic and professional development direction. As well, a replication of this study at an institution in which online courses are more prevalent at the graduate level than was the case at Weber State University would be interesting. Are there significant differences in either satisfaction or outcomes between the graduate and undergraduate faculty and students? Yet another option is to consider the differences in satisfaction and outcomes between programs that are defined as professional health care, engineering, or law, for example and those that are not professional. A study that looks at the integration of student-to-student interactive activities in online courses and the impact of that integration on student outcomes could prove beneficial. It may be possible to design a course so that half of the students are presented with student-to-student

93

interaction, collaboration, and resource-sharing opportunities while the other half of students are required to complete the course in a more independent fashion. Random assignment to one group or the other would address concerns of research design that are so often present in comparisons between online and face-to-face courses. Finally, the survey instrument that was used for this study was derived from an extensive review of literature from the field of online teaching and learning. A study that made use of qualitative interviews with faculty involved in the online learning environment in which faculty were asked about their perspectives on satisfaction with this environment could fill in gaps left by the literature review. The question that could be answered is whether there exist parameters of faculty satisfaction that are not yet evident in the research.

94

References Abel, R. (2005). Implementing best practices in online learning. Educause Quarterly, 28(3), 7577. Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010 Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance. Online education in the United States, 2011. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011 Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 803830. American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC). (n.d.). Quality framework for online education. Lincoln, NE: Author. Retrieved from http://www.adec.edu/earmyu/SLOANC~41.html Anderson, D. M., & Haddad, C. J. (2005). Gender, voices, and learning in online course environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1), 3-14. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/system/files/v9n1_anderson.pdf Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

95

Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Arvan, L., & Musumeci, D. (2000). Instructor attitudes within the SCALE Efficiency Projects. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3), 180-195. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v4n3/instructor-attitudes-within-scale-efficiency-projects Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A., & Sorenson, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Baumgartner, L. (2001). An update on transformational learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 89 (Spring 2001), 15-24. Betts, K. S. (1998). An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in Distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Betts13.html Bittner, W., & Mallory, H. (1933). University teaching by mail: A survey of correspondence instruction conducted by American universities. New York: Macmillan. Bollger, D. U., Inan, F. A., & Wasilik, O. (in preparation). Development and validation of the online instructor satisfaction measure. Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116. doi:10.1080/01587910902845949

96

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html Brown, S., & Kulikowich, J. (2004). Teaching statistics from a distance: What have we learned? International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 19-35. Casey, C. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45-51. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0135-z Caywood, K., & Duckett, J. (2003). Online vs. on-campus learning in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(2), 98-105. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Clay, M. (1999). Development of training and support programs for distance education instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall23/clay23.pdf Conceio, S. C. O. (2006). Faculty lived experiences in the online environment. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 26-45. Cook, R., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00845.x Dabbagh, N. (2003). Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning. TechTrends 47(2), 39-44.

97

Dell, C., Low, C., & Wilker, J. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-toface class formats. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 30-42. DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less work? The American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 6-20. doi:10.1080/08923640009527061 Ferguson, J., & DeFelice, A. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73-84. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with asynchronous teaching and learning in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3), 245-278. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n3/v4n3_fredericksen.asp Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-17. Giannoni, D., & Tesone, D. (2003). What academic administrators should know to attract senior level faculty members to online learning environments. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/giannoni61.html Grow, G. (1994). In defense of the staged self-directed learning model. Adult Education Quarterly 44(2), 155-179. Gunawardena, C., & McIsaac, M. (1996). Distance Education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon and Shuster Macmillan.

98

Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in SLNs: A dependent or independent variable. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3), 155-179. Hays, W. (1994). Statistics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversations in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, and B. Holmberg (Eds), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114-122). London: Croom Helm. Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and structure of distance education. (3rd ed.). London: Croom Helm. Holmberg, B. (2005). The evolution, principles and practices of distance education. BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universitt Oldenburg. Howell, S., Laws, R., & Lindsay, N. (2004). Reevaluating course completion in distance education: Avoiding the comparison between apples and oranges. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 5(4), 243-252. Jackson, L., Jones, S., & Rodriguez, R. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78-96. Jennings, S., & Bayless, M. (2003). Online vs. traditional instruction: A comparison of student success. The Delta P Epsilon Journal, 45(3), 183-190. Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Keegan, D. (1988). Problems in defining the field of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 4-11. Keegan, D. (1995). Distance education technology for the new millennium: Compressed video teaching. ZIFF Papiere 101. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED389931).

