0

UNION UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION We hereby recommend that the Dissertation by Lucia Worth Vanderpool Entitled Factors that Determine the Success Among Traditional and Nontraditional Students in Online Education

Be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education In Educational Leadership

_________________________________________________________________ Melinda M. Clarke, Ed.D., Program Director (Date) Dissertation Committee _________________________________________________________________ Michele W. Atkins, Ph.D., Chairperson (Date) _________________________________________________________________ Linn M. Stranak, D.A. (Date) _________________________________________________________________ Elaine F. Adams, Ed.D. (Date)

STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree at Union University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this dissertation may be granted by my research chair or, in her absence, by the Head of Interlibrary Services when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this dissertation for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Signature _____________________________________ Date _____________________

Factors that Determine the Success Among Traditional and Nontraditional Students In Online Education

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Education Degree Union University

Lucia Worth Vanderpool May 2009

UMI Number: 

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform  Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

ii

DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my husband Dr. Ken Vanderpool. In view of the fact that he has previously experienced this same process, he was able to give encouragement at just the needed times. He has been my teacher and mentor in lessons of persistence, and I could not have completed my program without his loving support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I appreciate my committee members freely donating their time and effort to assist me in completing my project and want to thank them for being willing to serve in this capacity. Dr. Linn Stranak and Dr. Elaine Adams, your doors have always been open to answer questions and offer support and encouragement. Your flexibility with setting up meetings has helped the entire process move smoothly. Dr. Michele Atkins, you have truly filled the role of dissertation committee chair. You have been available every step of the journey with support and encouragement. I thank you for your tactful guidance and many hours you have taken to lend your professional expertise toward my completion of this dissertation.

iv

ABSTRACT Online learning is the fastest growing segment in the educational marketplace today. With the growing number of students enrolling in online programs, retention and the success of these students is an important concern for stakeholders in higher education. Research shows there is a higher dropout rate found within online courses when compared to traditional face-to-face courses. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students participating in online courses and to examine factors that may predict success in the online environment. Independent variables included age, marital status, number of children, employment, gender, ethnicity, college entrance exam score, computer skills level, previous online learning experience, and motivation for college and online enrollment. Final course grade served as the dependent variable. A convenience sample of 133 subjects responded to an online survey. The survey instrument measured demographic and motivation variables. Results indicated a statistically significant negative predictive relationship in the nontraditional group between number of children and final grade and, also, ethnicity and final grade. Furthermore, a statistically significant negative predictive relationship was found in the traditional student group between the number of children and final grade. Additionally, a statistically significant negative predictive relationship was found in the nontraditional student group between the HOBET entrance score and final grade. Results also showed a significant negative

v predictive relationship between number of children and final grade for both traditional and nontraditional students who achieved above average performance. Finally, a significant predictive relationship was found for the traditional student group between a sense of achievement and final grade. No other statistically significant relationships were found. Implications of results demonstrate the need to provide support services for traditional students with children, thus avoiding possible withdrawal. Additionally, traditional students performed as well as nontraditional students overall, thereby, contradicting the myth that nontraditional students perform better, at least in the online environment. Further research with larger and more diverse groups of online students is needed to determine the most effective methods to increase students likelihood for retention and success in the online learning environment.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. PAGE

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 Statement of the Purpose ......................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................3 Research Questions ...............................................................................................4 Justification of the Study ......................................................................................4 Definitions.............................................................................................................7

2.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .....................................................................................9 History of Online Education .................................................................................9 Planning and Assessing Online Programs ..........................................................15 Best Practices in Teaching and Learning ............................................................33 Student Learning Styles and Characteristics.................................................33 Instructor Teaching Practices and Characteristics ........................................49 Differences in Face-to-Face and Online Learning ..............................................58 Student Success in Online Programs ..................................................................63 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................73

3.

METHODS ...............................................................................................................78 Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................78 Research Questions .............................................................................................78 Variables .............................................................................................................79 Research Subjects ...............................................................................................79 Instrumentation ...................................................................................................80 Motivation Survey ........................................................................................80 Academic Records ........................................................................................81 Procedures ...........................................................................................................82 Treatment of Data ...............................................................................................83 Question 1 .....................................................................................................83 Question 2 .....................................................................................................84 Question 3 .....................................................................................................84 Educational Implications ....................................................................................84

vii 4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................87 Participant Demographics ...................................................................................88 Statistical Results ................................................................................................91 Question 1 .....................................................................................................92 Question 2 .....................................................................................................94 Question 3 ...................................................................................................101 Summary ...........................................................................................................108 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................110 Academic Course Grades ..................................................................................110 Demographics and Grades ................................................................................111 Motivators and Grades ......................................................................................114 Limitations ........................................................................................................117 Implications for the Educational Community ...................................................117 Recommendations for Further Research ...........................................................119

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................121 APPENDIX .....................................................................................................................130

viii

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. PAGE

Participant Demographics ......................................................................................89 Student Grades .......................................................................................................93 Final Grade Descriptives by Age Group ................................................................94 Demographic Predictors of Traditional and Nontraditional Students....................96 Demographic Predictors of Traditional Student Group .........................................97 Demographic Predictors of Nontraditional Student Group ...................................99 Demographic Predictors of Above Average Student Group................................100 Motivation Predictors of Traditional and Nontraditional Students......................102 Motivation Predictors of Traditional Student Group ...........................................103 Motivation Predictors of Nontraditional Student Group .....................................105 Motivation Predictors of Above Average Student Group....................................107

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A post-secondary degree has become an important credential in todays professions and is required for advancement in many careers. Because of these higher standards, countless working adults find themselves in need of returning to school either to initially enroll in or to complete a degree program. In recent years, colleges and universities have met working adults needs for education by offering a variety of special programs outside the traditional educational environment. These special programs have included evening and weekend programs, acceleratedprograms, and online degree programs.Before these offerings, colleges and universities typically offered face-to-face class instruction only,what is referred to in this research as a traditional educational environment. According to Aranda (2006), the first type of online education, as we know it today, began in the mid 1990s when easier access to the Internet was made possible. Since that time, online classes and online degree programs have continued to increase in number with special appeal to working adults, designated as one category of nontraditional students. This appeal is due, in large part, to flexible scheduling and the ability to attend class from home or any location where access to the Internet is available. These online degree programs advertise that students are able to go to school any time that is convenient for them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These same programs have also appealed to students with disabilities and

2 traditional students who may not live near a college campus or who have a conflict with scheduling courses. For the purpose of this study, the term traditional student was designated for any student 24 years of age or younger. It is understood that traditional students are typically recent high school graduates that entered college as a freshman soon after high school graduation, live on or near the college campus, and are not employed full time. On the other hand, the term nontraditional student is designated for any student 25 years of age or older. It is understood that nontraditional students typically are working adults who may have family obligations, and are either entering college for the first time or returning to college to complete a baccalaureate degree. Statement of the Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the success rate, as measured by final course grades, between traditional and nontraditional students in online education. These findings will enable educators to predict whether there are discernible factors that affect the success rate of students in an online environment. If educators can determine factors that predict whether a student will succeed or fail, steps may be taken to assist those students who are at risk. The sample consisted of traditional and nontraditional students attending online classes at a small, private college in the mid-south. Numerous studies (e.g., Moore, Bartkovich, Fetzner, & Ison, 2002; Simpson & Head, 2000) have pointed out that retention is an important topic of research in higher education. According to Moore et al., a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) teleconference noted, Student attrition is one of the biggest obstacles to the credibility and as a result, the success of

3 online learningThe issue is vital both in terms of students academic success and institutional viability (p. 3). Statement of the Problem Due in part to the flexible schedules of online courses and special programs being offered by colleges and universities, online education has enabled more nontraditional students to begin or return to college than ever before. Many nontraditional students are employed full time, are married, and have family obligations. There has been much research examining the differences between traditional education and online instruction as it relates to student achievement (e.g., Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2002; Jones, 2005; Schulman & Sims, 1999; Smith et al., 2001). Furthermore, there has been recent research investigating the factors that predict success of students taking online classes (e.g., Kerr, Rynearson, & Kerr, 2003; Levy, 2003; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). However, these researchers did not disaggregate the sample as to the specific factors that may predict success for various populations. How do nontraditional learners compare with traditional students in their ability to succeed? Are there other personal characteristics that may affect the online students success rate? Nontraditional students return to college with greater responsibilities and seemingly less time for studies than traditional students. At the same time, they are older and likely more mature. Are these factors among those that affect their ability to succeed? Factors (independent variables) selected for this study were age, marital status, number of children, employment status, gender, ethnicity, college entrance exam scores, computer skills level, previous online learning experience, motivation for college enrollment, and motivation for online enrollment.

4 Research Questions The following research questions were addressed: 1. Is there a difference in the academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses? 2. Is there a relationship between demographic variables of students and above average performance as measured by final course grades? 3. Is there a relationship between student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades? Justification of the Study Upon completing several studies related to computer-based distance education, Nasseh (1997) made several recommendations for further research regarding online courses. These recommendations included investigation of the level of computer and communication skills which are adequate for successful educational experiences, the need for information about students characteristics and their objectives for learning, and research about instructional methods which promote the use of computer technologies in online education. This research provides information concerning the relationship of selfreported computer skills to student success in online education and the relationship of other student characteristics to success in online education. Nasseh (1997) added that gaining knowledge in two basic areas can facilitate the improvement of teaching and learning in computer-based distance education: examining students barriers such as time, distance, work, family, technical skills, support, and communication; and examining students motivations such as learning value, job

5 performance, new competencies, and advancement in employment. Both of these areas were included in this research study. Allen and Seaman (2005) stated in the 2005 Sloan Survey of Online Learning that online education is now part of the mainstream of higher education. The authors supported this conclusion on the following findings:


Sixty-five percent of schools offering graduate face-to-face courses also offer graduate courses online.

Sixty-three percent of schools offering undergraduate face-to-face courses also offer undergraduate courses online.

Among all schools offering face-to-face Masters degree programs, 44% also offer Masters programs online.

Among all schools offering face-to-face Business degree programs, 43% also offer online Business programs.

In a more recent Sloan Survey of Online Learning, Allen and Seaman (2008) reported that online enrollment rose by more than 12% over the previous year. The results of the survey of more than 2,500 colleges indicated that approximately 3.94 million students were enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2007. The researchers predicted that the increase in fuel costs, unemployment, and the downturn in the economy will increase the growth of online student enrollment even more over the next year. The development of the Internet and digital technology is revolutionizing teaching and learning. Due to this development synchronous education is likely to be in the future of every institution of higher learning. Asynchronous is defined as not occurring at the

6 same time and, when applied to online education, indicates that students are not required to meet with the instructor and other students concurrently to meet course requirements. For example, an online discussion board allows students to post comments at a time that is convenient for them rather than being required to meet in a classroom with an instructor and other students at a scheduled day and time. With the growing number of students enrolling in online programs, retention and the success of these students is an important concern for stakeholders in higher education. Higher dropout rates are often found within online courses when compared to traditional face-to-face courses (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). A common reason for this higher drop-out rate is the false assumption that taking online courses is an easy way to earn a college degree (History of Distance Learning, 2006). Other studies (i.e., Cosman-Ross & Hiatt-Michael, 2005; Elvers, Polzella, & Graetz, 2003) have shown that characteristics such as GPA, lack of time management skills, age, level of motivation, and selfdiscipline may also determine the success rate of online students. By investigating selected factors and comparing them between traditional and nontraditional students who are enrolled in the same online programs taking the same courses from the same instructors, research results may determine whether those factors possess a relationship with student success. Determining the selected factors that predict student success, provides institutions of higher education valuable information from which to assist those students who are at risk. Future studies may be conducted to determine the most effective methods to increase students probability for retention and success. Online learning is not only the

7 fastest growing segment in the educational marketplace, but also one of the newest trends in lifelong education. Therefore, educational researchers must seek to gain empirical evidence of best practices in online learning. Tough competition in the global education and economy, and demand of learners for quality education obligate institutions, agencies, business, educators, and researchers to generate more knowledge about this method of education (Nasseh, 1999, p. 2). Definitions For the purpose of this research, the following definitions of variables were utilized: Student success completing the course with an above average performance defined by a final grade of 80% or higher or a letter grade of A or B. Online programs educational programs offered through use of the Internet, using a course management program such as WebCT or Blackboard. According to Allen and Seaman (2005), a minimum of 80% of the course content must be offered by means of the Internet in order to be classified as an online course. Students do not meet with the instructor on a regular basis in a traditional classroom setting but communicate through email, discussion boards, and chat rooms. Lectures are presented using various tools such as Microsoft PowerPoint. Assignments are submitted electronically by using an assignment drop box or as email attachments. Traditional student any student 24 years of age or younger. Although age is the only criteria for definition that will be used in this study, it is understood that traditional students are typically recent high school graduates that entered college as a freshman

8 soon after high school graduation, live on or near the campus, and are not employed full time. Nontraditional student any student 25 years of age or older. Although age is the only criteria for definition used in this study, it is understood that nontraditional students typically are working adults who may have family obligations, and are either entering college for the first time or returning to college to complete a baccalaureate degree.

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE One of the greatest concerns related to online education is the course dropout rate, which is markedly higher than in traditional face-to-face classes (Moore, Bartkovich, Fetzner, & Ison, 2002). With the growing number of students enrolling in online programs, retention and the success of these students is a concern for administrators in higher education. If higher education administrators can learn to recognize some of the characteristics that predict why some online students successfully complete their course and others do not, perhaps this information can be used to increase the success rate for atrisk students. For this purpose, literature related to online education and student success was reviewed. The review of literature that follows is organized under five main sections. The first section includes studies that discuss the history of online education. The second section contains studies related to planning and assessing online programs. The third section includes studies concerning the best practices in teaching and learning. The fourth section contains studies that examine online versus face-to-face teaching and learning. Finally, the fifth section includes studies related to student success in online programs. History of Online Education According to Nasseh (1997), the first recorded reference to an academic degree dates back to mid-12th century Italy when the University of Bologna conferred a

10 doctorate. Soon after that, bachelors and masters as well as doctoral degrees were awarded by principal European universities. By the mid-20th century more than 600 degree programs were offered in universities of the British Commonwealth alone. Following the example set by British educational customs, Harvard College was the first American institution to confer a degree. This commencement set a pattern that spread to other American colleges and universities. This process has evolved over time to become our current educational system. The most recent addition to our current system is the online degree program which allows students to earn a college degree in a nontraditional manner. In September 1970 a major event occurred for persons who needed a college degree but found it difficult to attend regular classes on a college campus. Ewald Nyquist, president of the University of the State of New York and state commissioner of education, suggested the establishment of the Regents External Degree Program. Students earned credits through what is known as correspondence courses and by passing examinations which tested students on knowledge already gained through work and life experiences. This was the first truly external degree program in the United States and in 1972, degrees were conferred on 77 graduates. Today that program is known as Regents College and has awarded over 55,000 degrees to graduates in all 50 states and dozens of countries around the world (Nasseh, 1997). The first large-scale use of computer conferencing in distance teaching occurred in 1988 when the Open University in the United Kingdom started a program named DT200 Introduction to Information Technology with 1,000 students per year. Open

11 University is credited with bringing a new vision of independence for distance education as distinct from traditional education (Nasseh, 1997, p. 3). Open University is the largest educational institution in the world with more than 200,000 students and is a leader in using technology to deliver distance education. Britains Open University has been a major influence in the development of online education in the United States, Japan, and other countries by bringing needed respect and confidence to distance education programs (Nasseh, 1997). During the 1980s the computer industry started to expand and e-training became popular for training employees in the corporate environment. Companies were beginning to use Microsoft PowerPoint and other multimedia programs but were limited to classroom instruction. Once the Internet was available in 1990, online education as it is currently known began to grow. In the early phases of online education connectivity was very slow due to availability of only telephone dialup access connections to the Internet; therefore courses were strictly text-based. In spite of these disadvantages, those involved in early e-training began to realize the possibilities of this new technology (Aranda, 2006). In the late 1990s a new period for technology introduced fast Website servers, streaming media, online video access, email, and other programs that made it possible for online education to be available for many students who could not otherwise attend classes. Dramatic changes in the management of educational services have taken place over the past 20 years. These changes have transpired as higher education administrators have considered the total process of online education delivery. Specifically, administrators deliberate issues of how a quality education can be provided, who

12 provides online education, and where and how it will be accomplished (History of Online Education, 2006). Rudich (1999) addressed Internet learning in a research paper. He described the early correspondence courses as being the first distance learning experiences. There are a few Web-based courses today that mimic early correspondence courses by just using email instead of the U.S. Postal Service. However, no other technology is utilized in these courses. Other Web-based courses today utilize the Internet with its interactive features to deliver the entire content of the course. Rudich (1999) pointed out that Internet learning has not only changed the learning platform but changed the student base as well. More working adults and professionals are taking college classes due to the flexibility offered by Internet learning. The online format also allows those who cannot take on-campus classes to continue their education. This new student population may include, but is not limited to, persons who may be homebound due to health problems, caretakers of those with health problems, students who have moved to another location but need to continue a degree program, those with scheduling problems due to their occupation, or military personnel in another part of the world. Rudich (1999) continued by writing that corporations are also using Internet learning to conduct training for employees. This type of training not only saves money and eliminates the need for employees to travel to other locations, but also allows more flexibility in setting times for training.

