The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Student Attitudes about Distance Education:
Focusing on Context and Effective Practices.
Esther Smidt, Jennifer Bunk, Bridget McGrory, Rui Li, Tanya Gatenby
	
  

40	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Abstract

There has been an unquestionable upsurge in distance education in recent years. Given this, it isextremely important to understand the experience of online courses from students’ perspectives.
The purpose of the current qualitative study is to understand student attitudes about distanceeducation in a specific context, namely that of a Mid-Atlantic mid-sized state university. We thentranslate our findings into practical recommendations for instructors. Data sources consist ofjournal entries written by 36 teacher candidates taking the course, Teaching English Language
Learners PreK-12. Findings are categorized according to Course Characteristics, e.g. students
have definite opinions about the use of the discussion forum, some of them negative, Instructor
Characteristics, e.g. students see the need for interaction/synchronous communication andeffective assessment, and Learner Characteristics, e.g. the appropriateness of distance education
depends on student learning style and practical factors.

Keywords: Distance Education; Student Attitudes; Effective Practices.

41	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Introduction
There has been an unquestionable upsurge in distance education in recent years. Between 2002
and 2011, the percentage of college students who were enrolled in at least one online course
increased from 9.6% to 32% (Allen & Seaman 2013). Given this, it is extremely important tounderstand the experience of online courses from students’ perspectives. The ultimate
beneficiaries of online education are, after all, the students.
The purpose of the current qualitative study is to understand student attitudes about distanceeducation. To clarify, first, this study is student-focused and not faculty-focused. While we
acknowledge the importance of investigating faculty attitudes about distance education, our goal
is to move the spotlight onto students as well. Second, our focus is on attitudes, which have beenclassically defined in the social psychological literature as “an evaluation or evaluative judgment
made with regard to an attitudinal object” (Weiss 2002, p. 175). Thus, student distance education
attitudes represent cognitive assessments made by students regarding distance education.
We extend previous research in two ways. First, we prioritize student needs in a specific context
by focusing on students from a mid-sized state university in the Mid-Atlantic region of the UnitedStates. Our goal is to understand the attitudes of these particular students in order to direct ourefforts accordingly. We thus acknowledge that online learning phenomena can be, and often are,context specific (Gibbs 2010). Second, we direct attention towards effective practices. Findings
have little practical use if they do not result in actionable knowledge. Therefore, we will translate
our findings into practical recommendations for instructors (along with the necessary contextual
caveats). Although changing teaching practices can be difficult, there is evidence that prior to
making changes, instructors rely on student needs more than empirical findings (Price &Kirkwood 2013). Our student-centered practical approach will conceivably inspire instructors tomake incremental changes to their online courses that will increase effectiveness and satisfaction.