99

Kerke, S. (1999). Self-directed learning myths and realities, no. 3. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435834). Retrieved from EBSCOHost ERIC database. Larson, D., & Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31-42. Lee, J. (2001). Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation, commitment, and satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 153-160. Lenz, B. (2010, June 9). Edutopia. Will the iPad and similar technology revolutionize learning? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/ipad-new-technologyrevolutionize-learning MacKenzie, O., Christensen, E., & Rigby, P. (1968). Correspondence instruction in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maguire, L. (2009). The faculty perspective regarding their role in distance education policy making. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/maguire121.html Marek, K. (2009). Learning to teach online; Creating a culture of support of faculty. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 50(4), 275-292. Meyer, K. (2002). Quality in distance learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports 29(4), 1121. Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252. doi:10.1080/01587910802395771 Merriam, S. (2001a). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 89 (Spring 2001), 3-13.

100

Merriam, S. (2001b). Something old, something new: Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 89 (Spring 2001), 93-96. Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milheim, W. (2001). Faculty and administrative strategies for the effective implementation of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 535-542. Moore, J. (2009). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices, December 2009. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 73-94. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113. Nevins, J. (n.d.). The andragogic approach. Retrieved from http://www.jnevins.com/andragogy.htm Olejnik, S., Tianmin, L., Supattathum, S., & Huberty, C. (1997). Multiple testing and statistical power with modified Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(4), 389-406. Ortiz-Rodriquez, M., Teig, R., Irani, T., Roberts, T. G., & Rhoades, E. (2005). College students perceptions of quality in distance learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 97-105.

101

Osika, E. R., & Camin, D. (2002, August). Concentric model for evaluating Internet-based distance learning programs. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parry, M. (2009). Online education, growing fast, eyes the truly big time. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/online-educationgrowing-fast-eyes-the-truly-big-time/8663 Parson-Pollard, N., Lacks, R., & Grant, P. (2008). A comparative assessment of student learning outcomes in large online and traditional campus-based introduction to criminal justice courses. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(3), 239-251. Peters, O. (1988). Distance teaching and industrial production: A comparative interpretation in outline. In D. Stewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 95-113). New York: Routledge. Rea, L., & Parker, R. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/distance/rockwell24.html Rudestam, K., & Newton, R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

102

Runyon, J. (2010). Faculty mentoring and student engagement are keys to success in virtual classroom. Community College Week, Spring 2010 Technology Update, 6-7. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center. Sampson, P., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J., & Coleman, J. (2010). Student satisfaction of online courses for educational leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall133/sampsonballenger133.html Schifter, C. (2000). Faculty participation in asynchronous learning networks: A case study of motivating and inhibiting factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 1522. Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definitions and glossary of terms. (3rd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 318-334. Simmons, S., Jones, W., & Silver, S. (2004). Making the transition from face-to-face to cyberspace. TechTrends, 48(5), 50-85. Simonson, M. (1995). Does anyone really want to learn at a distance? Tech Trends 40(5), 12. Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new discussion. The American Journal of Distance Education 13(1), 60-75.

103

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Spector, J. M. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233-250. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. Taylor, J. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-7. Tabata, L., & Johnsrud, L. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625-646. Tallent-Runnels, M., Thomas, J., Lan, W., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-105. Ulmer, L., Watson, L., & Derby, D. (2007). Perceptions of higher education faculty members on the value of distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 5970. United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A metaanalysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

104

Utah System of Higher Education. (2010). The higheredutah2020 master plan. Retrieved from http://www.higheredutah2020.org/ Van Der Werf, M., & Sabatier, G. (2009). The college of 2020: Students. Chronicle Research Services. Visser, J. A. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching Web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 21-32. doi:10.1080/08923640009527062 Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004) Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities. The Review of Higher Education 27(2), 233-257. Warren, L., & Holloman, H. (2005). On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the same? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 148-151. Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction in the online environment: An institutional study. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3/4), 173-178. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.05.001 Wedemeyer, C., & Najem, C. (1969). AIM: From concept to reality. The articulated instructional media program at Wisconsin. Syracuse, NY: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, Syracuse University. Wedemeyer, C. (1981). Learning at the backdoor. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Wertsch, J. (1985). Cultural, communication, and cognition; Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2009, February 24). Address by the president to the joint sessions of congress. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/remarks-president-barack-obama-address-joint-session-congress 105

Wiley, D. (2002). The Disney debacle: Online instruction versus face-to-face instruction. TechTrends, 46(2), 72, 55.