13 The use of personal computers in educational settings is now commonplace and young children are growing up in an environment where a computer is no longer an option but a necessity. Learning online will not be new or a foreign experience for them. In conclusion, Rudich (1999) argued that Internet learning, in the format of online classes, is better than the traditional format because the diverse population of students that may include professionals, internationals, and an overall broader cross section of people provides a superior learning experience compared to the homogeneity of the typical college campus. Vignare (2005) investigated student learning in the blended learning environment rather than totally online programs. Some educators believe that blended learning is the best of both environments on-campus courses with instructor and student access to online course management tools. Vignare (2005) explained that students like the convenience of having course documents stored in one place. Additionally, students can access these documents any time of the day or night from any computer that has access to the Internet. Students also like the opportunity to access self-quizzes, study guides, lecture notes, and online discussions. Blended learning is available for many faculty to use because colleges and universities have made substantial technology investments on campuses, Internet accessibility, and online distance learning. Technology advancements on college campuses have grown at a fast rate of speed. The rate of online course enrollment has risen from 1% in 1995 to 20% in 2005. The Internet and most of the new technology has only been available in the higher education environment for the past 10 years. Even

14 though 10 years represents a very short period of time related to the history of education, many innovations have occurred during this technological evolution. Caswell, Henson, Jensen, and Wiley (2008) reported what they termed as the shifting role of distance education from that of classroom alternative to one of social transformer by making educational materials freely available around the world. Traditionally, institutions have been limited in providing distance education by costs of production, reproduction, and distribution. Even though valuable resources are still needed to produce a course, technology has reduced the process of reproducing and distributing information to little or no cost. This shift makes it possible for distance educators to make course content available to countless numbers and has the potential to improve the quality of life for learners worldwide. Caswell et al. (2008) identified OpenCourse Ware (OCW) as an example of new technology that may facilitate achieving the universal right to education, as stated in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). OCW is defined as online open access collections of freely available educational materials organized in courses. In addition, the researchers believe OCW is one way that distance education can support equal access to education. OCW contains free course materials such as lecture notes, exams, and videos. However, individuals may not obtain a degree or certificate by utilizing OCW materials. Universities currently offering OCW include Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Johns Hopkins, Notre Dame, the Open University, Kyoto University, and Korea University. Furthermore, many businesses around the world offer OCW courses as professional development. In

15 2007, MIT claimed to offer the largest collection of OCW courses with more than 1,800 courses, but that was soon surpassed by the other institutions and businesses creating OCW content. Caswell et al. (2008) further noted that institutions may also benefit from sharing course content even though this content is freely offered. The researchers noted that in a 2006 survey, MIT found 35% of freshmen indicated the MIT OCW Web site influenced their decision to enroll. OCW may also be beneficial to faculty by allowing them to share their work, their research findings, and course structure with others in their field. Caswell et al. acknowledged that everyone has the right to education and further stated now that technology has reduced the cost of producing educational materials online, the 60-yearold declaration of human rights can become a reality. The history of online education confirms the need for distance education programs and the benefits they offer to many students. In order to build successful programs there are other points to consider which are noted in the following discussion. Planning and Assessing Online Programs Planning and assessing any educational program is critical to creating a successful learning environment. With the rapid growth of online education programs, administrators in higher education should carefully plan and assess these programs to meet the needs of the online learner. Levy (2004) presented six factors to consider when planning online distance learning (ODL) programs in higher education. She stated that online instruction and learning are not the only events that take place when using a computer system with the Internet, but other educational services must be made available

16 to students as well. Other programs such as student services, training, and support need to be taken into consideration when planning and developing an online learning program. Following are the six areas that Levy believes should be considered: 1. Vision All institutions have a vision and mission statement but may not be considering and incorporating them when they plan their ODL program. 2. Curriculum Colleges should consider if and what courses and degree programs will be offered online or only on campus in a traditional format. 3. Staff Training and Support Faculty and staff should engage in continuous professional development in order to stay current in their disciplines; this is especially true when technology is involved with teaching. 4. Student Services Students on campus have many support services available; however, these services are often overlooked when planning ODL programs. These services include supports such as library resources, admissions, and student clubs. Consideration must be given to make these services available through an online structure. 5. Student Training and Support An orientation and technical training should be available for first-time online students who may have limited computer skills. 6. Copyright and Intellectual Property Institutions should review their current policies and procedures related to federal regulations concerning copyright and intellectual property issues. Additional policies may need to be developed when planning a new ODL program.

17 Erdem (2007) noted that open and distance education programs need to develop a strategic plan to ensure success. In this article, the term open and distance education is synonymous with online education or simply distance education. Erdem stated that strategic planning is especially important for open and distance education programs due to their unique delivery methods, rapid growth, and need for technical expertise. One of the barriers conventional education has had to overcome has been insufficient capacity of education locations. Open and distance education removes the necessity of the students and teachers meeting together face-to-face and, therefore, does not require additional facilities on campus. Removing this barrier has been one of the factors related to the rapid growth of these programs. Erdem cautioned educational institutions not to launch new open or distance education programs without strategic planning. He provided three questions that should be considered in strategic planning. Where are we? Where do we wish to go? How will we get there? Erdem added that the earlier an institution identifies probable opportunities and threats, and develops strategies for them, the more likely the institution will produce a successful program. He proposed a 10-step process for strategic planning including: 1. Initiate and agree upon a strategic planning process. 2. Identify organizational mandates. 3. Clarify organizational mission and values. 4. Assess the organizations external and internal environments to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. 5. Identify the strategic issues facing the organization.

18 6. Formulate strategies to manage these issues. 7. Review and adopt the strategic plan or plans. 8. Establish an effective organizational vision. 9. Develop an effective implementation process. 10. Reassess strategies and the strategic planning process. (p. 178) Erdem stated that following these steps can ease the process of strategic planning and ensure the success of a new Open or Distance Education program. In a related study, Goolnik (2006) investigated the effect of a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program on overcoming existing social and cultural constraints for university faculty who engage in online learning. These constraints include anxiety related to the change from traditional forms of course delivery, lack of development time and learning new technologies. He reported that a CPD program may play as important a role for the success of an online learning program as support services do for students. Initiating new learning technologies challenge deep-rooted traditions in course delivery and teaching styles and if the academic staff does not understand why change is important and necessary, there will be limited cooperation and the program may fail. Goolnik stated that one of the major concerns of faculty is that online learning threatens the assurance of quality standards in teaching and learning. Other apprehensions related to online learning programs include poor technical and administrative support, lack of perceived time for course development, feelings that online approaches might lower quality of courses, lack of recognition for work with new technologies, intellectual

19 property rights and ownership of materials produced, a general resistance to management-imposed approaches, and a lack of appropriate CPD programs. Successful implementation of a new program must have the support of the academic staff by providing appropriate training. Goolnik proposed several methods to ensure success including personalized online help pages, informal one-hour lunch workshops, newsletters, list serves, teaching with technology presentations by already experienced practitioners, teleconferenced link-ups to outside expertise, equipment upgrades, available support for all newly appointed staff, and financial assistance to attend conferences. Goolnik concluded that any new program should allow for a gradual implementation with a learning curve that builds self-confidence in the use of technology and the acceptance of change. In another study, Amrein-Beardsley, Foulger, and Toth (2007) investigated the questions and considerations that should be discussed by administrators, faculty, and support staff when designing, developing, and offering a hybrid (part online, part face-toface) degree program. Amrein-Beardsley et al. designed and used two Web questionnaires to gather data from 9 instructors and 413 students. Their research question was, What policy and programmatic issues should be discussed by administrators, faculty, and support staff when designing, developing, and offering a hybrid degree program? Initially, a seminar on hybrid course design and instruction was presented to 16 instructors. Nine instructors committed to teaching a hybrid course the following semester and participated in the study. Upon finishing the course, each instructor

20 completed the Web questionnaire designed to find the instructors perceptions of their students and their own experiences with the hybrid course. As directed by the researchers, the participating instructors distributed the online questionnaire to their students at the end of the course. A total of 413 out of approximately 450 students completed the online questionnaire with a response rate of 92%. The researchers noted that the high response rate was probably due to the fact that students completed the questionnaire during normal class time or were given class credit for completing it. The questionnaire consisted of four parts collecting demographic information; feedback on effectiveness of technology tools; agreement or disagreement with statements about affective factors of hybrid instruction; and useful insights related to the online activities, hybrid course development, and hybrid degree program development. Frequency statistics were used to analyze each demographic, course, and programmatic question in Part I. For Parts II, III, and IV, descriptive statistics were calculated using participant responses to the Likert items, and t-tests using independent samples were used to test for significant differences between the opinions of instructorand student-participant groups. After analyzing the results of the study, the following recommendations were made: 1. Develop program policy supportive to teaching and learning in hybrid courses. Students were not informed at registration that some of the course materials would be delivered online which cause frustration with the unexpected format and delivery method. The institutions Web site and catalog footnotes were revised to

21 alert students to hybrid courses and also noted how these courses differ from more traditional face-to-face classes. 2. Support the creation of common procedures and expectations across courses. Instructors should collaborate for the purpose of creating a level of consistency that will benefit students. 3. Allocate face-to-face and online time across courses. Instructors and administrators should work together to create a schedule that outlines specific face-to-face and online days to accommodate students taking multiple hybrid classes. 4. Support instructors as they adopt technology tools. 5. Provide instructional design training and support for instructors. 6. Provide support for students to gain new skills. 7. Continually evaluate the program. Amrein-Beardsley et al. (2007) concluded that overall the hybrid design was well received and following the recommendations from this study will likely promote the success of students enrolled in a hybrid degree program. Stallings (2002) addressed the issue of measuring success in online education as it relates to program assessment. He discussed that higher education accrediting agencies have increased their emphasis on accountability in learning and the outcomes of the educational process. One of the influences behind this emphasis is the growth of distance learning. Even though there has been a downturn in the economy and worry about war and terrorism, the demand for distance learning has continued to increase. Stallings

22 explained that anytime there is accelerated growth, there is also a concern for maintaining quality. Stallings believed that effective assessment must apply not only to skill or competency testing, but to programs as well. Program assessment is used to evaluate issues of budget, staffing, student advising, quality of instruction, and other aspects of educational programs generally found at a university or college. Stallings concluded that when educational institutions plan an online program, they must add the perspectives of the student, the institution, and regulatory organizations to the planning process. These perspectives will result in stronger policies and mission statements which include assessment strategies and produce a solid basis for measuring progress. An example of the importance of team planning and assessment is demonstrated in a study by Hurn (2005), a Senior Instructor in the Department of Physics at Miami University of Ohio. The motivation for the project was to ensure that courses being taught online were of the highest quality possible. The purpose of this undertaking was to examine the most recent types of software and to review their usefulness in creating modules for online courses offered by the university. A learning community consisting of 10 members was formed including 5 faculty representing Psychology, Math/Statistics, English, Physics, and Spanish departments; 3 staff members representing the Library, Computer Center, and Educational Technology Center; and 2 university students. This group met on a regular basis to share ideas and information they gathered between meetings. Their first approach was to research new software that could be utilized for effective teaching; however, the group realized that

23 their focus should be on pedagogical needs that might be addressed with technology. In other words, the group decided that investigating teaching strategies using new software was more important than researching new software alone. As they discussed their pedagogical needs they focused on four specific projects in existence in their departments related to the academic interests represented by the participating faculty members. The first project was named the Web-based Critical Thinking Module. The purpose of this project was to enhance psychology students ability to analyze information critically and consisted of four modules designed to engage students in critical thinking exercises. Each module contained instructions, objectives, background information, and an activity to illustrate the concepts covered. The instructor conducted a post-activity question and answer exercise and found that students were able to recognize critical thinking and explain the characteristics of the activity that placed it in the critical thinking category. Students also showed an increase in their confidence level with critical thinking and were able to demonstrate this skill as they participated in online discussion board activities. The second project was named the Online Spanish Module. The Spanish instructor wanted to utilize more Spanish activities and discussions instead of workbooktype assignments. After researching various educational software programs, she decided to use Hot Potatoes from Half-Baked Software. This software allowed her to create

crossword puzzles, multiple-choice quizzes, fill-in-the-blank quizzes, and word scrambles which she linked to her Blackboard site. Students were able to work on these modules from any location where they had access to the Internet. After using this

24 software program, the instructor reported an improvement in students Spanish vocabulary and conversation. The third project was named Problem-Based Research Module. A smaller team was formed, from the 10 members of the learning community, to focus on this module. The goal of this module was to assist students with the process of collecting, organizing, and sharing information for group research projects in an online course. Several online communication tools were considered, but it was finally decided that blogs would be used to share their research findings. The team found that students were more willing to share information on a blog than in the classroom. Using blogs was also helpful to the instructors when there was not enough time to discuss research during regular class time. The fourth project was named the Statistics Online Modules. After considering several alternatives, the statistics instructor chose Microsoft (MS) Producer to create

her modules. This software is free for owners of Microsoft PowerPoint . MS Producer r allows the user to add many different types of multimedia to an online course or segments of a face-to-face course delivered over the Internet. One of the templates used was small video and large slides format. With this format the instructor was able to video lectures along with MS PowerPoint slides. The finished lectures were then burned

(copied) to CDs and distributed to students by the instructor. This procedure allowed students to play the CD and view an inset (picture) of the instructors actual lecture in the corner of the slide. Another template used was called large video. With this template the instructor was able to video her TI calculator and actually show her students how to work problems. The students could view each step and work the problems she demonstrated.

25 These modules take much time to develop but can be used for face-to-face classes as well as online classes. Students reacted positively to these modules and demonstrated that teaching methods previously reserved for the classroom can be used on the Internet as well. Hurn (2005) reported that each of the modules showed evidence of improvement in student learning. She further stated that forming a learning community was beneficial in producing some useful materials for the online learning environment. Recommendations given for forming a learning community included choosing a diverse group people that do not normally work together. The diversity of the group should display various levels of technological expertise and various experiences using technology as a teaching tool. This diversity provides differing perspectives and ideas. The group should also include people from different disciplines. Adding students to a learning community will offer ideas and feedback from their point of view. Other considerations for a successful learning community include frequent meetings, every two weeks if possible, which may be scheduled as a lunch meeting, combining lunch and a meeting for busy schedules. Finally, each member should be responsible for bringing one assignment to each meeting. Assignments may include, but are not limited to, research on using technology effectively or pedagological ideas. Another aspect of an effective online educational program is the provision of support services specific to the online student. LaPadula (2003) conducted a comprehensive examination of online student support services for distance learners at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) to determine the satisfaction level of students

26 with existing services. In addition, LaPadula examined the need for future support services. Student services are an important part of any students learning experience and also important to the institution. LaPadula pointed out that student services can increase enrollment, decrease attrition, provide well-rounded programs, help students adjust to college life, assist in their intellectual and personal growth, and contribute to their academic success. Student services such as the library, book store, financial aid, and admissions are assumed to be part of the educational process. On-campus students may take these services for granted, but sometimes these same services are overlooked in online programs and can cause frustration, disappointment, and lead to failure. LaPadulas (2003) research consisted of two individual Phases. Phase 1 consisted of researching other institutions that supported online courses to determine the student services offered. She was especially interested in finding unique online services. Once the services were identified, they were divided into three categories: (a) academic advising/career counseling, (b) personal/mental health counseling, and (c) services that promote a sense of community. Phase 2 consisted of administering a student survey to NYITs online students. The two-part survey was designed to measure the satisfaction level with current online student services and to ascertain the types of services students desire in the future. Section 1 of the survey asked students to rate their satisfaction with the current services available to online students and Section 2 asked students for additional services they would like to receive. The survey was posted on the Online Campus home page and also emailed to about 500 students. By the cutoff date, 92 surveys had been collected.

