Student satisfaction in distance, blended and online learning environments Slide 1: Title

Student satisfaction in distance, blended and online learning environments. A presentation by Stephen Carter, in partial fulfillment for course Education 6610, Research in Computers in the Curriculum.

Slide 2: Introduction Slide 3: Concept Map Definition of Student satisfaction

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of student satisfaction in distance, blended and online learning environments. Yukselturk (2009) defines student satisfaction as a learners attitude or reaction toward a program or class. Bolliger and Martindal (2004) define student satisfaction as students perceptions concerning college or school experiences and perceived value of the education or training received while attending an educational institution. Student satisfaction is a personal viewpoint influences by a students opinions and experience while attending school. Student opinions are influenced by the. perceived value of the education received, quality of education and overall school experience. Student experiences are ether positive or negative and linked to achievement, success, and enjoyment in the learning experience.

Slide 4: Concept Map Purpose

Ali and Ahmad (2011) indicate that students with higher levels of satisfaction are linked to higher levels of learning compared to those with low levels of satisfaction. Kuo, Walker, Belland, and Schroder (2013) state that student satisfaction is an indicator of learning experience quality while Bolliger and Martindale (2004) added that student satisfaction increases retention. Sahin and Shelley (2008) reported that satisfaction influences motivation in students and student satisfaction is an important factor in academic success.

Slide 5: Methods Slide 6: Concept Map Analysis

The analysis included sources that contained student satisfaction, and either: (i) online learning, (ii) blended learning, or (iii) distance education in the title of the articles. A database search was conducted using Academic Search Premier, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), and Google Scholar to find 15 peerreviewed journal articles.

15 studies were selected from eight peer-reviewed educational technology journals. The studies selected ranged in publication year from 1999 2013

Slide 7: Concept Map Studies synopsis

From the selected studies 12 were designed from a quantitative perspective while three used mixed methods approach. Studies were conducted in wide range of countries. Five studies were conducted in the United States, three were conducted in Turkey, two in Taiwan, and one in Canada, Pakistan, Japan, and the UAE. The number of participants involved in the studies ranged anywhere from 45 up to 1406. The majority of these participants were university students in undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral student programs.

Slide 8: Findings Slide 9: Sub Theme 1 Perceptions of technology and student satisfaction Slide 10: Concept Map A Perceptions of Technology Student Satisfaction is influence by students perceptions of technology. Student perceptions toward technology are either positive or negative. Positive o Technology is shown to have positive influence on student satisfaction (Naaj, Nachouki, & Ankit, 2012). o Students who reported that having high levels of computer expertise had higher levels of satisfaction. Additionally students who use information technology in their work and personal lives were more comfortable and familiar with online learning environments (Sahin & Shelley, 2008). o Students who found it easy to use computers were more satisfied then those who did not (Bray, Aoki, & Dlugosh, 2008). o There was a positive relationship between student comfort with technology, student success and satisfaction in online learning environments (Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008; Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia, 2010; McFarland & Hamilton, 2005). o The ease of technology use, Internet quality, system functionality and content features contributed to satisfaction (Wu et al., 2010; Calli, L., Balcikanli, Calli, D., Cebeci, & Seymen, 2013). o Student satisfaction was increased when students became more familiar, confident, and capable of learning through online environments. Furthermore, the more functional and easy to use an online environment is, the less frustrations occur and satisfaction increases (Wu et al., 2010).

Slide 11: Concept Map B Perceptions of Technology 2 Negative o Chang and Smith (2008) and Wu, et al., (2010) found that learner anxiety toward computers and computer use decreases satisfaction in online environments Slide 12: Sub Theme 2 Instructor performance and student satisfaction Slide 13: Concept Map Instructor performance and student satisfaction

Online instructors need to be experienced teachers, available for student access, provide prompt responses and encourage their students in online activities. Student satisfaction increases when teachers encouraged questions and comments, gave students respect, presented materials clearly, and highlighted major points and concepts (Ali & Ahmid., 2007; Sun et al., 2008; and Swan, 2001). Bollinger and Martindale (2004) added that communication feedback, preparation, content knowledge, teaching methods, encouragement, accessibility and professionalism increase satisfaction. Furthermore, teachers who teach in online learning environments need to be effective teachers to enhance students satisfaction.