42	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  What follows is a two-part review of the literature. First, we will present an overview of distanceeducation research. Then, we will review empirical findings that are relevant to the focus of ourcurrent study.
Literature Review
Distance Education Research: An Overview
Kehoe, Tennent and Becker (2005) provide a useful framework for understanding distanceeducation scholarship. Essentially, they divide the distance education experience into three parts:
online material delivery, online assessment, and online interaction and engagement. With regard
to online material delivery, research in this area is focused on the use of different delivery
modalities including synchronous versus asynchronous (e.g., Carswell & Venkatesh 2002), andspecific tools like discussion boards (e.g., Chapman, Storberg-Walker & Stone 2008) and
WebCT (e.g., Osman 2005). Research focused on online assessment is concerned with quality
and learning outcomes. For example, multiple meta-analyses have been conducted comparing
learning outcomes in face-to-face versus online courses (e.g., Bernard, Abrami, Lou,
Borokhovski, Wade & Wozney 2004; Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia & Jones 2009; Sitzmann,
Kraiger, Stewart & Wisher 2006).
The third area that Kehoe, Tennent and Becker (2005) discuss is our area of focus: online
interaction and engagement. Researchers in this area tend to be interested in student satisfaction
and similar attitudinal variables. We will examine empirical findings in this area in the second
part of our literature review. For now, it is worth stressing the utility of focusing on attitudinaloutcomes like satisfaction. Not only is there evidence that attitudes about technology are related
to performance outcomes (Petter & McLean 2009), but they can also help inform best practices.
For example, if we know that students are dissatisfied with the amount of technical support they
are receiving, we can focus our efforts on increasing the quality of such support. Another reason
that focusing on attitudinal outcomes is so important is that they are a necessary piece to the
43	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  bigger picture. In other words, if our ultimate criterion is “success in distance education,” thatcriterion would be deficient if we focused solely on learning outcomes. It would be difficult toargue that an online class was completely successful if the students learned a lot but did not havepositive attitudes about the experience.
Student Attitudes about Distance Education: Empirical FindingsInternal Factors
One of the goals of the current study is to prioritize student needs by taking a student-centeredapproach to understanding attitudes about online coursework. Part of doing so means
acknowledging that students’ individual differences—or factors internal to individuals—aregoing to play a role in predicting satisfaction. To this end, a variety of studies in this area havefound exactly this. For example, Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen and Yeh (2008) found that learnercomputer anxiety was a critical factor in predicting satisfaction with e-learning. In this survey
study, computer anxiety was defined as feelings of nervousness and discomfort when working
with computers and satisfaction with e-learning was defined as students’ overall sense ofsatisfaction with the e-learning course in which they were enrolled. In addition, Holley andOliver (2010) used a biographical narrative approach to explore students’ accounts of online
learning. Analysis of the student narratives revealed that students’ ability to control technology,
along with students’ educational experiences and expectations of managing their “learning spaces”
played a role in students’ engagement with online learning.
Moreover, the utilization of asynchronous communication tools, such as discussion boards, also
points to the dissimilarities in student preferences which may be based on internal, individual
differences. For example, Gilbert, Morton, and Rowley (2007) found that while 68% of students
they surveyed were comfortable using discussion boards, 32% were “not sure” or “uneasy” aboutthem.

In addition, according to Osman (2005), 70% of students felt more comfortableparticipating in an online discussion forum compared to an in class discussion. These differences
44	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  in attitudes about discussion boards could be attributed to personality differences, where an
introverted student may enjoy the feeling of anonymity created by participating in an online
discussion compared to a face-to-face discussion.
Other studies have investigated satisfaction with the quality of online interactions. For example,
Felix (2001) found that students had a negative attitude towards online learning when there wasinadequate personal interaction. According to the results of this study, 10 students noted the lackof presence of a teacher to be a disadvantage compared to the 3 students who felt the exact
opposite—that it was an advantage. Additionally, Lee, Srinivasan, Trail, Lewis and Lopez (2011)
also found that students valued and benefitted from interaction with instructors and peers. When
students were asked, “How could this course support your learning better?” interaction withteachers and peers was found as a primary solution. Lee et al. proposed an online or on-campus
study group as a means to avoid feelings of isolation and discomfort with a lack of interaction.
These effects related to interpersonal interaction could be due to personality differences. For
example, an extroverted student may thrive on classroom interaction, feeling it is necessary totheir understanding of the material. In particular, this extroverted student may value the directinteraction with a teacher.
Continuing with the exploration of internal factors affecting students’ attitudes towards distanceeducation, it would appear that one’s self-discipline and drive will also play a role. A student
lacking motivation may find it difficult to stay focused while completing online assignments.
Smart and Cappel’s (2006) findings support this belief as students who were interested in thematerial or identified with it demonstrated a higher level of motivation. Additionally, disinterestand distraction could explain some students’ negative attitudes. Felix (2001) attributed distraction
to the “wealth of information” offered by online learning, a problem he proposed was not as
prevalent during the age of CD-ROM-based online learning. Currently, while participating in