27 The participants included 63 women and 29 men who were taking online courses during the spring 2001 semester. The majority were between the ages of 31 and 40 (23.9%) and 19 and 22 (22.8%). The sample was made up of 55 Caucasian, 11 African American, 8 Hispanic, 7 Asian, and 1 American Indian student, as well as 2 students of mixed race and 7 students who chose Other/Unknown for race. Many students were single (55.4%), employed full-time (68.5%), or in the senior year (68.5%). Fifty-two (56.5%) students took all or mostly online courses, and 40 (43.5%) took most of their courses on campus. The results of the survey showed that most students were quite satisfied with many of the student services they were receiving. LaPadula (2003) reported that between 90% and 97% of students were satisfied with library, admissions, and textbook services. Between 82% and 94% of students were satisfied with services related to technical assistance, prior learning credit evaluation, academic advising, financial aid, and the bursar. Student satisfaction with the registrars office dropped to between 70% and 78%. The author stated that even though students were satisfied with most of the online services available to them, there was room for improvement in social services such as book clubs, a student newspaper, current events chat rooms, and academic clubs. Other areas students listed as in need of improvement were online tutoring, technical help with conducting research online, and personal/mental health counseling online. In conclusion, LaPadula (2003) stated that offering comprehensive support services for online students enables an institution to provide a learner-centered environment for distance learners, improve student retention, be more competitive in

28 todays changing higher education environment, take full advantage of the power of todays technologies, meet the expectations of the regional accrediting agencies regarding support services, and provide the distance learner with a learning experience that is equivalent to the experience of on-campus learners. Likewise, Greer, Hudson, and Paugh (1998) researched the area of student support services, an area of online learning that they believed had not received appropriate attention. Their study examined four areas for student success and student support services in a population of adult learners enrolled in online courses at the University of Central Florida. The authors contended that student support services can be directly related to online student success rates even though the students may not be on campus. In fact, providing high-quality support services may be more of a challenge for online students because students do not have easy access to their institutional campus. The authors research included a two-part online student services survey form which was included in the exam files of the students WebCT course. Students were informed of the survey through the course email and discussion boards and asked to voluntarily complete the survey and submit it within WebCT, the course software program. The students were asked to complete the survey during the last two to three weeks of the semester. The first section of the survey included questions concerning demographic information, job commitments, parenting responsibilities, and commuting distances to the physical university campus. A self-evaluation was also included to assess the students technology skills prior to taking the current course. The second part of the survey asked questions related to student support services for Web-based learners. Both

29 on-campus and Web-based services were included. Twenty services were listed on the survey which included Library resources (online and on-campus), the bookstore, student picture ID services, course registration via the Web, overall rating of student support services, and others. An open-ended question was also given asking for suggestions for improvement. Another component in this study was an analysis of students reactions to the following four questions: (a) What support is needed to succeed in a Web-based course? (b) What organization is essential for success in a Web-based course? (c) What technologies are required for success in a Web-based course? and (d) What success is earned by participating in Web courses? Survey forms were distributed to online students across the state of Florida enrolled in a variety of vocational education careers from nursing to bricklaying and a diverse set of educational institutions from private proprietary schools to penal institutions. Of the 47 respondents, the average age was 43.2 years with a standard deviation of 9.2 years. The range was from 27-69 years of age and consisted of 20 males and 27 females. Thirty-one of the students were married, 1 was widowed, and 15 were single. Twenty-two of the learners had one or more dependent children living at home with a total of 36 children at an average age of 10.6 years. Most of the students (86%) worked full-time, 2 worked part-time, and 5 worked at home. The self-evaluation of technology skills was quite varied and generally low. More than half described themselves as a novice with email/attachments and Web navigation (53% and 60% respectively). Only 30% of respondents believed they were very experienced with word

30 processing while 32% claimed moderate experience with word processing skills. In response to the anxiety level question related to technology, 63% were mildly anxious, 24% were anxious, and 13% were highly fearful. Student mileage one-way to the main campus of the course-delivering institution ranged from a few miles to 300 miles. Students in the study were required to attend an orientation session at the beginning of the semester. The orientation was scheduled for a Saturday because of the driving distance for some. Students were also required to go to the main campus another time to secure a student identification card (ID) because there was no one available at the Saturday session to make IDs. It was determined that failure to provide this type of service electronically caused a poor rating in that area of student services. The online library resources received average or above average ratings from 63% of the respondents and online resources outside of those from the library received the same ratings from 68% of the respondents. Eleven students replied to four questions about success factors. On question one, students indicated that support is needed from family, friends, co-workers, and fellow classmates. Those new to the online environment were especially appreciative of the support they receive. The orientation and peer support were also named as being very helpful. For question two, students believed it was important for students and instructors to be organized. All respondents agreed that time management was a critical key to success in an online course. Question three asked what technologies are required for enrolling in an online course, and students responded that being comfortable with using the Internet and email was essential and that an Internet service other than dial-up was

31 indispensable. Failure to obtain sufficient technology skills and appropriate computer equipment can lead to frustration and failure in an online environment. The fourth question concerned students beliefs of their success in learning in an online environment. According to Greer et al. (1998), one student summarized the learning by stating, I have learned so much in a short timeabout myself and my fellow professionals. We have gone through a virtual bonding and give each other support.By sitting right here at home, I am able to improve myself intellectually, learn information that benefits my work activities, and satisfy job requirements (p. 15). In conclusion, Greer et al. (1998) argued that Web-based courses allow students to complete their education who might not have been able to do so otherwise. The authors continued by explaining that not only were students able to finish program requirements, but also received some added benefits. For instance, they learned how to give and take peer support and mentoring, to handle unexpected problems inherent with using technology, to make themselves better understood through written communication, to work closely with others even though they were separated geographically, and to set priorities in order to complete assignments in spite of other demands of life and work. Smith and Mitry (2008) investigated another important aspect of planning an online program, the underlying cost and quality issues of online pedagogy. Online education has been characterized by rapid growth which has demanded rapid investment and expanding program offerings. Many schools, both non-profit and for-profit, have experienced growing enrollments and profitable online degree programs. For example, the University of Phoenix is now the largest university in America with an enrollment of

32 more than 300,000 students. At the same time other large universities have abandoned their online programs after finding they were more costly than expected. Columbia University closed their online program after two and one-half years, and Temple University and New York University have discontinued their online programs as well. This study examined the research question, Why do some institutions find online programs to be less profitable, whereas other institutions discover online programs to be highly profitable? Smith and Mitry (2008) developed a survey which was used to collect data from 40 online business degree programs in order to answer the research question. Schools offering online degree programs were placed in two categories, not-for-profit and forprofit. The researchers then considered three variables regarding the programs: accreditation, residency requirement, and whether or not the program utilized the latest technology. Results revealed several quality standard differences between for-profit and not-for-profit programs. First, a difference was found in the number of programs holding accreditation. The accreditation agency for business colleges, Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB), requires that full-time faculty members have terminal degrees which is a major factor in distinguishing between business schools. If a majority of the institutions faculty are part-time, it will not receive AACSB accreditation. The survey showed that none of the for-profit schools held AACSB accreditation. However, 53% of the not-for-profit schools were accredited. Second, a difference was found between for-profit and not-for-profit programs regarding residency requirement. None of the for-profit schools had a residency requirement while 23% of the

33 not-for-profit institutions required some period of residency. Third, programs differed with regards to use of the latest technology. Thirty percent of the for-profit programs used the latest technology; however, 63% of the not-for-profit programs utilized the latest technology. Fourth, Smith et al. also found that the not-for-profit institutions published catalogs and other materials that identified all faculty members as well as their credentials. On the other hand, for-profit schools neither listed faculty members or identified credentials of instructors or facilitators. The researchers pointed out that the single most important factor related to quality in online programs is the credentialed teaching faculty and the absence of faculty identification clearly indicated a lower quality in the for-profit online programs. Smith and Mitry (2008) stated that one of the methods used by for-profit schools to ensure a profit is to hire only adjunct instructors who may not have terminal degrees from reputable universities or moonlighting corporate employees, neither of which demand the higher salaries normally awarded to credentialed faculty. Best Practices in Teaching and Learning Student learning styles and characteristics. Kennedy (2000) discussed how students learn in an online environment and, in turn, methods in which teachers can decide which teaching strategies will be best for online student success. Five variables were identified as having a direct impact on students in an online class. These variables are brought with the student when they enroll in the course and are the result of past experiences. The variables include purpose in taking the course, interactions with teachers, study habits, attitude about computers, and experience with online technology.

34 A students purpose in taking a course determines the degree to which the student is engaged in the course, which, in turn, affects his or her interest in learning. The interaction students have with the teacher facilitates student understanding of the value of the academic community. Communication between student and teacher is considered to be a critical element in student learning. Study habits may also determine a students success or failure in his or her studies. Study habits are especially important in online education where time management and the ability to work independently are requirements for success. Most students today are comfortable using the Internet and computer programs; however, some students take an online course because they have no other choice. These students may become easily frustrated. If students who lack experience with technology enroll in an online course, they may experience difficulties in the first few weeks of class, become discouraged, and withdraw or simply quit the course. Kennedy (2000) explained that teachers should consider the variables that affect student learning in an online class as they decide which teaching methods to use in an online environment. Most teachers use methods in traditional on-campus courses that were used by their teachers when they were students. They want to emulate the teachers who best helped them to learn. However, most teachers today do not have any past experiences as students in an online setting. When teaching online for the first time, unless the course has already been designed, most instructors try to transfer on-campus materials to online materials. For example, lecture notes are written into a program such as Microsoft PowerPoint and then posted in the online course for students to read. Virtual office hours may be set up on the discussion board or in a chat room. Kennedy

35 concluded that using these tools may be helpful to students in some courses but not in all cases. In other words, instructors of online courses should not simply transform classroom teaching methods into online teaching techniques. Instead, when designing an online course teachers should begin by considering what students need from the course, and then explore the best strategies to address those needs. Because of their physical absence and the nature of the virtual classroom, teachers need to seek strategies and techniques that encourage teacher-student and student-student communication. Sahin (2008) conducted additional research to investigate the relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in Web-based courses in higher education. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between learners characteristics and learners perceptions and satisfaction with distance learning in Web-based courses at a Midwestern state university. Learners characteristics included gender, age, academic major, learning style preferences, enrollment status, number of Web-based courses taken previously, science perception, and hours per week worked. Learning styles were measured by Kolbs (1984) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) which consists of four distinct learning styles: 1. Concrete experience (CE), looking at things as they are. 2. Abstract conceptualization (AC), looking at things as concepts and ideas. 3. Active experimentation (AE), taking what has been concluded and trying it out to prove it works. 4. Reflective observation (RO), taking what they have concluded and watching to see if it works.

36 Students perceptions of distance learning were measured by the Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES) (Walker, 2003). The DELES is an online survey instrument used to measure distance education learning environment characteristics, including student interaction, active learning, student autonomy, instructor support, personal relevance, authentic learning, and student satisfaction. The DELES questionnaire contains 32 statements that are answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The LSI is one of various instruments developed to identify learning style preference defined as an individuals preferred method of learning. The LSI is a 12-item self-assessment instrument that asks each participant to rank order statements, assessing how well he or she thinks each one fits with how he or she would go about learning something in different learning situations. Sahin (2008) noted that this instrument appeals to researchers and educators because of its strong theoretical base in experiential learning theory (ELT). According to ELT, learning occurs when students participate in some activity, reflect upon the observations, use their conceptualization skills to form their understandings from the experience, and then use their understandings to create new activities. Four instructors teaching five courses volunteered to allow their online students the opportunity to participate in the study. The instructors of these courses posted the research survey on a course discussion board which resulted in a sample of 279 students. The relationship between students demographic characteristics and their learning style preferences was investigated with results that showed that male students preferred AC

37 more than female students and older students preferred AC more than younger students. Additional results were determined by using a regression model to calculate which demographic characteristics were best predictors of learning styles. Academic major was a significant predictor of learning style although it was not determined which majors related to which learning styles. Gender and age were not significant predictors of learning style. Sahin (2008) noted that further investigation into the relationship between students learning style preferences and their perceptions and satisfaction of Web-based courses appear more appropriate for AC learners. Findings also showed that if Webbased courses include more collaborative and real-life activities, they are better suited for learners with the preferred learning styles of CE and AE. Sahin recommended that Webbased course activities should include a range of instructional activities to provide support for different learning styles. An example would be to include a collaborative activity for those who prefer a CE learning style and also offer individual assignments for the AC learners. Sahin also recommended that since the learner characteristics used in this study were not good predictors of students perception and satisfaction, further research should include other characteristics such as prior knowledge and motivation. In a research report by Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Whitmore (2006), results indicated that between 1990 and 2004, enrollment of students in degree-granting institutions in the United States under age 25 increased by 2%. Knapp et al. reported that during the same timeframe enrollment of persons 25 and over increased by 6%. This trend indicates that more nontraditional adult students are enrolling in college courses.

38 Moreover, according to Knowles (1990), older nontraditional students tend to have different learning styles than younger traditional students. Knowles (1973), often referred to as the father of modern adult learning practice, professed that since adult learners bring different qualities to the classroom, different teaching methods should be chosen. He identified the following characteristics in adult learning styles that differ from younger students: 1. Self-concept In becoming a more mature person, adults also become less dependent on others and more self-directed. 2. Experience Older adults have lived longer and therefore have had more experience with other people, occupations, travel, and other formal education experience and they bring these experiences to the classroom. 3. Readiness to learn As a person matures, he or she tends to develop a higher level of interest in learning. 4. Orientation to learning Adults tend to perceive the learning process as something they need to do in the present tense to solve todays problems, whereas younger students tend to see learning as something they will use in the future. 5. Motivation to learn The motivation to learn changes as we mature and tends to become internal in nature. Knowles believed that adults are more motivated to learn when the educational content is relevant to the learners needs. Another factor related to adult learning is that adults tend to be more interested in succeeding in the learning process and gaining knowledge than they are in receiving praise or a high grade (Knowles, 1990). These differences in students behoove instructors

39 to become aware of how adults learn and, in turn, use different pedagogies to meet these adult students needs. Therefore, it is important for instructors to understand the principles of adult learning. Knowles (1973) theory of Andragogy, defined as the art and science of teaching adults, based his principles of adult learning on five assumptions. First, the need to know, assumes adult learners need to know why they need to learn a concept before learning it. Knowles explained that assumption can be applied to online learning by giving more information about the course description than is given in the catalog along with the relevance of course content to the field of study. When a new concept is introduced, instructors should explain the significance of the content. Another strategy is to ask students to use communication tools to introduce themselves and give background information as well as their expectations for the course. Traditional students tend to take courses without questioning why they need it. Second, learner self-concept, assumes that adult learners need to be treated as capable of self-direction. In an online learning environment, open-ended assignments can be provided when practical by allowing adult students to select a topic or project around their own interests. Traditional students tend to need more direction from the instructor. Third, role of learners experience, assumes adult learners have a variety of life experiences which can be a resource for their learning. This assumption can be applied to online learning by using open-ended questions in discussions to allow adult students to share their experiences and learn from each other. Instructors should design assignments that allow students to bring in their experiences or apply what they have learned in class

40 or in life to a particular class or life situation. Traditional students tend to rely on the instructors knowledge and experiences. Fourth, readiness to learn, assumes adult learners are motivated to learn things they need to know in order to cope with real-life problems. In the online environment a course can be changed so it is directed toward applications based on theory rather than theory alone. Case studies and simulated exercises can be used to allow students to either work on their own or complete small group assignments over a period of time. Instructors can ask students to suggest real-life situations they encountered in the past and have the class discuss possible solutions. Traditional students tend to be more subject-oriented and want to complete the course whether the content is related to their goals or not. Fifth, orientation to learning, assumes adult learners are motivated by a sense of self-esteem. In the online environment instructors can set an expectation that in discussions and other class communication students and the instructor will show that they value and respect the input from all students. Instructors should provide positive feedback to students and give students a chance to moderate the discussion forums. Traditional learners tend to be more motivated by how others perceive them. Knowles (1990) stated that when instructors adhere to adult learning principles in online courses, students are more engaged in the learning process, feel positive about the learning experience, learn content, make connections to their past experiences, and gain new perspectives about concepts. Furthermore, adult students tend to be motivated to learn new contents presented and are satisfied with the learning environment when instructors utilize strategies that correlate with adult learning principles.