Slide 14: Sub Theme 3 Course structure and student satisfaction Slide 15: Concept Map A Course structure and student satisfaction 1

Sun et al. (2008) stated that satisfaction was linked to course schedule, discussion arrangements, discussion type, and course material quality. E-learning instructional expertise and technology assistance must be in place to enhance students satisfaction in online learning environments. Furthermore, most e-learning environments have built in help pages or frequently asked questions sections if problems occur during online classes (Sun et al., 2008). Well-designed platforms with help tools can decrease e-learning uncertainly and frustration and enhance learner experience (Sun et al., 2008).

Slide 16: Concept Map B Course structure and student satisfaction

Flexibility within an online courses and course quality are factors that significantly increase student satisfaction (Shain & Shelley, 2008). Online learning in not confined by space, time, and location; therefore students have a high degree of flexibility and choice for self-paced learning. Online learning courses should provide students with flexibility in their interactions with the instructor, fellow students and course material (Sun et al., 2008; Sahin & Shelley 2008) Flexibility in course structure was identified to be a key strategy to overcome intrinsic and extrinsic barriers in e-learning environments, which promotes enjoyment and satisfaction (Sahin and Shelley, 2008).

Slide 17: Sub Theme 3 Student interactions and students satisfaction: Student instructor interactions Slide 18: Concept Map AStudent instructor interactions Student-instructor interactions are related to student satisfaction (Ali & Ahmid, 2001; Swan, 2001). Student satisfaction is increased when students feel they were able to communicate with their instructor effortlessly and the instructor provided help in a timely manor (Bollinger et al., 2008). Students who do not have adequate access to their instructor feel they learn less and are less satisfied with their online course. Online learners need to be given ample opportunities to participate in discussion in order to feel involved and stay engaged in the learning process (Swan, 2001; Bray et al., 2008).

Slide 19: Concept Map B Student instructor interactions Ali & Ahmid (2001) and Chang et al. (2008) indicate that course discussion, feedback, interactions with instructor, the instructors ability to treat students as individuals, and informing students of their performance influences student satisfaction Additionally, Synchronous chat, frequently update grade books, and constructive feedback about student work influences student satisfaction and increase the perceptions of teacher interactions. Chang et al. (2008) state that the instructor is responsible for facilitating studentstudent, student-instructor, and student-content interactions in online learning environments.

Slide 20: Sub Theme 3 Student-student interactions: Slide 21: Concept Map Student-student interactions: Swan (2001) and Bray et al. (2008) indicate that students who reported their level of interactions with other students in their class as high also reported significantly higher levels of online course satisfaction. Bray et al. (2008) reported students who did not prefer social interactions when learning were more satisfied than those who preferred social interactions. Students in online learning environments often feel isolated and disconnected from other students because of the lack of interaction. This lack of interaction decreases satisfaction in online learning environments (Chang et al., 2008; Bray et al., 2008; McFarland & Hamilton, 2005).

Slide 22: Sub Theme 3 Student-Content interactions:

Slide 23: Concept Map Student-Content interactions: Swan (2001) reported that students who are more active in courses, either online or offline, are more satisfied with their online course and learn more. The design of online content may be the most important factor in contributing to students satisfaction. The organization of content, document layout and ease of accessibility of online content influences learner interaction with the course and indirectly effects student satisfaction. Well-organized course material and streaming lectures could help student learning, facilitate student-content interaction and increase learner retention and satisfaction (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013; Chang et al., 2008).

Slide 24: Sub Theme 3 Characteristics of online students and student satisfaction: Slide 25: Concept Map Characteristics of online students and student satisfaction: Students need to be aware of their responsibilities and be self-disciplined to be successful and satisfied in an online learning environment (Yukselturk, 2009). Education level and academic maturity is a strong predictor of student satisfaction. (Yukselturk, 2009). Yukselturks (2009) qualitative results of instructors views show that online learners should be at least undergraduate or graduate students. Graduate students were more motivated, able to adapt to new learning environments and had higher levels of satisfaction in online learning environments compared to undergraduate students (Yukselturk, 2009).