45	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  online course work, the wonders of the internet and the potential for distraction are only a click
away.
Interaction with External Factors
These internal factors affecting students’ preferences are also influenced by external factors suchas enrollment in an elective versus a required course. In a study by Smart and Cappel (2006)
exploring students’ perception of online learning, students enrolled in an elective course rated
online classes positively, while those in a required course rated the online classes negatively.
Those students enrolled in the elective course felt online learning was “an effective way to learn,”
was “fun,” and were more likely to take online classes again in the future. This could be a resultof the degree of interest in an elective versus a required course or the level of motivation or selfdiscipline of the students.
Another factor that can affect students’ online course satisfaction is experience with technology.
A lack of experience can interact with the existence of technological problems to heighten
dissatisfaction. For example, Smart and Cappel (2006) suggested that students with more
technological experience would be more likely to take an online class than those who did nothave experience. They also suggested that the potential for technological problems andinexperience with technology could make lengthy assignments seem even longer and could
potentially contribute to the frustration students feel with the amount of time required to complete
online coursework. Indeed, Smart and Cappel found that 30% of students in their sample felt as if
the amount of time it took to complete online assignments was not worth what was gained.
Having experiences in an online learning unit in a blended context may likely benefit students inthe future as they make decisions about selecting between different educational or training
options. The results may suggest that students with more experience with technology and elearning rate it more positively.
46	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Students taking online courses value control over course content and this can interact with the
choice of learning tools affecting satisfaction. Mockus, Dawson, Edel-Malizia, Shaffer, An, andSwaggerty (2011) demonstrated students’ preferences for control in their online learning
experience via a mobile learning study. Students used Androids, BlackBerrys, iPhones, iPhone
Touches, and iPads as platforms to access course material. Findings revealed that students foundcourse content delivered to their mobile device to be motivating and they enjoyed learning thisway. The authors explained that this pointed towards the desire of students to engage inpersonalized learning. This demonstrates the importance of taking students’ preferences into
account, and utilizing effective tools to address these preferences to ensure continued satisfaction
and participation in distance education.
External Factors
It is also essential to explore the role of external features on attitudes towards online learning.
Another goal of the current study is to highlight the importance of these external components inunderstanding student attitudes about distance education. Several studies have found that adiverse set of external factors can predict student attitudes. One factor is the length of files to be
downloaded, which will become increasingly important as instructors rely on more sophisticatedmultimedia like videos and podcasts. Related to this, Bolliger, Supanakorn, and Boggs (2010)
investigated the impact of podcasting on student motivation and found that the length of files
could have an impact on a learner’s level of satisfaction. Specifically, some students felt
downloads took too long, potentially causing them to lose focus.
Another external factor to consider is the kind of multimedia used in an online course. Boling,
Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, and Stevens (2012) found that online classes that relied heavily on textbased multimedia were very unengaging and not effective in helping students to learn. Theysuggested that the use of interactive Web 2.0 tools could be more effective. Furthermore, Boling
et al. proposed that the accessibility of instructors and information had an effect on determining
47	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  the overall impression of distance education, which was largely based on the design of online
programs.
Students’ perception of support is another external factor that can affect students’ attitudes.
According to a study by Lee et al. (2011), students’ perception of support had a positive
relationship with their degree of course satisfaction. When the above discussed technologicalproblems or assignment confusion takes place, it is imperative that students feel that they caneasily contact their instructor or an Information Technology (IT) staff member. Indeed, in a study
by Gilbert et al. (2007), comfort with the amount of support offered was positively related to
students’ satisfaction with their online learning environment. As further evidence for theimportance of support, Gilbert et al. (2007) found that a lack of resources and outdated materials
could leave students feeling dissatisfied and unhappy with their online learning experience. In
addition, Lee et al. also found course satisfaction to have a small yet notable correlation withfinal grades. This points to the importance of designing courses with a range of options of supportand resources. As Lee et al stated, “access to a learning experience that is tailored to his/herlearning style…may result in a more favorable course satisfaction” (pg. 161) and with that,
potentially higher grades.
Felix (2001) also found that several other external factors could impact satisfaction with online
courses. Specifically, he found that time flexibility, reinforced learning, privacy, wealth of
information, ability to repeat exercises, and gaining computer literacy were all cited asadvantages of online learning by students. This is promising, as it suggests that students
appreciate the pedagogical benefits of distance education and that online instructors should dowhat is possible to increase these factors in their classes.
In summary, our review of the research related to students’ attitudes about online learning reveals
that a combination of both internal and external factors can affect student attitudes. In addition, it
is clear that both positive and negative attitudes towards online learning exist. Our goal with the
48	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  current study is to build upon this research by prioritizing student needs in a specific context andidentifying best practices.
Methodology
As intimated in the Literature Review, the research question of this qualitative research study is:
What do students think about distance education?
Data sources consisted of 36 journal entries written by 36 teacher candidates taking the course,
Teaching English Language Learners PreK-12, after listening to a research presentation entitled“Reactions to and attitudes about asynchronous online discussion forums in an online faculty
development program.” Particulars about the 36 teacher candidates are as follows:
Level