106

Appendix A. Survey Instrument 1. I have received the description of this study in the cover letter, read the procedure described in the cover letter, and retained a copy for my record. I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study by Gail Niklason, Doris Bolliger and Oksana Wasilik which aims to investigate faculty satisfaction and pedagogical beliefs. I understand that as a participant I will complete an online questionnaire. The data I provide will be kept under lock and key and will be destroyed at the end of 2012. Participation is voluntarily, all information will be kept confidential, and only minimal risks are involved in this study. I can direct any questions about the research study to Gail Niklason at gniklson@weber.edu (Ph. 801-626-6091 Doris Bolliger at dbollige@uwyo.edu (Ph. 307-7662167) and Oksana Wasilik at oksana@uwyo.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the University of Wyoming IRB Administrator at 307-7665320. Agreement: I understand participation is voluntary and there are no penalties if I wish to withdraw at any time. I may exit out of the browser window at any time. I hereby give Gail Niklason, Doris Bolliger and Oksana Wasilik permission to report responses to questionnaires anonymously in professional presentations, reports, and manuscripts. I give consent to participate in the above study, and acknowledge that I have received a copy of this form. a. I agree b. I do not agree (please select the stop button at the left to end the survey) 2. My online students share resources with each other within the course. a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. neutral d. agree e. strongly agree (these same distracters are used through question 49) 3. My online students participate enthusiastically. 4. My online students are somewhat passive in their interactions. 5. My online students actively collaborate. 6. My students appear to be part of an online community in the course. 107

7. My students work well together online. 8. My interactions with online students are satisfying. 9. I like using various online communication tools to interact with my students. 10. My online students receive quality feedback. 11. My students contact me when they have questions. 12. I do not get to know my online students well. 13. I am accessible to students in online courses. 14. It takes a lot of time to develop an online course. 15. I am satisfied with how I assess students in online courses. 16. I am pleased with the quality of student work in online courses. 17. I am satisfied with students motivation in online courses. 18. I am satisfied with the content quality of my online courses. 19. I am satisfied with how I handle conflicts in my online courses. 20. At my institution, teachers are given sufficient time to design and develop online courses. 21. I have adequate technical support by my institution. 22. My needs for training to prepare for teaching online have been met. 23. My institution provides fair compensation or incentives for teaching online. 24. I am satisfied with online teaching policies that have been implemented by my institution. 25. My institution provides the necessary technology tools (equipment and software) for teaching online. 26. I look forward to teaching online. 27. Technical problems do not discourage me from teaching online. 28. I enjoy learning about new technologies that can be used for online teaching.

108

29. I am enthusiastic about teaching online. 30. Online teaching is often frustrating. 31. I consider teaching online to be fulfilling. 32. Online courses provide a flexible learning environment. 33. I am satisfied with the convenience of the online learning environment. 34. Online teaching allows me to reach a more diverse student population. 35. I am satisfied that my students can access their online course from almost anywhere. 36. Online courses allow students to access a wide range of resources. 37. In online courses every student has an opportunity to contribute. 38. Teachers should give students choices in their learning. 39. Teachers should let students evaluate their own work. 40. The primary role of teachers is to facilitate student learning. 41. Students should take responsibility for their learning. 42. Effective learning is social. 43. Teachers should develop learning communities in online courses. 44. Textbooks are the best sources for building course content. 45. Teachers should decide what students need to learn. 46. Student learning should be assessed primarily with quizzes and tests. 47. Teachers should know everything about their content area. 48. The primary role of teachers is to deliver course content effectively. 49. Students should complete course activities individually. 50. Students read textbooks, articles, or lecture notes about course content. a. Never b. Rarely c. Occasionally 109

d. Frequently e. Extensively (These distracters will be used through question 57.) 51. Students watch or listen to lectures in the form of video or audio. 52. Students complete self-paced tutorials or activities to review content. 53. Students create products, artifacts, or portfolios. 54. Students work on collaborative tasks or projects. 55. Students provide peer feedback and review. 56. Students reflect formally on their learning. 57. Students share their ideas, resources, or products with the class. 58. What department do you teach for? (if more than one, please list primary dept). 59. How many years have you taught online courses? 60. Which of the following professional development programs have you participated in (check all that apply)? a. Basic WebCT/Blackboard training b. Master Online Teaching Certification program c. non-WSU online-focused training or coursework. d. other 61. What is your current position at the university? a. Full-time faculty/professor/instructor b. Part-time faculty/professor/instructor c. Adjunct faculty/professor/instructor/tutor 62. What is your age? 63. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female

110

Appendix B.