Slide 26: Discussion Slide 27: Concept Map A Discussion

Of the 15 studies selected eight studies highlighted the importance of technology perceptions in increasing students satisfaction (Bolliger et al., 2004; Bray et al., 2008; Kuo et al., 2013; McFarland & Hamilton, 2005; Naaj et al., 2012; Sahin & Shelley, 2008; Sun et al., 2008; and Wu et al., 2010). Students who had higher levels of computer self-efficacy, computer expertise and positive attitudes toward computer use displayed higher levels of satisfaction (Bray et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2010; Sahin & Shelley, 2008). Sun et al. (2008) and Sahin and Shelley (2008) findings reveal that flexibility of course structure is a strong predictor of student satisfaction in online learning environments. Flexibility in online courses helps non-traditional students attend school as well as give traditional students options in course platform.

Slide 28: Concept Map B Discussion

Teacher attitudes toward online learning influenced student satisfaction. Additionally, teachers response times to questions and problems were directly related to student satisfaction (Sun et al., 2008; Ali & Ahmad, 2001). Communication, feedback, preparation, content knowledge, teaching methods, encouragement, accessibility and professionalism increase satisfaction (Bollinger & Martindale, 2004)

Slide 29: Concept Map C Discussion Interactions with students were shown to be the most common theme of the 15 articles analyzed. Nine out of the 15 articles looked at interactions with students as a variable and all nine shows that student interactions to be a significant predictor of satisfaction (Ali & Ahmid., 2011; Bollinger & Erichsen, 2013; Bollinger & Martindale, 2004; Bray et al., 2008; Change et at., 2008; Kuo et al., 2013; Naaj et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2008; Shawn, 2001; Wu et al., 2010). Swan (2001) added that students who do not have ample access to their instructor feel they learn less and are less satisfied. Chang et al. (2008) found that students often feel isolated in online courses because of the lack of student student interactions. Bray et al. (2008) found that students who did not prefer social interactions when learning were more satisfied then students who preferred interactions when learning. Course organization and well made course materials increase student satisfaction. Furthermore, document layout and ease of accessibility of online content increase student satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2008).

Slide 30: Conclusion Slide 31: Concept Map Conclusion The findings of the 15 sources suggest that there are many factors that influence student satisfaction in online learning environments. The majority of the studies concluded that student interactions were key predictors of student satisfaction (Ali & Ahmid., 2011; Bollinger & Erichsen, 2013; Bollinger & Martindale, 2004; Bray et al., 2008; Chang et at., 2008; Kuo et al., 2013; Naaj et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2008; Shawn, 2001; Wu et al., 2010). Additionally, factors such as flexibility of course, quality of instructor and technology self-efficacy were shown to influence student satisfaction.

Slide 32: Implications Slide 33: Concept Map Implications

Online course developers and teachers need to understand the needs of their students and that course structure and quality plays an active role in student satisfaction (Chang et al., 2008; Kuo et al., 2013; Swan, 2001). Instructors need to understand that they play a vital role in student satisfaction. Instructors need to ensure that the qualities of materials, timeliness of feedback are of high standards to best meet the needs of their students (Ali & Ahmid., 2007; Sun et al., 2008; Swan, 2001). Bollinger et al. (2008) state that teachers need to promote students-student, student-instructor and student-content interactions in online environments by making discussion an active part of the online learning process. Chang et al.(2008) state that group projects, required discussion post, and online chat rooms in both synchronous and asynchronies forms help students engage and interact with other students and the instructor.

Slide 34: Limitations Slide 35: Concept Map Limitations Study sample sizes were small in some studies thus limiting the results and the generalizability of the findings (Bollinger & Martindale, 2004; Kuo et al., 2013; Naaj et al., 2012; Sahin & Shelley, 2008; McFarland & Hamilton, 2005). All of the 15 sources data collection took place at a single location. Results from these studies may be applicable to the particular school or location, but larger more inclusive study of the general population is needed to infer generalizability. All 15 studies collected data from university students in undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs. Further research is needed on secondary age students to confirm results and increase generalizability.

Slide 36: References Slide 37: References Numbers 1 to 4 Slide 38: References Numbers 5 to 7 Slide 39: References Numbers 8 to 10 Slide 40: References Numbers 11 to 13 Slide 41: References Numbers 14 to 15