41 In the same vein, research conducted by Mupinga, Nora, and Yaw (2006) pointed out that instructors should be aware of student learning needs in order to ensure learning success. However, when students are enrolled in an online class it is more difficult for the teacher to recognize these needs creates a challenge in designing an effective learning experience. Mupinga et al. (2006) investigated the learning styles and expectations of students enrolled in an online course. A sample of 131 undergraduate students enrolled in three Web-based sections of a course were chosen and were asked to complete a Myers-Briggs Cognitive Style Inventory (Myers, 1943) personality test. An open-ended question was also asked, What are your needs and expectations as an Internet student? Eighty-seven students responded, representing 66% of the sample. In response to the open-ended question, the top three expectations of these online students included communication with the professor, instructor feedback in a timely manner, and challenging online courses of the same quality as face-to-face courses. In addition, the four top student needs included technical help; flexible and understanding instructors, especially with assignment deadlines; advance course information; and sample assignments or clear instructor expectations. Students who were enrolled in more than one online course expressed a need for the same format to be used in all online courses which would create easier navigation from course to course. The findings in the study revealed that no specific learning styles were predominant for this particular group of online students. The researchers recommended

42 further studies with different groups of online students using personality or learning styles inventories. Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford (2006) presented an article addressing strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. Durrington et al. proposed that when an online course has a high level of interactivity between the teacher and students, and between students, better performance is seen in student learning. Durrington et al. (2006) explained that due to the rapid increase of online courses offered by colleges and universities, there is also an increased need for online instructors. Many instructors are aware of the fact that online education should be interactive in order to be successful, but they are not aware of how to add interactivity to an online course. In order to have good interactivity, Durrington et al. suggested that the learning environment must first be supportive, open, and respectful. The authors discussed several strategies to create a supportive, open, and respectful environment. First, instructors should use a syllabus that is clear with detailed instructions for procedures, expectations, and specific guidelines for assignments. Due dates should also be included to help students manage their time. Second, all course management programs for online delivery should include a discussions area or bulletin board. Instructors can use several techniques with these tools to promote teacher-with-student and student-with-student interactivity. A frequently asked questions (FAQ) area can be created where students have the opportunity to post questions and the instructor post answers. In addition, instructor-mediated discussion topics may be created to increase student interactivity. This online tool can also be used to create student-moderated discussions which allow students to exchange ideas and at

43 the same time learn the process of leading a discussion. Third, Durrington et al. recommended that online instructors inform students of an average response time for replying to email and posting grades at the beginning of the course. This requirement may be specified in the syllabus or by using other communication tools provided in the program. The average response time used by most online programs is 24-48 hours. Fourth, instructors should consider the manner in which they respond to students, or their tone of voice. Since students cannot hear the inflections in the teachers voice or see body language, it is important to use other means of making feelings known and preventing misunderstandings. Use of the students name personalizes communication. The use of emoticons such as ;-) and abbreviations like LOL, for laugh out loud, also set the tone of voice. Fifth, the final strategy presented in this article is using problem-based learning (PBL). PBL is a learner-centered approach in which students are divided into small groups or teams and are assigned a real-world problem to solve. This approach encourages small-group interactivity and problem solving. As previously noted by Durrington et al. (2006), when many faculty decide to teach online for the first time, they are not aware of unique techniques found in the online learning environment. Discussion boards, chat rooms, and videos are just a few of the tools available to teachers that tend to create interactivity among online students. Durrington et al. concluded by reminding instructors that even though the online environment is different from face-to-face instruction, the goal of creating a stimulating, interactive learning environment for students is the same, regardless of the context (p. 193).

44 Creating a stimulating and interactive learning environment is a goal of effective teachers, regardless of the learning context. Researchers have examined the effectiveness of the online context for content areas that have typically been taught in a face-to-face, hands-on context. For instance, Kerr, Rynearson, and Kerr (2004) conducted research to determine the effectiveness of teaching chemistry labs online to secondary students, while at the same time, reducing the cost of lab materials and increasing students proficiency in the use of technology. Budget cuts require public schools to serve an increasing number of students with fewer personnel, materials, and financial resources. Furthermore, in order to meet curriculum requirements, secondary science programs incur the extra expense of lab materials and other physical supplies. Curriculum requirements in every state in the U.S. also stipulate student proficiency in the use of technology. Their research included two studies. The goal of the first study was to determine if there were differences in student achievement between students participating in a traditional hands-on chemistry lab and students instructed by a virtual chemistry lab utilizing Internet resources (eLabs). Two hundred seven high school chemistry students from Belton Independent School District in Texas volunteered to participate in the study. This included a sample of 96 males and 111 females with a median age of 17 years. The ethnicity makeup included 56% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 6% African American, and 12% mixed heritages. Approximately one-third of the student participants were identified as economically disadvantaged and less than 10% were identified as having limited English proficiency.

45 The teachers worked together to create an end-of-the-unit exam to measure student achievement. Both groups of students, hands-on group and virtual lab group, were given the exam as a pre-test. The teachers taught their students for two weeks, one using the hands-on method and the other using the online method. At the end of the twoweek period, both groups of students were given the end-of-the-unit exam as a post-test measure. Pretest scores were subtracted from posttest scores to create unit achievement gain scores. The results from Study 1 indicated there was no significant difference in achievement for the traditional versus the online group of students. Therefore, the online instruction was just as effective as the hands-on instruction and could potentially be costsaving for the institution on such items as textbooks being replaced by online materials, scantrons which were used in the traditional lab for paper-and-pencil assessments, and lab equipment needed in a face-to-face lab. However, it is important to note that the short treatment period (two weeks) could have had an effect on the results. Therefore, caution should be exercised in interpretation. Nonetheless, overall, the students demonstrated an improvement in their technology skills as a result of participation in the online chemistry lab. The second study compared two different groups of students taught by the same teachers; however, both of these groups of students were instructed using hands-on chemistry lab activities. The purpose of the second study was to ensure that the results of the first study occurred due to the different instructional delivery methods and not due to student learning styles or teaching methods. This study consisted of 147 high school

46 chemistry students from Belton Independent School District who volunteered to participate. The sample of 111 males and 136 females had a median age of 17 years. The ethnicity makeup included 56% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 6% African-American, and 12% other heritages. As in the Study 1, approximately one-third of the student participants were identified as economically disadvantaged and less than 10% were identified as having limited English proficiency. The teachers worked together, just as they did for Study 1, to create an end-of-the-unit exam which was administered to both groups of students at the beginning and end of the designated period of study. The results of Study 2 were similar to those of Study 1 with no significant differences in achievement for any of the participants. Therefore, the second study did ensure that the results of the first study came about due to the different instructional delivery methods and not due to student learning style preferences or teaching methods. These results showed that students learned effectively from the online delivery of science materials. Kerr et al. (2004) made several recommendations based on the findings of their research. Since these studies compared two teachers at the same high school, larger studies with more teachers and more students in each of the sample groups are needed. Similar studies should be conducted in districts with more ethnic diversity. Furthermore, examining the use of virtual labs in other sciences and in other disciplines would add to the understanding of the use of technology in education. Klecker (2005) presented a paper on assessing learning online. She stated that the objective of instruction, both face-to-face and online, is to create an environment for

47 student mastery of course learning objectives. According to Klecker, the purpose of assessment in the traditional classroom is to provide feedback to students and assign grades. Klecker believes online assessment can successfully measure a students progress in meeting course objectives if they are constructed with 10 concerns in mind. First, Klecker (2005) argued that instructors should plan online courses with measuring the objectives as a priority. Many times when planning assessment, objectives are an afterthought rather than of primary concern. When planning assessment that directly relates to course objectives, assessment tends to be more relevant for students. Second, instructors should plan assessment based on higher cognitive levels. All instruction addresses the lower cognitive levels of Blooms taxonomy, but Klecker believes that even introductory courses should include some of the higher cognitive levels such as analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. Third, instructors should plan to address ethical issues. Plagiarism and other forms of cheating have always been a concern with online assessment. Klecker wrote that online assessment could be compared to an ethical mine field due to the learning environment being characterized by students completing tasks without the physical oversight of the teacher. She also asserted, however, that new features in the course management programs and instructors own research can provide positive results toward improving the quality of online assessment. Fourth, instructors should include both formative and summative assessments in planning an online course. Klecker explained that formative assessment is used throughout a course to provide feedback on a students progress, such as a midterm exam.

48 Summative assessment usually takes place at the end of the semester when deciding whether the student passes or fails. Fifth, when planning an online course, instructors should consider whether to use criterion- or norm-referenced scoring assessment. When criterion-referenced scoring is used, the students work is compared to a standard that matches the instructors objectives and all students can obtain the set standard. When norm-referenced scoring is used, students scores are compared to the score distribution and only a few students are able to attain the top score. Sixth, test validity should be considered in online course planning. In order for a test to be valid, the test questions must match the course objectives and the instructor must make sure that material that has been covered in class discussions, assignments, and lectures also match the stated objectives. Seventh, Klecker asserted that test reliability should be planned so the instructor can measure what the student has really learned. Questions should be designed for minimal guessing on the students part. The author emphasized, therefore, that true-false items should not be used in assessments because students have a 50/50 chance of guessing the correct answer. Eighth, diversity of learning styles should be considered when planning an online course. Klecker called attention to the fact that students have varied preferences for assessment style. The American Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines for online classes must be integrated into the design of the course, but consideration of learning style differences is important in online assessment.

49 Ninth, online course planning should include a variety of assessment techniques. Klecker pointed out that a variety of strategies for assessment are available in online courseware management programs and add interest to course content. Various tools such as the discussion board and chat room can be used for group presentations and for problem solving discussions. Tenth, Klecker asserted that instructors should provide feedback in a timely manner. Many online tools provide instantaneous feedback following completion of a quiz or test. Immediate feedback is even more important for online students than face-toface students due to the distance factor. Since students cannot physically go to the instructors office or classroom to inquire about test results, it is reassuring for them to receive immediate feedback. General findings of this topic related to student learning styles pointed out that in order to support student learning online, a class should have good interactivity by creating a learning environment that is supportive, open, and respectful. Also, attention should be given to the differences between learning styles of traditional and nontraditional students. It is especially important for teachers to be aware of student learning styles. Instructor teaching practices and characteristics. Even though many studies focus on student characteristics as they relate to success, it is also important to determine success factors as they relate to instructors engaged in online education. Perry and Edwards (2004) completed a study on exemplary, sometimes called exceptional, online educators who are highly effective in the online environment. The researchers determined

50 which instructors should be classified as exemplary by surveying graduate students who had completed their degrees by online distance learning. Students were asked to describe which instructors used methods that best facilitated their learning. The need for more online instructors is expanding rapidly and by examining instructors who have already proven to be successful in this platform, teachers just beginning to work in this format will have a better understanding of how to become not just effective, but exemplary. The method used in this study was narrative inquiry in the form of a survey that was completed online and returned anonymously. The research question was distributed to 64 graduates of the Masters in Health Study, Masters in Nursing, and the Advanced Nurse Practitioner programs from Athabasca University. Participants were given one question that asked the students to present a narrative account of their interaction with an instructor related to a learning moment, rather than focusing on a list of characteristics or adjectives describing the teacher. The response rate was 36%, with a total of 23 students as the final participants. Narrative analysis was the method used to interpret the data. As the researchers organized the responses, three major themes were found in describing exemplary online educators challengers, affirmers, and influencers. Students described the instructors as challengers when the instructor had high expectations of students and challenged them to perform at levels even higher than the students thought possible. Teachers were described as affirmers when they encouraged students, recognized their potential, and treated them with respect. These actions caused students to have more self-confidence and gain selfworth. The final theme, influencers, was illustrated in comments students made

51 concerning the significant influence their instructor had made on them such as, My best learning moments often occurred as I was struggling to grasp a complex concept and the instructors provided clarity through the use of practical examples (p. 6). Exhibiting a strong online presence was another method for influencing the student. One student gave the example, She would send you a little email just out of the blue to let you know you were on track (p. 6). In conclusion, Perry and Edwards (2004) pointed out that online learning is an entirely new way of learning and teaching and likely here to stay. Therefore, additional research should focus on how the instructor can positively influence the learning experience. As one participant commented, Having a good educator can be likened to the experience of having a fine wine. Your senses are stirred but not assaulted leaving you wanting more and recalling the experience with pleasure (p. 8). Smith, Ferguson, and Caris (2001) focused their study on differences between teaching practices in content areas in college courses. The purpose of this study was to examine whether faculty experiences with teaching online were specific to their content areas or representative of the larger experience of teaching over the Internet. The researchers interviewed faculty who had experience teaching both online and face-to-face courses. Twenty-two instructors were interviewed. Initially, four instructors were interviewed by telephone and transcripts from these conversations were used to create a 27 open-ended question survey that was sent by email to the remaining 18 instructors. Based on the results, Smith et al. (2001) surmised that a Web-based online college course is labor-intensive, highly text-based, provides an intellectually challenging

52 environment which brings out deeper thinking on the part of the students, and provides more equality between instructor and student. Teachers also reported that even though there was a feeling of anonymity in the beginning, as the semester continued one-to-one relationships may have been emphasized more in online classes than in the traditional face-to-face classes. Smith et al. concluded that with the rapid growth of online college courses, it is important for the professor to understand the context of online education and to be confident that this teaching environment is capable of the same intellectual and academic reliability as the face-to-face environment. Klein (2004) reported differences found in teaching students online and teaching in a face-to-face environment. She provided some of the findings from her experiences. First, in face-to-face classes Klein found that she did 80% of the talking; however, in her blended or online classes the students speak 80% of the time. Klein attributed this statistic to using a discussion board, student presentation, and chat room activities. Second, she believes that students like lectures, but may not learn much from them. Lectures require little of students; they simply sit and listen. When they do not have lectures, students are more likely to read the text carefully, take practice quizzes, and view instructor PowerPoint lessons. This practice leads students to become more active in mastering the material. Third, many students who do not participate in a face-to-face class will participate in discussions online and may be more likely to ask questions in an online environment. Klein also pointed out that students who are hearing impaired often feel like they are more a part of the class because so much of the communication is written. They are able to take part in discussions and team projects without an interpreter.

53 International students may participate more also because they can take extra time to think about how to word what they will write. Fourth, Klein referred to herself as being a critic of online education before teaching online. She graded papers and tests and then gave feedback only after assignments were submitted. When teaching online she takes on the role of a coach, providing both specific and general encouragement and feedback while students are working on class projects and assignments. Klein summed up her observations by stating that she should have learned these teaching techniques that support the online learner years ago but did not learn them until she started teaching online. Research on the role of learning support in open and distance learning was conducted by Dzakiria (2005). Dzakiria investigated variables from the learners point of view, that is, their experiences and perspectives as they progressed through their courses at the Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). His research focused on the role of learning support in distance learning at UUM. Dzakiria stated that the objectives of this research were to characterize the nature and content of distance learners learning in some detail, to develop an understanding of the barriers and challenges that distance learners encounter and the ways they cope with these problems, to understand the distance learning process, and to demonstrate principles through which distance learning can be empowered and guided by the micro and macro environment surrounding the learners and their lives. A qualitative case study approach was used in order to understand the experience of a small number of students (n = 12) in a distance learning program at UUM. Three

54 different research instruments were used: an interview which served as the primary instrument, supplemented by students journals, and photographs. The one-on-one interviews took place during the 2002 academic year and were the basis of data reported in this paper. The 12 participants included 8 male and 4 female learners. Their ethnic backgrounds included 7 Malay students and 5 Chinese students. All had completed the 12 years of mandatory education in Malaysia and had completed Form 5 (the fifth year of secondary education). Fifty percent of them had some post secondary education or had undergone some vocational training courses and 25% (3) of them had a teaching certificate from a teachers college. All 12 participants had professional careers, including teaching, police, clerical, sales, technical, self-employment, and secretarial work. Due to the maturity of the students, they averaged 8.9 years of work experience. Ninety percent had an immediate family for which to care. Three different research instruments were used: an interview which served as the primary instrument, supplemented by students journals, and photographs. The one-onone interviews took place during the 2002 academic year and were the basis of data reported in this paper. Among the findings from this study was the overwhelming feeling of being alone. Dzakiria ( 2005) pointed out that the educational culture in Malaysia is one of dependence on the instructor. Students are not accustomed to working on their own. The following comments are representative of many interview responses. When I am not able to understand certain terms in the content or not able to work on an assignment, getting immediate help from the instructor is very, very important.