NumberColleges

NumberFreshmen2

College of Education

16

Sophomores

5

Health Sciences

6

Juniors

12

Arts and Sciences

11

Seniors

10

Visual and Performing Arts

1

Graduate

7

Undeclared

2

Total

36

Total

36

We, the first three co-authors, met weekly and kept researcher journals. We underwent training in
NVivo 10, a qualitative research software. We then divided the journal entries into three groups,
one per researcher, and created nodes. After this first pass, we compiled a nodes master list andrecoded the journal entries, resulting in the following 16 nodes:
Nodes
OnlinePositive
Negative
Discussion Board
Interaction
Neutral
49	
  
	
  

References
71
67
63
46
34
26

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Flexibility
Learning Style
Online Experience
Assessment
Blended Learning
No Online Experience
Workload
Synchronous
Experience
Face-to-Face

24
22
17
17
14
12
11
4
3
2

We then combined the three groups of journal entries and separated the nodes into “Negative”
and “Positive” categories, as follows:
Negative
Nodes
Online45
Discussion Board
24
Interaction
17
Learning Style
8
Workload
8
Online Experience
7
Assessment
6
No Online Experience
3
Positive
2
Blended Learning
2
Neutral2
Flexibility
1

Positive
Nodes
Online26
Discussion Board
26
Flexibility
20Interaction
12
Learning Style
11
Blended Learning
9
Online Experience
9
Assessment
4
Synchronous
3
Workload3
Negative
2
Face-to-Face
2
No Online Experience1

As an analysis of the tables above reveals, some nodes were consistent in placement in both thenegative and positive categories, for instance Online, Discussion Board, Interaction, Learning
Style, Online Experience, and Assessment, while other nodes occupied obviously different
placements, for example Flexibility, Workload, Blended Learning, and Synchronous.

We then conducted triangulation where we looked for representative excerpts of arising themes.
While we were doing this, we realized that most of the nodes coded in negative and positive
categories were related. We thus ended up recategorizing the nodes according to the themes of
Course Characteristics, Instructor Characteristics, and Learner Characteristics, which are the first
three learner satisfaction factors identified by Sun et al. (2008). It should also be noted that the
50	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  first two themes of Course and Instructor Characteristics would be subsumed under the External
Factors mentioned in the Literature Review while the Learner Characteristics would be
categorized under Internal Factors.
Discussion
Course Characteristics
Discussion Boards
The lack of well-designed tasks, particularly as they relate to discussion boards, was a negative
course characteristic students felt keenly. Students saw ill-designed tasks as busywork. Amongexamples cited include uninteresting coursework that incorporated closed-ended questions thatstudents could answer without actually having read the text. Students were also dissatisfied withthe preponderance of tasks that catered to visual rather than auditory or kinesthetic learners (8references of Learning Style/Negative). Implicit in these examples are the negative uses of
discussion boards, as demonstrated by 24 references of Discussion Board/Negative. Indeed, NB2
lamented that a too structured prompt stifles creativity:

51	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  In terms of structured assignments, professors should keep in mind that even the smallest
idea can spark thousands of new ideas within the minds of students, as everyone has adifferent perspective and might see something in a prompt that others might not see. WhenI see a prompt with a bunch of questions that need to be addressed, or that requires acertain number of posts, I lose all creativity. My response suddenly becomes aboutanswering the question, meeting my minimum post requirement, and calling it complete. A
discussion board that has too many guidelines or requirements feels like being given a
picture and told to color inside the lines. It dismisses any chance for creativity or
individuality by having all students conform to the same old cookie-cutter answers that
get the good grades.
The desire for creativity, collaborative learning and opportunities for open expression is aptly
encapsulated by NT:
My other two classes at my community college were way better, because they wereactually hands on. One of my teacher[s] would ask us to do something crafty, or makethings out of clay or blocks (it was teaching elementary education). After we would create
things she would ask us to take a picture of our ideas and post them. Then we would be
able to view everyone’s creative ideas and learn from each other. It did not always
involve writing, which I found to be excellent! I felt as though I was actually learning
something.
NT’s journal entry reiterated the point that asynchronous discussion does not have to be boring,nor does it have to leave out auditory and kinesthetic learners (11 references of Learning
Style/Positive). HM, however, highlighted the benefit of synchronous audiovisual communication
for multiple learning styles: “In my ideal online class, instant chat or Skyping with a professor
would be the best situation for learning.”