111

Appendix C.

Email message to potential participants: Dear Professor X, We would like to administer a survey at Weber State University in order to investigate faculty satisfaction and pedagogical beliefs. It should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. In order to express our gratitude for your time, you will be entered into a drawing for one of four $25 gift certificates to the WSU bookstore. Your participation is voluntary and your responses will be confidential. This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Wyoming and Weber State University. For your records, a copy of the cover letter and informed consent form is attached to this e-mail. Please click on the link to complete the electronic consent form and survey: https://chitester.weber.edu/chi.cfm?testID=44036 If you have any questions about this research study, please contact Gail Niklason at Continuing Education, Ph. (801) 626-6091 or gniklason@weber.edu at Weber State University. You may also contact Doris Bolliger at the Department of Professional Studies, Ph. (307) 766-2167 or dbollige@uwyo.edu or Oksana Wasilik at oksana@uwyo.edu at the University of Wyoming. Thank you for your assistance! Gail Niklason Associate Dean, Continuing Education Attachments: (1) Cover Letter and (2) Informed Consent Form

112

Appendix D. Letter of Informed Consent I have received the description of this study in the cover letter, read the procedure described in the cover letter, and retained a copy for my record. I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study by Gail Niklason, Doris Bolliger and Oksana Wasilik which aims to investigate faculty satisfaction and pedagogical beliefs. My participation includes the completion of a questionnaire which will take approximately 15-20 minutes. I understand that as a participant I will complete an online questionnaire, and that I will be entered into a drawing for one of four $25 gift certificates to the WSU bookstore. The data I provide will be kept under lock and key and will be destroyed at the end of 2012. Faculty responses will be compared with de-identified student data. Participation is voluntarily, all information will be kept confidential, and only minimal risks are involved in this study. Minimal risk to the subjects is involved in the proposed research. Individuals may experience discomfort or embarrassment by answering the survey questions but survey questions are not invasive. I can direct any questions about the research study to Gail Niklason at gniklson@weber.edu (Ph. 801-626-6091 Doris Bolliger at dbollige@uwyo.edu (Ph. 307-7662167) and Oksana Wasilik at oksana@uwyo.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the University of Wyoming IRB Administrator at 307-7665320. Agreement: I understand participation is voluntary and there are no penalties if I wish to withdraw at any time. I may exit out of the browser window at any time. I hereby give Gail Niklason, Doris Bolliger and Oksana Wasilik permission to report responses to questionnaires anonymously in professional presentations, reports, and manuscripts. I give consent to participate in the above study, and acknowledge that I have received a copy of this form. Electronic Signature [on Web-based Survey Version]: ___ I agree ___ I do not agree

113

Appendix E. Cover Letter March 26, 2011 Dear Online Instructor: I am an associate dean at Weber State University (WSU) and am collaborating with two colleagues Doris Bolliger and Oksana Wasilik at the University of Wyoming (UW) on a research project. It is the purpose of this research to investigate faculty satisfaction with online teaching and their pedagogical beliefs, and examine students successful completion rates of online courses at WSU. Because you teach online, we would to invite you to complete an online questionnaire that will take approximately 15-20 minutes of your time. In order to express our gratitude for your time, you will be entered into a drawing for one of four $25 gift certificates to the WSU bookstore. Responses to the survey are voluntary but not anonymous. You will log into the survey site with your username and password. All information with which you provide us is strictly confidential, and you will not be named or identified. Only I will have access to identifying information. I will remove identifying codes before sharing the data with my collaborators. The data will be destroyed after we complete our data analyses at the end of 2012. This research study does not involve any risks or discomforts to you. You give us the permission to report your responses anonymously in reports and publications by agreeing to participate. Please read the Informed Consent Form provided on the second page on the Web-based survey and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in the study. Please be aware of the fact that you have the right to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in this project at any time without penalty. Your withdrawal can be initiated by exiting out of the browser window at any time. We greatly appreciate your time and cooperation. If you require further information, please contact us at gniklason@weber.edu (801-626-6091), dbollige@uwyo.edu (307-766-2167) or oksana@uwyo.edu. Thank you for assisting us in the investigation of important factors that can contribute to offering quality programs and courses online. Sincerely,

Gail Niklason Associate Dean, Continuing Education Weber State University Ogden, UT

114

Appendix F.

115

Appendix G.

116