55 Unfortunately that does not happen too often (p. 8). Another student said, I am lost most of the time. I dont really know if I have participated well, or if my contribution to the course is sufficient in the eyes of my instructors.technology lacks a human or personal touch.The minute you post questions through email, and dont get a reply 5 minutes, 15 minutes, an hour or more, youll feel frustrated (p. 6). Dzakiria (2005) pointed out that many UUM distance education teachers did not have any distance learning training or experience with developing course materials. Furthermore, instructors had not experienced being a student in a distance learning environment and seemed to have very little sympathy for the students. Dzakiria concluded from his research that the most significant challenge UUM faces is to ensure that learning support in distance education is addressed so that both students and instructors gain a better distance learning experience. Support for faculty teaching in the online environment as compared to faculty teaching on campus was examined. Jones (2005) conducted a study comparing conventional and distance education experiences of selected instructors. The purpose of this research was to investigate the differences and challenges that affect faculty who teach online as compared to those who teach on campus. Three issues of interest were instruction, institutional service, and professional development. Four faculty members who had more than five years teaching experience in each type of environment (on-campus and online) were chosen for the study. Professional characteristics of the participants were (a) one male whose area of expertise was Educational Psychology with a total of 35 years of experience at the university level, (b)

56 one male in the Counseling Psychology area of expertise with a total of 16 years experience at the community college level, (c) one female whose area of expertise was Cognitive Psychology with a total of 18 years experience at the university level, and (d) one female with expertise in Educational Administration with a total of 13 years experience at the university level. A long interview was used to obtain the faculty members comments and observations. A summary of how they were able to fill their role in both the on-campus and online education institutions was recorded. Institutional service was described as well-structured and easily navigated in the conventional institution while it was described as not clearly defined in the distance education institution. Instruction was summarized as highly systematized and resource rich in the conventional institution while in the distance education institution instruction was described as having clear purpose but with more ad hoc decision-making. When asked about professional development the conventional institution was described as having much control with a rich history. Professional development in the distance education institution was summarized as being concerned for resources and institutional support. One of the greatest areas of concern for teaching in an online program was professional development. Being detached from the campus environment presented fewer opportunities for research projects, serving on committees, and experiencing the camaraderie of other instructors. All faculty members need strong support from their institutions to publish and present their research findings at conferences. From the experiences and observations made by these four instructors, Jones recommended that institutions that offer both traditional and distance education tracks consider a

57 restructuring of the role of the distance education professor. Jones (2005) argued that many of the changes are considerable but could be implemented if the organizations administration would expand the institutional mission statement and address how the college would address the anxiety about the three areas of concern for those who have chosen to pursue their professional goals in a nontraditional learning environment. Bowman (2001) investigated interaction in the online classroom and discussed methods instructors can use to ensure student learning through discussion. She pointed out that just as teachers lead their students through discussions in a face-to-face classroom, they should use the same technique in an online environment. Furthermore, Bowman argued that discussions in the online classroom can be even more engaging because each student has an equal amount of time to make their comments and also have more time to reflect on issues before responding. First time online students may not feel comfortable discussing topics with an instructor and classmates that they cannot see. Bowman (2001) suggested pairing students during the first lesson of the class to practice communicating with one another or introducing their partner to the rest of the class before posting a topic for class discussion. The role of the teacher should be to guide discussions, clarify points, further questioning to encourage deeper reflection, and, if needed, intervene to keep the discussion on track. Also, the teacher should summarize the learning that has taken place at the end of a discussion. Strategies for discussions may include brainstorming activities, opinion polling, debates, synchronous meetings, guest speakers, or having the students moderate a discussion. Bowman explained that one of the many advantages of online

58 discussions over face-to-face discussions is that the competitive edge is removed online. Students do not need to compete for floor time to voice their opinions. Every student has equal time to add comments to the discussion. This topic reviewed the learning styles and characteristics of students in the online environment as well as teaching practices and characteristics of online instructors. Some of the general findings pointed out that in order to support student learning online, an instructor should promote a high level of interactivity by creating a learning environment that is supportive, open, and respectful. Several studies concentrated on the learning styles of older adults which is important because of the growing numbers of these nontraditional students enrolling in online education programs. An additional area of research that is valuable in determining how to plan successful online learning programs is to examine the differences in face-to-face and online learning. Differences in Face-to-Face and Online Learning Several research studies have been conducted investigating the differences between face-to-face and online education. Krawiec, Salter, and Kay (2005) conducted a study at the University of Waterloo using a bacteriology course taught both in a conventional format and a hybrid format with an emphasis on online resources. The conventional course format is one taught in the traditional instructor-led, face-to-face classroom. The hybrid course format is one that includes both face-to-face and online instruction. Students do not meet on a regular basis in the classroom, possibly meeting only to take exams, and complete assignments and other activities using the Internet. The

59 purpose of this study was to examine differences in student performance when comparing the different platforms. Participants included 34 students in the conventional course and 30 students in the hybrid course. Statistical data was collected from 10 quizzes given throughout the semester and a comprehensive exam administered at the end of the term. A student assessment of teaching was also given using a traditional evaluation form. The data was analyzed and no significant statistical difference of student performance was found. However, there were some differences in the assessment of teaching. Students in the hybrid class were less positive than the traditional class about following the amount of work for credit received, interactions with the instructor, the amount of learning in the course, and recommending this course to others. The researchers concluded that teaching a hybrid class is more time intensive than teaching a face-to-face class, in part, due to the time required for feedback of class discussions. Furthermore, email communication should be initiated by the instructor and timely responses given to students, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Additional time may also be required for writing highly detailed, clearly stated directions which are needed to compensate for lack of the teachers physical presence. Another study comparing traditional and online performance was conducted by Elvers, Polzella, and Graetz (2003). This study examined procrastination by investigating the relationship between tardy behavior and exam performance in both a traditional and an online section of an introductory psychology class offered at a university. Twenty-five students, 17 women and 8 men, were students in the traditional class. Twenty-two students, 14 women and 8 men, were students in the online class. The mean

60 age for both classes was 18.6 years with a range of 18 to 21 years. All students volunteered to participate. The same instructor taught both the traditional and online course sections. All students met together with the instructor on the first day of class for the course orientation. Upon completion of the first day of class, students were randomly assigned to either the traditional or online course section. The online students had access to a course that contained audio lectures, graphics, and videos. The class Website was password protected and a Web server kept a log of when students accessed the site. The students in the traditional course section met twice a week for 75 minutes and also had access to the class Website. Elvers et al. (2003) computed a measure of procrastination for each student based on the first date of access for each Web page on the class Website. Next, the researchers calculated the difference between the date of the first access and the date of the exam that contained the material covered on that page. The mean of these values was calculated for each student. Procrastination measure values near zero indicated much procrastination because there was little time between the test and when the material was accessed. Larger values indicated less procrastination. After tracking how often each student accessed the class links, researchers were able to calculate a measure of procrastination based on dates of access. During the semester, all students met together on campus in the same room to take five multiple-choice exams. Four of the exams were non-comprehensive and consisted of approximately 76 questions. The fifth and final exam was comprehensive

61 and consisted of 101 questions. After completing the final exam, students answered an end-of-semester attitude questionnaire about the course. The results of this study did not indicate a difference in procrastination behaviors when comparing the two groups. Interestingly, procrastination was a good predictor of performance for each of the five tests for the online students, but not a good predictor of performance for any of the tests for the lecture students. Elvers et al. (2003) explained that this result may indicate that although lecture students may delay studying for a test, attendance in class lectures twice a week every week may offset their procrastination. Procrastinators in the online class tended to perform poorly and that could have caused dissatisfaction with the course. However, since the course was taught online, other variables, such as being uncomfortable in the online environment, could have been the reason for this finding. Elvers et al. explained that reducing or eliminating procrastination may improve student performance and satisfaction in online classes. Dutton, Dutton, and Perry (2002) conducted a study to determine if online student characteristics differ from lecture student characteristics at the post-secondary level. There were two objectives for this project. First, the researchers examined external characteristics of students that potentially led them to enroll in online classes. Second, they investigated factors that affected the performance of online and lecture students in order to examine similarities and differences between the two groups. Data were collected from a survey that asked for information divided into two categories. The first category consisted of external or observable characteristics such as gender, age, employment status, family commitment, computer literacy, and commute

62 distance. The second category consisted of student preferences which were not as obvious but were determined from questions such as the need for face-to-face interaction with an instructor and other students, and the way they characterized their own learning styles. Findings from this study showed several differences between online and lecture students. Online students tended to be older, more likely to be lifelong learners, have job and/or childcare responsibilities, longer commutes to campus, and more experienced with computers. Factors that were more important to lecture students were contact with instructors and fellow students, hearing a lecture in person, and easy access to campus advisors. Online students made significantly higher exam grades than did the lecture students. Additionally, course grades for online students were higher than lecture students, but not significantly. All students involved in this study were enrolled in an information systems program so they had more technical training and computer experience than many students taking online courses in other disciplines. Dutton et al. (2002) recommended more research of the same type be conducted in other subject areas. Research comparing students in face-to-face course delivery and online course delivery yielded mixed results. That is, Krawiec et al. (2005) found no significant difference in student achievement between the two groups. Furthermore, Elvers et al. (2003) found no significant difference in procrastination behaviors between the two groups. However, these researchers found procrastination affected student achievement for online students, but not face-to-face students. On the other hand, Dutton et al. (2002)

63 found that online students made significantly higher exam grades than face-to-face students. Student Success in Online Programs As previously noted, there is concern for the higher dropout or failure rate among online students when compared to face-to-face students. This concern has warranted the need for research related to student success in online programs. Wojciechowski and Palmer (2005) investigated individual student characteristics to ascertain if there are predictors of success in online courses. The specific purpose of this study was to determine if selected student characteristics could be related to students who had successfully completed the course. If certain characteristics can be identified with online success then teachers, advisors, and admissions personnel will be better equipped to suggest or discourage a student from registering for an online course. Participants included 179 college students taking an online business course offered through a small, rural community college in western Michigan. The majority of the students (69.3%) were female and the average age of the participants was 25 years old. Students were enrolled in this course from fall semester 2000 through summer semester 2003, a total of nine different semesters. The same instructor using the same textbook offered all courses, thereby providing instructional consistency across the nine semesters. Thirteen characteristics were studied to determine their relationship to student grades including (a) gender; (b) age; (c) previous courses completed online; (d) ACT English Scores; (e) ACT Reading Scores; (f) ACT Composite Scores; (g) Assessment of

64 Skills for Successful Entry and Transfer (ASSET) Reading Scores; (h) ASSET Writing Scores; (i) grade point average (GPA); (j) previous withdrawal record; (k) semester format, 16- versus 8-week; (l) student status, full- versus part-time; and (m) attendance at an orientation session. All but one of these student characteristics were extracted from a main campus database which contained personal data collected from students as they initially applied for admission. Attendance at an orientation session was the only variable not extracted from the database; this variable was identified from the instructors grade book. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data for individuals within two groups: all students, and those students receiving a C or better, defined as successful course completion for purposes of this study. The descriptive analysis included calculation of simple means and frequency distributions. At the inferential level, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (Pearson r) were used to determine any statistically significant relationships between each selected independent variable and the grade, the dependent variable, obtained in the online course. Finally, a linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the percentage of variance accounted for in the grade a student received using various independent variables. The results of this research found that six of the independent variables were statistically significant in predicting student success and accounted for about 72% of the variability in course grades. The strongest connection was grade point average. These results were true for both the overall student population as well as within the successful student group. The second strongest statistically significant factor found by the

65 researchers was that students who attended an orientation session for the class tended to perform better in the course. Wojciechowski and Palmer (2005) stated that previous research established that orientation sessions help create a sense of connection to the instructor and other classmates as well as a commitment to the course. The third strongest statistically significant finding was related to the number of previous withdrawals from other classes. This variable showed a negative correlation with course grades for both the general population and the successful student population. In other words, students with fewer previous course withdrawals had higher grades in the online course. Other variables also showed positive correlations. There was a positive statistically significant relationship between the number of previous online courses taken and the grade received in the current business course. This finding revealed that the more previous online courses a student had completed, the better the grade the student received in subsequent online courses. This study indicated that the first time students enroll in an online course, they may lack the independence and time management skills needed to succeed but learn from this experience and show improvement in subsequent courses. Another variable pair that showed a statistically positive relationship was the age of the student and course grade. Participants in this study ranged in age from 16 years to 52 years of age. The average age of the online student in this study was 25 years old with a range from under 18 to over 50. Results indicated that the older the student, the higher the grade. This finding was true for both the overall population and those receiving a C or above. Wojciechowski and Palmer (2005) pointed out that student data is readily available for use in advising students with their course selections. Prerequisites and

66 placement tests are already being used to help ensure student success rates. Perhaps a standardized set of guidelines could be created to enhance student success rates in online learning. In the same vein, Kerr, Rynearson, and Kerr (2003) conducted a study to determine if a different set of learning styles and/or student characteristics are more important for online learning than the factors currently being used to predict student success in the traditional classroom. Participants consisted of 188 ethnically diverse, volunteer students made up of 126 undergraduate and 62 graduate students with gender divided between 38 males and 150 females. The average age was 31 years. Ninety-five percent reported having Internet access at home. Six self-report surveys were taken by 62 of the participants completing the surveys online and 122 participants completed the surveys with traditional paper and pencil. Survey instructions and questions were presented the same for both online and traditional forms. Issues included in the survey were computer literacy, technology usage/experience, communication skills, readiness, persistence, self-esteem, learning styles, and lifestyle. Pearson product-moment correlations were computed giving the following statistical results; first, self-esteem and comprehension strategy were positively related to learning success; second, intrinsic motivation and locus of control were not significantly related to learning success; third, learning styles were not systematically related to learning success; and fourth, both age and intrinsic motivation had a small significant positive correlation to learning success.

67 The authors noted that this study had some limitations. Since the data collected for this study was self-report, there is a possibility that some of the information was biased. There was no explanation of how the variables were measured and, therefore, presented a possible flaw in the results. Schulman and Sims (1999) conducted a study to compare the success rates of learning in an online format versus an in-class format. Their study is an extension of another study completed by Schutte (1997), who tested an online class and an on-campus class taking the same statistics course from the same instructor. The results of Schuttes study showed that online students outscored the on-campus students by an average of 20%. Schulman and Sims (1999) research examined pre- and post-test scores of students enrolled in online and in-class sections of the same course taught by the same instructors over a variety of disciplines. Participants of the study were students enrolled in five different undergraduate online courses during the Fall semester 1997. These students were compared with students enrolled in traditional in-class courses taught by the same instructors. Student participation was voluntary. Forty students were enrolled in the online courses and 59 students were enrolled in the in-class courses during the testing period. Students were given a pretest to measure their level of knowledge prior to the start of the course. Pre-test formats differed by instructor, but were scored on a 100-point scale. The average pre-test score for online students was 40.70 and the average pre-test score for the in-class students was 27.64. Instructors administered posttests to measure

68 the knowledge students had at the end of the course. The post-tests were formatted similar to the pre-tests and scored on a 100-point scale. The average post-test score for online students was 77.80 and the average post-test score for in-class students was 77.58. The study demonstrated that the learning of online students was equal to the learning of the in-class students for this sample. The group of students who self-selected the online classes scored higher on the pretests than the in-class students, which may have indicated those students may have been better prepared for the course material. However, there was no significant difference between the groups on the post-test. A study on student retention in online courses conducted by Moore, Bartkovich, Fetzner, and Ison (2002) approached the question of student success from a different perspective from many other research projects. Rather than focusing on factors that assist students in online success, they surveyed students who had received a grade of W or F to learn more about why they were not succeeding. Data was collected from existing student records and a custom-designed student survey. Information taken from student records consisted of data for the past 3 years for grades in online courses, course subject, age, gender, ethnicity, full-time/part-time status, college entry status, cumulative credits earned, native language, and academic risk indicator. The online student sample profile was comprised of 67.6% female and 32.4% male. Student ethnicity included 77.5% White, 14.1% Black, 4.2% Hispanic, 2.8% Asian, and 1.4% unknown. Ages ranged on a scale from under 20 to 60 and over with the largest percentage (42.9%) being in the 20-24 range of age. Since the dataset was so large more than 16,000 registrations it was decided to use groups where the difference

69 between online and traditional course success, a grade of C or better, was at least 10 percentage points. The custom-designed survey addressed similar issues that are usually found when surveying on-campus students who have received W or F grades. These questions were related to personal problems, financial problems, changes in work schedule, and teacher-related concerns. The survey was then reviewed and modified by distance education faculty and staff. A pencil-and-paper version of the survey was mailed to the 500 students who met the sample selection criteria. The written form also included a URL of a Website for those who preferred to complete the survey online. Two weeks after the surveys were mailed, telephone calls were made to students who had not responded and they were asked to take part in a phone version of the survey. Only 71 useable survey responses were received from the original sample of 500. General findings showed that students satisfaction with the online program at the point of drop out was good, but they were dissatisfied with their own performance. Students believed they were adequately prepared for the technical skills needed, but were not prepared for the nature of the online environment stating that it was too unstructured. The top reason given (63%) for withdrawing from or not successfully completing the online course was that the students got behind in the work and could not catch up. Female students listed not being able to balance study and other responsibilities while male students cited a lack of motivation. First-time online students said they had problems with course delivery and online format, but experienced online students gave academic issues and personal problems as reasons for not succeeding. Computer access

70 was noted as not at all important by 91% of White students. Computer access was noted as very important by 56% of Black students. The overall findings from this study present some factors that appear to be impediments to student success in the online learning environment including: carrying a full-time course load, lack of experience in higher education in general, lack of experience with online courses, busy lives outside of school, lack of maturity, lack of easy access to computers, and lack of motivation. A study by Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) was conducted to determine what factors motivate adult online learners at a Southern California university complex. Surveys and interviews were used to research online students expectations related to careers and personal growth, how employer reimbursement of education costs affected motivation, who influenced the students to attend school, and why students chose this university over others in the area. The researchers based their study on the belief that a high level of student motivation has a positive impact on the learning process as presented in a paper by Bruno (2001). Two models were used. The first is the Social Learning Theory attributed to Bandura (1977) which states that people base their own behavior on the observation of others behavior. The second model is the Motivation-Hygiene Theory presented by Herzberg (1959) which states that there are internal and external satisfiers that drive personal motivation. There were 131 students, all working adults, who were available to participate in the survey and from that number 25 students were randomly chosen to take part in semi-

71 structured 15-30 minute interviews. Questions that were included in the survey form measured recognition of respect from others, sense of achievement, desire for increased salary, joy of learning, desire for new career, self-improvement, obtaining a degree, family opinion, meeting new people, usefulness of information, and job promotions. The survey asked students to rank their motivators from strongest to weakest by using two methods. The first method used cards in a comparative Q-sort technique for rankordering the learning motivators. Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) pointed out that they hoped using this method would help students think more about their responses because they had to physically put them in order. If provided with just a list of motivators, the pre-determined ranking on the list might have influenced students to rank the motivators in a similar order. After arranging the cards in order of highest motivator to lowest, students were asked to write them on a paper and pencil survey with an indication of the students level of agreement with each of their motivator statements and then to check their statements on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). The second method consisted of interviews with open-ended questions in hopes of gaining more insight into adult learners motivations. Students were asked to describe their expectations upon graduation promotion, career change, personal fulfillment. They were also questioned about the reasons for choosing their university over other institutions, and how an employers reimbursement of education costs affected their motivation to enroll in college courses. Survey findings indicated that students ranked self-improvement (27.0%) as the highest motivator followed by sense of achievement (20.6%). Intermediate motivators

72 were obtaining a degree and increased earnings. The weakest motivators were job promotion, usefulness of information, a new career, recognition/respect, joy of learning, family opinion, and meeting people. The interview results matched the outcome of the survey results. For instance, results of the open-ended questions revealed that adult students appreciated instructors that used adult teaching methods and allowed them to have some control of the learning environment. Students stated that they appreciated being treated as adults and valued the instructors real-world experience. Students especially appreciated having instructors or administrators who would help them when they had time-related problems. Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) recommended that instructors remain aware of adult learners motivators and that instructors must identify, nurture and capitalize upon student motivation to attract and retain students (p. 7). Some research has focused on the success of online students in specific areas of discipline. For instance, Carpenter, Brown, and Hickman (2004) researched the influences of online delivery on developmental writing outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine whether online delivery could produce the same student success rates as face-to-face delivery in developmental writing courses. Participants included 256 community college students who self-selected the online version of the developmental writing course. The participant profile indicated that of the 256 students taking online writing, 117 (33.3%) were over the age of 25, 68.2% were female, 33.3% were full-time students, and 26.7% were minorities. The online students also had higher reading and writing placement scores than traditional students in face-to-face sections at the same

73 institution. In summary, the students who self-selected for online courses tended to be older, female, White, and part-time, with higher reading and writing placement scores. The study was conducted over a four-year period and data was retrieved from student records. Successful students were defined as those who completed the course with a grade of 2.5 or higher. Carpenter et al. (2004) found the withdrawal rate to be higher in online sections than in face-to-face sections. The authors found reading and writing level scores, determined by Computerized Placement Tests, to be a predictor of success. Also, fulltime students were more likely to complete an online course. Overall, students who completed online courses tended to be as successful as students who completed the faceto-face classes. The authors recommended that this research be used as a baseline to create a study for succeeding years to see if any trends can be identified. Conclusion Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in demand for the availability of various types of flexible education in colleges and universities. This demand is due, in large part, by the growing numbers of nontraditional adult students realizing the need for a college degree in order to become more successful in their chosen careers. In meeting the needs of these students, higher education institutions are offering evening and weekend classes, accelerated programs, telecourses (public broadcast or videotape), online courses, and other forms of distance education. This literature review has focused on research related to online education and factors related to the success of online students. Notable findings have been organized under five topics.

74 The first topic reviewed a history of online education. With the availability of the Internet and faster access to information, online education has grown exponentially in the past 10 years. The growth of available courses and programs offered online has provided many people with a new incentive to return to higher education to complete or begin a college degree program. The second topic included studies related to planning and assessing online programs. Findings in this area concluded that online programs are more than online instruction and learning. Other educational processes must be made available as well. Other programs such as student services, training, and support need to be taken into consideration. Stallings (2002) argued, When educational institutions include in their planning the perspectives of the student, the institution, and regulatory organizations, the result should be stronger policies and mission statements, which fully integrate assessment strategies, which, in turn, provide a solid basis for measuring progress (p. 8). The third topic included studies related to best practices in teaching and learning. Some of the general findings pointed out that in order to support student learning online, a class should have good interactivity by creating a learning environment that is supportive, open, and respectful. Creating learning communities by using tools such as the discussion board were also recommended. Several studies concentrated on the learning styles of adults which is important because of the growing numbers of these nontraditional students enrolling in online education programs. Some of the characteristics in adult learning styles that differ from younger students are: adults are more self-directed, they bring more life experiences and knowledge to the classroom,

75 there is a higher level of interest in learning, and there is a higher level of motivation to learn. The fourth topic included studies related to the comparison of online versus faceto-face teaching and learning. In general, the comparisons showed that students performed equally well in the online environment as in the traditional classroom setting. In one case, online students had higher scores on a pre-test than in-class students, but there was no significant difference on the post-test scores. The researchers discussed that greater learning did not take place with the online group of students, but they may have been better prepared for the course material. The fifth topic examined studies related to student success in online programs. Various studies were reviewed, with each one examining different sets of factors and their relationship to student success. Although some of these factors overlapped, the primary factors found to be related to student success were: grade point average, entrance exam and other standardized test scores, intrinsic motivation, age older students generally performed better, computer literacy, and adequate student support services. One study approached the question of student success from a different perspective by surveying students to investigate why they were not succeeding. The overall findings from this study showed that factors directly related to not succeeding were: carrying a full-time course load, lack of experience in higher education in general, lack of experience with online courses, busy lives outside of school, lack of maturity, and lack of easy access to computers.

76 Even though significant findings have been noted in this review of literature, there are also flaws that should be considered. In one study, Mupinga et al. (2006) investigated the learning styles and expectations of 131 undergraduate students enrolled in an online course. However, students ages are not reported. An open-ended question was asked, What are your needs and expectations as an Internet student? Since ages of the students are unknown, we cannot know whether the needs and expectations were the same for traditional students as for the nontraditional students or if nontraditional students were included in the research. In another study, Kerr et al. (2004) conducted research to determine the effectiveness of teaching chemistry labs online to secondary students. Their research included two studies to examine the success rates of two chemistry labs one face-to-face and one online. Even though the researchers concluded that the results showed that students learned effectively from the online delivery of science materials, each study was only conducted for a two-week period. The short treatment period could have had an effect on the results, therefore, caution should be exercised in interpretation. Another study comparing traditional and online performance was conducted by Elvers et al. (2003). This study examined procrastination by investigating the relationship between tardy behavior and exam performance in both a traditional and an online section of a psychology course offered at a university. A total of 47 students participated in the study. The age range for all participants was from 18 to 21 years. Elvers et al. reported that eliminating tardiness and procrastination may improve student performance. Since all participants were 18 to 21 years of age, it could not be determined if nontraditional students performance would have been different from the traditional students

77 performance. Kerr et al. (2003) conducted a study to determine if a different set of learning styles and/or student characteristics are more important for online learning than the factors currently being used to predict student success in the traditional classroom. Although results were reported, the researchers did not explain how the variables were measured and, therefore, presented a possible error in the results. Since the data collected for this study was self-report, there is a possibility that some of the information was biased. The majority of research that has been conducted on student success in online education has made comparisons between online students and face-to-face students. Other research has either examined a single group of online students or compared one online class with a second online class consisting of no particular age group. However, this study will compare the differences between two groups of online students traditional and nontraditional. This research will specifically use age as the variable to determine whether a student is in the traditional (24 years of age or less) or nontraditional (25 years of age or more) group. Nasseh (1999) reported that enrollment of nontraditional students is increasing at a faster rate than traditional students in online education. The success of this growing number of older adult students is directly linked to the rate of retention in our online courses and, therefore, an important topic for research.

78

CHAPTER 3 METHODS Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students participating in online courses and to examine factors that may predict success in the online environment. For instance, do factors such as age, marital status, number of children, employment status, gender, ethnicity, computer skills level, college entrance exam scores, previous online learning experience, motivation for college enrollment, and motivation for online enrollment make a difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students in online courses. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed: 1. Is there a difference in the academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses? 2. Is there a relationship between demographic variables of students and above average performance as measured by final course grades? 3. Is there a relationship between student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades?

79 Variables The dependent variable for this study was the success rate of online students as measured by final semester grades. The independent variables were age (18-24 years-old or 25-years-old and older), marital status (married or single), family obligations (care for children and/or parents), employment status (full-time or part-time), gender (male or female), ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Indian), college entrance exam scores (Health Occupations Basic Entrance Test), computer skills level (number of years, Internet use, software use), previous online learning experience (experience taking online or blended courses), motivation for college enrollment (job promotion, career change, personal goal), and motivation for online enrollment (convenience, distance, job/schedule conflicts). Research Subjects The sample group was comprised of students enrolled in online courses at a small, private college located in the mid-south. The College is a specialized institution which focuses on the preparation of healthcare practitioners, offering baccalaureate degrees in nursing (BSN) and health sciences (BHS). The health sciences degree offers majors in respiratory care, diagnostic medical sonography, medical radiography, nuclear medicine, radiation therapy, and health care management. Courses at the institution are offered in face-to-face, blended, and online formats. Students typically enroll in general education courses during the first two years of attendance and complete courses specializing in their chosen major during the remaining two years of study. A convenience sample of 133 subjects was created from participants survey submissions. Proportional allocation was

80 based on the two subpopulations, traditional and nontraditional students. The current ethnicity of the student body consists of 64.76% Caucasian, 28.57% African American, 12% Indian, 2.26% Asian, and .83% Hispanic. Students range in age from 15 to 57 years of age, and gender is divided between 88.81% females and 11.19% males. However, students under the age of 18 years were excluded from this study. The participants consisted of two groups, traditional students and nontraditional students. Instrumentation Motivation survey. The motivation instrument had two parts. Part 1 was made up of questions related to student demographics and information gathered from student academic records. Subjects were surveyed concerning age, marital status, number of children, employment status, gender, ethnicity, computer skills level, and previous online learning experience. A sample question from Part 1, related to computer skills level was asked: Which of the following best describes your computer experience? Answer choices were: none, only email and/or Internet browsing, experience with word processing and/or spreadsheet applications, experience with various software applications plus Web page development, experience with all of the above plus some programming, and, extensive programming experience. Subjects used the mouse to click on a check box next to their answer choice. Part 2 of the survey consisted of questions designed to rate motivation level. Questions for the second part of the instrument were adapted from a survey based on Herzbergs (1959) Motivation-Hygiene Theory, which was utilized in a study by CosmanRoss and Hiatt-Michael (2005). Examples of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivators

81 selected for their survey included recognition, sense of achievement, self-improvement, obtaining a degree, increased salary, usefulness of information, and job promotions. In order to provide validity and reliability for the instrument, the survey and interview questions were reviewed prior to administration by a panel of experts that consisted of a center director from the university, two adjunct instructors teaching at the university, and a retired education specialist. In addition, a pilot survey was also administered to 5 students not currently enrolled in courses. Interview questions were open-ended and their purpose was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the motivators of the students. Motivators used for the current study were of the same type as those used in the CosmanRoss and Hiatt-Michael research. Students used a Likert scale to rate the motivators ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Sample questions related to student motivation for the current study were: 1) Recognition/respect of others is a motivator for me to learn, 2) Increased earning power is a motivator for me to learn, and 3) Obtaining a degree is a motivator for me to learn. Academic records. College entrance exam scores were obtained from the Registrars office and entered in the survey. The Health Occupations Basic Entrance Test (HOBET) is the entrance exam required for all new students at the college, both incoming freshmen and transfer students. The HOBET Test measures the reading, mathematics, and writing skills that a high school graduate should possess upon entry into higher education. The HOBET provides an objective measurement of students critical reading ability and compares their ability against the level of mastery required for success in college. Also, the HOBET evaluates students level of success with basic

82 mathematics, the math necessary to function, not only in academic courses, but also in clinical practice following college (What is HOBET?, n.d.). This entrance exam is widely recommended and used by colleges preparing students for the healthcare profession. Procedures Before the study began, Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from both Union University and the institution participating in the study. Data for this study was collected by two methods. First, existing data was utilized that was available in the students files housed in the registrars office. Students final course grades and HOBET entrance exams were extracted from the colleges database. Second, participants were asked to complete a survey measuring motivation for online learning and demographic information. Both surveys were administered in the Blackboard online format of the course in which the participants were currently enrolled. Following the initial distribution of the surveys, two follow-up reminders were emailed at two-week intervals in order to encourage responses from participants. Online faculty were informed of the research via an individual face-to-face meeting and invited to have their classes participate. Faculty who agreed to allow their students the opportunity to participate signed an informed statement of consent. Students involved in the study were drawn from sections of 15 different online courses which included general education, nursing, and health sciences subjects. Participants were informed of the study through an email message and were provided an informed consent letter online through Blackboard associated with their online course explaining the procedures of the study. Participation was on a voluntary basis. Participants had the right

83 to withdraw consent and discontinue participation in the study at any time without prejudice to present or future campus activities. There was no cost to participants for any part of the study. In order to insure anonymity when collecting grades and other information from the registrars records, a research assistant who was a Library Specialist and full time employee at the college where the study took place, was hired. As a full time employee of the college, the research assistant was required to complete training in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Acts of 1974 (FERPA) on an annual basis in the interest of human subjects protection. The researcher questioned the research assistant to ensure understanding. The research assistant transferred all academic record data to a spreadsheet which contained no student names. However, the student identification numbers remained on the spreadsheet for the purpose of pairing student information to the end-of-course grade. Students completed the electronic survey during the semester in which they were taking the online course. The researcher recorded survey information aligned with student academic data according to student identification number. Final semester grades of specific courses were recorded on the spreadsheet by the research assistant at the completion of the course to provide student performance determination. Treatment of Data The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 13.0 was used to analyze the data in order to answer the three research questions. Question 1. An independent-samples t test was used to determine if there was a difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students. Success rate

84 served as the dependent variable. The independent variable was the type of student, traditional or nontraditional. Question 2. Multiple regression analyses were utilized to determine if any of the demographic variables can predict the level of success for traditional or nontraditional students. Student success served as the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, marital status, family obligations, employment status, gender, ethnicity, college entrance exam scores, computer skills level, and previous online learning experience. Question 3. Multiple regression analyses were utilized to determine if any of the motivation variables could predict the level of success for traditional and nontraditional students. Success rate served as the dependent variable. Independent variables included motivation for college enrollment and motivation for online enrollment. Educational Implications It is crucial for higher education institutions to offer opportunities for lifelong learning through asynchronous education by using Web-based resources and delivery. Nasseh (1999) noted that in the 21st century the prosperity of every nation is dependent on its ability to implement needed changes in educational systems in order to provide quality educational opportunities for citizens independent from time, place, and resources. If educators can determine factors that predict whether a student will succeed or fail in either online or traditional courses, steps may be taken to help those students who are at risk. Moreover, online education is a relatively new field in higher education.

85 Educators must acquire a deep knowledge base in effective delivery of online education in order to build a strong foundation for the future of this method of education. Additional studies are needed to determine the most effective methods to increase students likelihood for retention and success. This research study focused on the comparison of success between two groups of online students, one group consisting of traditional students and a second group made up of nontraditional students. Typically, nontraditional students return to college with greater responsibilities and seemingly less time for studies than traditional students. At the same time, they are older and likely more mature. Are these factors among those that affect their ability to succeed? The results of the comparison between these two groups of students were determined in order to help answer this question. If certain characteristics could be identified that establish a link between success or failure, these findings will help student advisors and online instructors identify those students who are most at risk for success in online courses. Once a student has been identified as an at risk student, steps can be taken to prevent failure in the online environment or it may be recommended that the student should enroll in traditional faceto-face courses to ensure success. It has generally been acknowledged that retention in online courses is at a lower level than face-to-face courses. Taking these steps may help improve retention in online courses either by changing teaching practices or preventing at risk students from enrolling in online courses.

86 Online learning is not only the fastest growing segment in the educational marketplace, but also one of the newest trends in lifelong education. Therefore, this topic warrants extended research.

87

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter first describes the available demographic data for the students who participated in the study. Then data are presented which address the three research questions specified in this dissertation: 1. Is there a difference in the academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses? 2. Is there a relationship between demographic variables of students and above average performance as measured by final course grades? 3. Is there a relationship between student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades? A two-part electronic survey was administered in a Blackboard online format to students enrolled in online sections of general studies, allied health, and nursing courses. As previously described under methods, the instrument had two parts. Part 1 was made up of questions related to student demographics and information gathered from student academic records. Part 2 of the survey consisted of questions designed to rate motivation level. Students used a Likert scale to rate the motivators ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Participants were informed of the study and were provided a letter explaining the online procedures.

Participant Demographics

88 The sample group was comprised of students enrolled in online courses at a small, private college located in the mid-south. The College is a specialized institution which focuses on the preparation of healthcare practitioners, offering baccalaureate degrees in nursing (BSN) and health sciences (BHS). The health sciences degree offers majors in respiratory care, diagnostic medical sonography, medical radiography, nuclear medicine, radiation therapy, and health care management. Courses at the institution are offered in face-to-face, blended, and online formats. Students typically enroll in general education courses during the first two years of attendance and complete courses specializing in their chosen major during the remaining two years of study. A convenience sample of 133 subjects was created from participants survey submissions. This sample represented a 48% response rate from 279 surveys distributed in Blackboard. The demographics of the sample were representative of the total student body enrolled at the college. Results indicated a balanced sub-group of traditional and nontraditional students. It should be noted that even though 91% of the participants were female compared to only 9% male, this ratio is in keeping with the total student enrollment. Although all programs are open to both male and female students a majority of the students are female. Most of the participants are employed in some capacity, whether full-time or part-time, and 62.4% have previous online course experience. Table 1 shows details of participant demographics.

89 Table 1 Participant Demographics

Variable

Frequency

Percent

Age 18-24 25-30 31-39 40-49 50 and over Gender Male Female Ethnicity African American Asian Caucasian Hispanic 46 5 80 2 34.6 3.8 60.2 1.4 12 121 9.0 91.0 54 39 23 16 1 40.6 29.3 17.3 12.0 0.8

90 Table 1 (continued) Participant Demographics

Variable

Frequency

Percent

Marital Status Single Married Divorced Number of Children None One Two Three Four or more Employment Full-time Part-time Not Employed 46 69 18 34.6 51.9 13.5 77 15 25 13 3 57.9 11.3 18.8 9.8 2.1 76 44 13 57.1 33.1 9.8

91 Table 1 (continued) Participant Demographics

Variable

Frequency

Percent

Computer Experience Beginner Intermediate Advanced Online Experience First Online Course 1 Previous Online Course 2 or More Previous Online Courses 50 32 51 37.6 24.1 38.3 19 87 27 14.3 65.4 20.3

Note. N = 133

Statistical Results The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 13.0 was used to analyze the data in order to answer the three research questions. The surveys and academic information were viewed solely by the researcher and the research assistant in order to insure anonymity. Students completed the electronic surveys during the semester

92 in which they were enrolled in the online course. Final semester grades were recorded at the end of the semester and used to provide student success determination. Question 1 Is there a difference in the academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses? An independent-samples t test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students. Student success is defined by completing the course with an above average performance defined by a final grade of 80% or higher or a letter grade of A or B. The final semester grade represented the success rate and served as the dependent variable. The students status, traditional or nontraditional, was the independent variable. The sample consisted of 54 traditional students, ages 18-24, and 79 nontraditional students, ages 25 and over. Table 2 profiles the final grades received by the traditional and nontraditional students within this study.

93 Table 2 Student Grades

Grade

Traditional Students (n)

Nontraditional Students (n)

A B C D F

26 19 8 1 0

33 26 15 2 1

When analyzing the three age ranges within the nontraditional category, the 25-30 age group had a slightly lower grade average than other students. However, the majority of final grades from the entire sample were in the A-B range. Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation for final grades of each age group.

94 Table 3 Final Grade Descriptives by Age Group

Age

Mean

SD

18-24 25-30 31-39 40-49

3.30 3.18 3.22 3.25

.792 .997 .736 .856

54 39 23 16

Note. N = 133

The mean for all nontraditional students as compared to the traditional students indicated no significant difference of final grades between the student groups at the .05 level (p = .439). Findings also indicate that there is more variation in grades within the nontraditional age group than the traditional age group. Question 2 Is there a relationship between demographic variables of students and above average performance as measured by final course grades? SPSS was used to compute a regression analysis between the demographic variables and the students final grades on all traditional and nontraditional students as one group. Additional regression analyses

95 were computed to determine any predictive relationships between the demographic variables and the students final grades for only those students who earned an above average in the course. Student success was based on above average performance at the A or B level and served as the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, marital status, children/family obligations, employment status, gender, ethnicity, computer skills level, previous online learning experience, and HOBET entrance exam scores. All student demographic data, for both traditional and nontraditional students, were included in the first analysis to determine if any of the independent variables could predict above average performance as measured by final grades. Two of the predictors showed a significant correlation with the students final grades, children (r = -.196; p = .012) and ethnicity (r = .149; p = .044). In addition, the HOBET entrance exam score was approaching significance (r = .140; p = .054). The remaining six variables showed no relationship with the final grade scores. Table 4 lists the variables for the overall student population in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

96 Table 4 Demographic Predictors of Traditional and Nontraditional Students

Independent Variable

SE B

Children/Family Obligations Ethnicity HOBET Score Age Gender Online Learning Experience Marital Status Employment Status Computer Experience Note. N = 133; *p .05

.246* .085* -.190 .061 -.064 .052 .197 -.063 .051

.097 .083 .107 .107 .266 .088 .151 .125 .105

-.330 .094 -.156 .075 -.021 .053 .152 -.048 .043

After obtaining the results based on both the traditional and nontraditional students, further analysis was run on each group separately in order to determine if the same pattern of relationships occurred within each group. Table 5 displays regression analysis results for the traditional group of students. Results indicated a significant negative predictive relationship between children and the final grade (p = .034). As the

97 number of children goes up, the grade tends to go down for the traditional student group. No other significant relationships were found. Table 5 lists the variables for the traditional student group in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

Table 5 Demographic Predictors of Traditional Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

Children/Family Obligations Computer Experience Gender Marital Status HOBET Score Ethnicity Employment Status Online Learning Experience Note. n = 54; *p .05

-.473* .283 -.490 .203 -.127 -.036 .073 .164

.260 .164 .398 .396 .155 .149 .204 .139

-.355 .256 -.181 .095 -.117 -.037 .051 .177

98 A regression analysis was performed on the nontraditional group of students which showed a significant predictive relationship between the final grade and two of the variables, the HOBET entrance exam scores (r = -.238; p = .017) and ethnicity (r = .218; p = .027). These predictive relationships are different than those noted for traditional students. For instance, there was a negative predictive relationship between children and final grades for the traditional group. This relationship was not found in the nontraditional group. Furthermore, the nontraditional group reflected the overall predictive relationships for the HOBET and ethnicity variables. There was no significant relationship found between HOBET scores and ethnicity in the traditional group. Table 6 lists the variables for the nontraditional student group in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

99 Table 6 Demographic Predictors of Nontraditional Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

HOBET Score Ethnicity Children Employment Status Age Computer Experience Gender Marital Status Online Learning Experience Note. n = 79; *p .05

-.357* .167* -.198 -.078 .145 -.085 .107 .106 .013

.151 .102 .111 .160 .160 .140 .360 .176 .114

-.281 .190 -.275 -.057 .134 -.071 .034 .081 .012

A final analysis was then performed to determine if there was any statistical significance between the demographic variables and only those students who achieved above average performance. Student success was based on above average performance at the A or B level and served as the dependent variable. The results of this analysis showed a statistically significant negative predictive relationship (r = -.240, p = .007) between the

100 final grade and number of children. In addition, the HOBET entrance exam score was approaching significance (r = -.155; p = .058). It is important to note that ethnicity and HOBET scores were not predictive of higher student achievement in the above average student group. Table 7 lists the variables for the above average student group in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

Table 7 Demographic Predictors of Above Average Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

Children HOBET Online Learning Experience Age Employment Status Ethnicity Computer Experience Gender Marital Status Note. n = 105; **p .01

-.214** -.139 -.053 .038 .053 -.003 .062 -.060 .222

.065 .069 .055 .070 .080 .053 .067 .165 .098

-.471 -.195 -.096 .079 .070 -.006 .090 -.036 .297

101 Question 3 Is there a relationship between student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades? Multiple regression analyses were utilized to determine if there was a relationship between student educational motivation and performance as measured by final course grades. The success rate served as the dependent variable. Student success was based on above average performance at the A or B level and served as the dependent variable. Students were asked to rate their motivation level related to factors such as increased earning power, job promotion, a sense of achievement, joy of learning, obtaining a degree, recognition of others, a career change, and self-improvement. Options also allowed students to provide additional motivators in an open-ended format. These independent variables were answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). All student data as measured by the Hertzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory, for both traditional and nontraditional students, were included in the first analysis to determine if any of the independent variables could predict above average performance as measured by final grades. No motivation variables were found to be predictive of student success. Table 8 lists the variables for the overall student population in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

102 Table 8 Motivation Predictors of Traditional and Nontraditional Students

Independent Variable

SE B

Obtain a degree New career Self improvement Meet new people Recognition/respect of others Gain useful information Increase earning power Job promotion Joy of learning Sense of achievement Note. N = 133

-.426 .205 -.094 -.080 .170 -.187 .083 -.079 .114 .220

.176 .134 .086 .089 .109 .157 .122 .125 .129 .187

-.291 .168 -.108 -.093 .172 -.148 .069 -.068 .106 .155

After obtaining the results based on both the traditional and nontraditional students, further analysis was conducted on each group separately in order to determine if the same pattern of correlations occurred within each group. Results obtained from the traditional group of students indicated a significant predictive relationship between sense

103 of achievement and the final grade (p = .051). No other motivation variable was found to predict final course grade. Table 9 lists the motivation variables for the traditional student group in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

Table 9 Motivation Predictors of Traditional Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

Sense of achievement New career Gain useful information Self improvement Meet new people Recognition/respect of others Joy of learning Job promotion Obtain a degree Increase earning power

.619* .391 .351 .137 -.120 .283 -.262 -.174 -.620 .112

.256 .208 .213 .121 .108 .178 .192 .173 .302 .183

.448 .299 .290 .170 -.163 -.269 -.257 -.168 -.346 .098

Note. n = 54; *p

.05

104

A regression analysis was performed on the nontraditional students to determine if any of the motivation variables were related to the final grades for this group of students. There were no statistically significant relationships found. Table 10 lists the motivation variables for the nontraditional student group in order, starting with those having the highest significance level.

105 Table 10 Motivation Predictors of Nontraditional Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

Obtain a degree Self improvement Gain useful information Recognition/respect of others Sense of achievement Increase earning power Meet new people Joy of learning Prepare for a new career Job promotion

.040 -.030 .053 -.015 -.136 .015 .029 -.058 .104 .003

.121 .060 .104 .083 .133 .086 .061 .088 .096 .085

.050 -.059 .073 -.026 -.170 .021 .058 -.091 .144 .004

Note. n = 54; p

.05

106 A final analysis was then performed to determine if there was any statistical significance between the motivators and only those students who achieved above average performance. Student success was based on above average performance at the A or B level and served as the dependent variable. The results of this analysis showed no significant predictive relationships between the motivators and students who accomplished above average grades. Table 11 lists the motivation variables for the above average student group in order, starting with those that have the highest significance levels.

107 Table 11 Motivation Predictors of Above Average Student Group

Independent Variable

SE B

Sense of achievement Joy of learning Prepare for a new career Self improvement Recognition/respect of others Meet new people Increase earning power Obtain a degree Gain useful information Job promotion

-.136 -.058 .104 -.030 -.015 .029 .015 .040 .053 .003

.133 .088 .096 .060 .083 .061 .086 .121 .104 .085

-.170 -.091 .144 -.059 -.026 .058 .021 .050 .073 .004

Note. N = 105

108 Summary The purpose of this research was to compare the success rate, as measured by final course grades, between traditional and nontraditional students in online education. Data was gathered from a two-part survey instrument providing both demographic and motivational variables. In order to answer the first research question, an independent-samples t test was used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in student success between traditional and nontraditional students. Findings show no statistically significant difference of final grades between the traditional and nontraditional student groups at the .05 level. Findings do point out that there is more variation in grades within the nontraditional age group than the traditional age group. To answer the second research question, linear regression analyses between the demographic variables and various student groups were computed to ascertain if there was a relationship between the variables and above average performance as measured by final course grades. The first analysis utilized a group comprised of both traditional and nontraditional students. Results determined that two of the predictors showed a significant predictive relationship with students final grades; having children (p = .012) and ethnicity (p = .044). In addition, the HOBET entrance exam score was approaching significance (p = .054). A second regression analysis was performed on the traditional student group which resulted in only one predictor being statistically significant. The number of children and family obligations demonstrated a negative predictive relationship to final grade (p = .034). The third analysis considered only the

109 nontraditional student group, and the results showed the HOBET entrance score to be most closely related to final grades (p = .017). This significant relationship was found to be negative. Ethnicity also showed a significant negative relationship (p = .027) in predicting final grade. The final analysis was calculated on all students who achieved above average performance at the A or B level to find any relationships between demographic variables and above average grades. The results showed a significant negative relationship between number of children and academic achievement (p = .007). The third group of regression analyses were computed to determine if selected motivators could predict performance as measured by final course grades. The first analysis included data collected from both traditional and nontraditional student groups. None of the motivator variables were significant at the .05 level. The student groups were disaggregated for further analyses to determine predictors within specific groups, traditional and nontraditional. A regression analysis was performed on the traditional student group resulting in a significant predictive relationship between a sense of achievement and final grades. Regression analysis performed on the nontraditional student group resulted in no statistical significance between any of the motivation predictors and final grades. The final analysis was performed on all students who achieved above average performance at the A or B level to examine possible relationships between the motivators and above average final grades. The results of this analysis showed no significant relationship between the motivators and students who accomplished above average grades.

110

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION This chapter will provide a discussion and interpretation of the findings from this research. The purpose of this study was to determine the success rate, as measured by final course grades, between traditional and nontraditional students in online education. The relationship between demographic variables and student motivators was examined to determine if any of these factors could predict the success rate of students taking online courses. Three research questions guided the research: 1. Is there a difference in the academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses? 2. Is there a relationship between demographic variables of students and above average performance as measured by final course grades? 3. Is there a relationship between student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades? Academic Course Grades The first question required an investigation of the difference in academic course grades between traditional and nontraditional students enrolled in online courses. For the purpose of this research, a traditional student is any student 24 years of age or younger and a nontraditional student is any student 25 years of age or older. Statistical analysis of means for all nontraditional students as compared to the traditional students indicated no

111 significant difference of final grades between the student groups. However, the majority of final grades from the entire sample were in the A-B range which may explain the lack of significant difference between groups. The sample was derived from students with higher than average qualifications due to the institutions admissions criteria for an ACT composite score of 20 or higher or equivalent SAT score of 950. Further research may be warranted using a sample from institutions with typical admissions standards. Findings also indicate that there is more variation in grades within the nontraditional age group than the traditional age group. More variation of grades in this classification of students may be due to diverse ages, family responsibilities, work responsibilities, and the differences in adult learning styles. Although no significant difference of final grades between the student groups were found in this study, other research (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005) indicated that the older the student, the higher the grade. This may be explained by adults being able to better handle the flexible and independent nature of online instruction. According to Knowles (1990), nontraditional students are more self-directed and traditional students tend to need more direction from the instructor. Demographics and Grades The second question analyzed student demographics and information gathered from student academic records to determine if any variables tend to predict above average performance as measured by final course grades. Variables included age, marital status, having children/family obligations, employment status, gender, ethnicity, computer skills level, previous online learning experience, and HOBET entrance exam

112 scores. The variable of children revealed a significant negative predictive relationship with final course grade for the combined sample. In other words, students who have more children tend to have lower final course grades. Having children is a reasonable negative relationship with a students final grade since family obligations normally demand more time away from course studies. It is a normal assumption that as the number of children increase, time demands increase as well. The second significant relationship found was that of ethnicity. Caucasian students tended to perform better than African American students in this sample. Further analysis was run on each student group separately in order to determine if the same pattern of relationships occurred within each group. As with the combined sample, results from the traditional student group indicated a significant negative predictive relationship between children and the final grade. As the number of children rose, the grade tended to fall for the traditional student group. No other significant relationships were found for this group. Results from the nontraditional students only showed a significant negative predictive relationship between the final grade and two of the variables, the HOBET entrance exam scores and ethnicity. These predictive relationships are different than those noted for traditional students. Even though nontraditional students had lower scores than traditional students on the HOBET entrance exam, they consistently scored within the above average range of final grades. One explanation for these results is that older students may not have taken standardized tests in recent years, but are willing to devote the time needed in order to successfully complete the course. The negative predictive

113 relationship between nontraditional students and ethnicity may be partially explained in the results of a study conducted by Moore et al. (2002). Computer access was noted as not at all important by 91% of Caucasian students while computer access was noted as very important by 56% of African American students. Another report stated that a higher number of African American women are enrolled in college programs than African American men and have a higher graduation rate of 46% compared to 35% for men (Black Student College Graduation Rates, 2008). This report also stated that low graduation rates may be explained by the fact that many African American students are from low-income families, often with few books in the home and where neither parent nor grandparent went to college. While there was a negative predictive relationship between children and final grades for the traditional group, this relationship was not found with the nontraditional group. It is also interesting to note that even though the nontraditional student is more likely to have children, this variable was not found as a predictive factor. A logical conclusion may be that the nontraditional student has more life experience than the traditional student and has learned how to manage their time while completing multiple tasks. Furthermore, nontraditional students tend to possess different learning characteristics. According to Knowles (1990), nontraditional students are less dependent on others and have more experience in the world that they can bring to the learning environment. These characteristics may be one explanation of the ability to manage the demands of family and course work. A final analysis was then performed to determine if there was any statistical significance between the demographic variables and only those students who achieved

114 above average performance at the A or B level, traditional and nontraditional collectively. Results showed a statistically significant negative predictive relationship between children and the final grade. In other words, students who earned an A in their course tended to have fewer children. Due to the results of prior analyses, it is likely that this significant relationship was prevalent in the traditional group of high achievers. In previously noted studies comparing student demographics with student performance, mixed results were found. Research conducted by Krawiec et al. (2005) found no significant statistical difference of student performance related to student demographics, while Wojciechowski and Palmer (2005) found that five variables were statistically significant in predicting student success: grade point average, attending an orientation session for an online class, number of previous withdrawals from other classes, number of previous online courses taken, and age of the student. However, these studies compared performance of online students to traditional classroom students while this study compared the performance of two groups of online students. Motivators and Grades The third analysis examined the relationship of student educational motivation and above average performance as measured by final course grades. Students were asked to rate their motivation level related to factors such as increased earning power, job promotion, a sense of achievement, joy of learning, obtaining a degree, recognition of others, a career change, and self-improvement. Options also allowed students to provide additional motivators in an open-ended format. Although there was a wide variety of answers for the open-ended questions, general themes centered around providing a secure

115 future for family, and providing service to others. These independent variables were answered on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). No motivation variables were found to be predictive of student success as measured by final grades. Nonetheless, participants ranked four of the variables at above the 50% level as motivating factors. Obtaining a degree was rated the highest motivator with 74%, and having a sense of achievement followed with 67%. Job promotion and starting a new career, which are somewhat related, were each rated at 55%. The weakest motivators began with meeting new people, followed by gaining recognition/respect of others, family opinion, and joy of learning. In a previously noted study by Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) research was conducted to determine what factors motivate adult online learners. Findings from their study showed the top motivators to be self-improvement, having a sense of achievement, obtaining a degree, and increased earnings. It is interesting to note that three of the top four motivators in each study were identical. The weakest motivators in the Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) study were identical to those found in this research although in a different order, beginning with gaining recognition/respect of others, followed by joy of learning, family opinion, and meeting new people. It should also be noted that the Cosman-Ross and Hiatt-Michael (2005) study was conducted at a large Southern California university complex which substantiates the general acceptance that nontraditional students face the same challenges in any online learning environment. It might be expected that an increase in earning power would be the highest motivator for most students, and that may be true for students working toward an

116 advanced degree in business or engineering. However, all of the participants in this study are preparing for careers in the service industry as health professionals, and although they expect to have a comfortable income, increased earning power does not appear to be a central motivating factor for a career choice. Further analysis was conducted on each group separately in order to determine if the same pattern of relationships existed with each group. Results for the traditional student group indicated a significant predictive relationship between sense of achievement and the final grade. This is an understandable relationship due to the fact that most of our traditional students have progressed through elementary and secondary education levels based on receiving the highest test scores possible. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has implications of forcing teachers to teach to the test in order to raise test scores which in turn will be rewarded by receiving an increase in federal funding. Knowles (1990) pointed out that adult learners tend to be more interested in succeeding in the learning process and gaining knowledge while the traditional learner tends to be more interested in receiving a high grade or praise. As with the combined group, no statistically significant relationships were found in the nontraditional student group between any of the motivation variables and final grades. A final analysis was performed to find if there was any statistical significance between the motivators and only those students who achieved above average performance. The results of this analysis also showed no significant predictive

117 relationships between the motivators and students who accomplished above average grades. Limitations The major limitation for this study was the fact that the sample consisted of students enrolled in online classes at one small private college in the mid-south. Therefore, the results cannot statistically be generalized to the population of all college students enrolled in online courses. However, it is generally accepted that traditional and nontraditional students face the same challenges in any online learning environment. High entrance standards required by the research institution emerged as an additional limitation and may have skewed final grade scores resulting in a higher percentage of above average grades. It is likely that students final grades at a public institution with lower entrance standards would tend to be more evenly distributed. Nonetheless, the students participating in this study may face unique challenges due to their specific location or major field of study. Since the surveys consist of self-reported data, results depend on the objectivity and honesty of the participants. Implications for the Educational Community Findings from this study indicate that traditional students who had children were more likely to have lower grades than traditional students who had no children. However, children were not a factor in final grades for nontraditional students. Based on these results, it is recommended that institutions provide support services for traditional students with children in order to facilitate academic success.

118 Given that a growing number of nontraditional students are enrolling in online courses, it is recommended that institutions provide professional development activities for faculty concerning support for students with family obligations. Training should focus on instructional strategies, adult learning styles, and the importance of expressing empathy and understanding in extenuating circumstances. Results of this study indicated no significant relationships between the measured motivators and final grades, however, motivating priorities of the students emerged. The most important priorities identified by the student participants in this study were obtaining a degree, sense of achievement, job promotion, and starting a new career. These priorities provide a picture for implementing support services and programs, thereby increasing retention and recruitment. Higher education instructors must help traditional students link actual learning to the sense of achievement they gain from receiving a good grade. As previously noted Knowles (1990) pointed out that while adult learners tend to be more interested in succeeding in the learning process and gaining knowledge the traditional learner tends to be more interested in receiving a high grade or praise. It was expected that grades would be lower for students who work full-time, but there was no relationship between number of hours worked during the week and final grade. This finding may be due to the fact that working students tend to be more mature, regardless of age, and in the process of maturing have learned to manage multiple responsibilities.

119 Results also indicated that traditional students performed just as well as nontraditional students; therefore, taking away the myth that nontraditional students perform better. One possible explanation for this outcome is that as traditional students gain experience in the online environment they gain the skills needed to succeed in online courses such as self-discipline and working independently. It is crucial for higher education institutions to offer opportunities for lifelong learning through asynchronous education by using Web-based resources and delivery. Nasseh (1999) noted that in the 21st century the prosperity of every nation is dependent on its ability to implement needed changes in educational systems in order to provide quality educational opportunities for citizens independent from time, place, and resources. Online learning is the fastest growing segment of higher education today. With the growing number of students enrolling in online programs, retention and the success of these students is an important concern for stakeholders in higher education. As previously noted, higher dropout rates are often found within online courses when compared to traditional face-to-face courses (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). Defining characteristics of successful online students could assist academic advisors and faculty in providing supports for these students to facilitate success. Recommendations for Further Research This study considered demographics and motivators as factors related to student success measured by final grade. Additional research is recommended to examine the relationship of other variables, such as delivery methods and learning styles, to student success in online courses. Furthermore, research examining effective instructional

120 strategies in online education with an emphasis on the impact on student learning is also recommended. Further research with larger and more diverse groups of online students is needed to determine the most effective methods to increase students likelihood for retention and success in the online learning environment.

121

REFERENCES

122

REFERENCES Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Sloan Survey of Online Learning. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Survey of Online Learning. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf Amrein-Beardsley, A., Foulger, T., Toth, M. (2007). Examining the development of a hybrid degree program: Using student and instructor data to inform decisionmaking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ768881) Aranda, N. (2006). A brief history of online education. Ezine @rticles. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Online-Education:-A-BriefHistory&id=465039. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Black student college graduation rates remain low, but modest progress begins to show. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 4(61). Retrieved November 23, 2008, from http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html

123 Bowman, L. (November, 2001). Interaction in the online classroom. Teachers.Net Gazette, 2(7). Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://teachers.net/gazette/NOV01/bowman.html. Bruno, F. (2001). Going back to school (3rd ed.). Canada: Arco-Thomson Learning. Carpenter, T., Brown, W., & Hickman, R. (2004). Influences of online delivery on developmental writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1). National Center for Developmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ718700) Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED500517) Cosman-Ross, J., & Hiatt-Michael, D. (2005). Adult student motivators at a university satellite campus. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490636) Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. [Electronic version] College Teaching, 54(1), 190-194. Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/pdf/v6n1_dutton.pdf.

124 Dzakiria, H. (2005). The role of learning support in open & distance learning: Learners experiences and perspectives. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490368). Erdem, R. (2007). Strategic planning at the states education institutions serving open and distance education, which are of nonprofit concern. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED494803). Elvers, G., Polzella, D., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 159-162. Goolnik, G. (2006). Effective change management strategies for embedding online learning within higher education and enabling the effective continuing professional development of its academic staff. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED494407). Greer, L., Hudson, L., & Paugh, R. (1998). Student support services and success factors for adult on-line learners. Annual Conference of the International Society for the Exploration of Teaching Alternatives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441155). Herzberg, F. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. History of distance learning. (2006). Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.program-online-degree.com/history/history_online_education.htm.

125 Hurn, J. (2005). Beyond point and click: Taking Web-based pedagogy to a new level. 2005 Association of Small Computer Users in Education Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490153) Jones, T. (2005). Dual mode academics: A comparison of conventional and distance education experiences. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490371) Kennedy, C. (2000). What influences student learning in an online course? [Research Report]. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466238) Kerr, C., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M., (2003). Predicting student success in online courses: A new measure. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(11), 114. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from http://nurs.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer2005/wojciechowski82.pdf Kerr, C., Rynearson, K., Kerr, M. (2004). Innovative educational practice: Using virtual labs in the secondary classroom. The Journal of Educators Online, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume1Number1/Kerr%20Final.pdf Klecker, B. (2005). Assessing learning online: The top ten list. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005, 119-122. Chesapeake, VA. Klein, R. (2004). From f2f to online to blended: 10 lessons I learned. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from Rochester Institute of Technology at http://online.rit.edu/faculty/

126 Knapp, L., Kelly-Reid, J., & Whitmore, R. (2006). Enrollment in postsecondary institutions, Fall 2005. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007154.pdf Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. Knowles, M. (1990). Knowles andragogy. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/knowlesa.htm Kolb, D.A., (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Krawiec, S., Salter, D., & Kay, E. (2005). A hybrid bacteriology course: The professors design and expectations; the students performance and assessment. Microbiology Education, 6, 8-13. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490001) LaPadula, M. (2003). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 119-128. Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(1), 1-22. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm.

127 Moore, K., Bartkovich, J., Fetzner, M., & Ison, S. (2002). Success in cyberspace: Student retention in online courses. Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472473) Mupinga, D., Nora, R., & Yaw, D. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students [Electronic version]. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://www.heldref.org Myers, I. (1943). Myers-Briggs type indicator. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from http://www.personalitypathways.com Nasseh, B. (1997). A brief history of distance education [Research Report]. Muncie, Indiana: Ball State University. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.bsu.edu/classes/nasseh/study/papers.html Nasseh, B. (1999). Are higher education institutions ready for asynchronous education in the 21st century? [Research Report]. Muncie, Indiana: Ball State University. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.bsu.edu/classes/nasseh/study/ready.html Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2004). Exemplary online educators: Creating a community of inquiry. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490370) Rudich, J. (1999). Internet learning. Link-Up, 15(5), 23-27. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

128 Sahin, S. (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in Web-based courses in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED499477) Schulman, A., & Sims, R. (1999). Learning in an online format versus an in-class format: An experimental study. Technology Horizons in Education Online Journal, 26, 54-57. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from EBSCOhost database. Schutte, G. (1997). Experiment in on-line instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 21 Issue, p. A23. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/eguid-43.dir/24eguide.htm. Simpson, J., & Head, L. (2000). Red hot tips: Improve retention in your distance education courses. League for Innovation International Conference, Chicago, Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444617) Smith, D., & Mitry, D., (2008). Investigation of higher education: The real costs and quality of online programs. Journal of Education for Business, 83(3). (Gale Document No. A177449630) Smith, G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001). Teaching college courses online versus face-to-face. Technology Horizons in Education Online Journal, 28(9), 18-22, 24, 26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ631230) Stallings, D. (2002). Measuring success in the virtual university. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1-2), 47-53. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

129 United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Vignare, K. (2005). Blended learning: Education innovation & productivity. Campus Technology from Syllabus Media Group. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from http://www.campus-technology.com/print.asp?ID=17934 Walker, S. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Unpublished Doctor of Science Education Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. What is HOBET? (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2007, from http://www.hobet-success.com/ Wojciechowski, A., & Palmer, L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2). Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/wojciechowski82.htm

130

APPENDIX

131

APPENDIX STUDENT SURVEY This survey is part of a research project designed to collect data related to student characteristics and motivators of students enrolled in online courses. Your time and valuable input are appreciated.

Part I. 1. Age: _____ 18-24 _____ 25-30 _____ 31-39 _____ 40-49 _____ 50 and over 2. Marital status: _____ Single _____ Married _____ Divorced _____ Widowed

132 3. Number of children: _____ None _____ One _____ Two _____ Three _____ Four or more 4. Employment status: _____ Full-time _____ Part-time _____ Not employed 5. Gender: _____ Male _____ Female 6. Ethnicity: _____ African American _____ Asian _____ Caucasian _____ Hispanic _____ Indian

133 7. Which of the following best describes your computer experience? Check all that apply. _____ None _____ Experience with using the Internet _____ Experience with using email _____ Experience with word processing (Word, WordPerfect, etc.) _____ Experience with spreadsheet applications (Excel, Quattro Pro, etc.) _____ Experience with presentation software (PowerPoint, Presentations, etc.) _____ Experience with database management software (Access, dBase, etc.) 8. Which of the following best describes your online learning experience? _____ This is my first online course experience _____ I have taken one online course previous to this course _____ I have taken two or more online courses previous to this course

134 Part II. Disagree Strongly Strongly Indicate your level of agreement with each statement by placing a check mark in the appropriate box to the right. Increased earning power is a motivator for me to learn. Job promotion is a motivator for me to learn. A sense of achievement is a motivator for me to learn. Joy of learning is a motivator for me to learn. Obtaining a degree is a motivator for me to learn. Information will be useful is a motivator for me to learn. Recognition/respect of others is a motivator for me to learn. A new career is a motivator for me to learn. Meeting new people is a motivator for me to learn. Family opinion is a motivator for me to learn. Self-Improvement is a motivator for me to learn. Other: ____________________________ is a motivator for me to learn. Other: ____________________________ is a motivator for me to learn. Other: ____________________________ is a motivator for me to learn. Cosman-Ross, J. and Hiatt-Michael, D., 2005 Disagree Neutral Agree Agree