This sentiment is reiterated by 3 references ofSynchronous/Positive—there were no references of Synchronous/Negative.
52	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Other positive experiences of discussion boards included the use of discussion leaders, groups,
and different types of discussion boards (non-course boards and boards for general course
questions). NB1 also specified the attraction of student generated questions:Also, online courses always have assigned discussions. I had to for my summer course
pick an article and ask my class questions one time. Then every other week I answered
everyone else[‘s] questions. I think this was the most effective discussion methods, to havethe students direct the questions because we were talking about what interested us.
Students’ positive experiences about well-designed discussion board activities were demonstrated
by the 26 references of Discussion Board/Positive.
Students also suggested two features that would make discussion boards a better experience,
firstly by making previous posts invisible:
I liked the idea of making other students’ posts invisible because it will encourage them to:
Actually do their own work and [d]o their work on time, because they will be forced tothink of their own answers instead of re-wording a compilation of their classmates work
five minutes before the deadline. (NL)
Secondly, students complained about the inability of their being informed about reply posts,
especially in situations where there was a significant lag time between posts and replies:
In online classes however, it is not as easy to communicate because the response is not
immediate. If I did have a question, or presented an argument, the other person may not
respond for a few days and I will forget what I was talking about. (FC)It should be noted that the new version of the Learning Management System allows students to
subscribe to particular threads so that they are informed of replies to their posts.
Learning and Distance Education
53	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  There appeared to be some misconceptions about learning and distance education on the part ofstudents that require some reeducation. Three participants considered collaborating and using
supplementary materials and textbooks for assessment purposes to be cheating. DR2, for example,
appeared to believe that learning consists of memorizing information and retaining knowledge:
Many times, classes that are online just state the facts and have open book tests andquizzes, which don’t benefit the students. This is due to the fact that they are not learningand memorizing the information and retaining this knowledge, rather looking up facts topass a class. Since the students aren’t technically required to know the material, I feelthat many online classes are easy A’s and do not benefit everyone.
Related to the excerpt above is the assumption by four participants that online courses are notrigorous and difficult—“you should not take any of your core major classes online” (UM1) and“it is [not] beneficial to the overall education of the students to have a 300 or 400 level classonline” (LG) because “[a]lthough they say online classes are more convenient, they areprobably the most neglected classes that students leave until last minute” (FC).
Underlying these misconceptions may be the philosophy that a face-to-face class occurs in the“real world” (SG) while an online class does not. Moreover, “too much technology creates asocial barrier between students and teachers” (SP). Indeed, SP goes on to state categorically that:
While I believe that some online learning activities are okay, too much of anything is
excessive. I am completely against online learning and it truly scares me for the future of
my career. I want to teach students in a real classroom in a real school, in person.
While no one would argue that face-to-face interaction is not real, the converse, that online
interaction is fake and problematic, especially in a world that is moving exponentially towards
social networking and telecommuting.
Blended Learning
54	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Blended learning is one of the nodes that had different placements within the negative andpositive categories, namely 9 references of Blended Learning/Positive as opposed to 2 referencesof Blended Learning/Negative. BG1’s excerpt is representative of the positive attitudes about
blended learning:
and also one of my Tues/Thurs classes had in-class learning every Tuesday and online
learning/assignments due every Thursday. This was my absolute favorite because it
enabled us to meet with the teacher and our classmates at least once a week, yet we could
complete our assignments and outside of the classroom learning on our own time. I felt
more independent this way and my grades were actually better than the typical in-classonly learning. To me, this type of learning felt more like what I'd expected college tobe...what it was "supposed" to be, where our grades and how much effort/energy we put
into an assignment was totally on us.
Instructor Characteristics
Interaction
The lack of interaction, whether instructor-student or student-student, was one that students felt
keenly, as demonstrated by 17 references of Interaction/Negative (and confirmed in Felix 2001).
In particular, their inability to depend on non-verbal communication resulted in students’preference for agreeing with posts:
Interaction is key not only with your professor but also with your classmates. When you
don't see someone face-to-face, you don't know anything about them. You don't know their
tone of voice, their personality, etc. For this reason, in prompts like "respond to aclassmates thoughts", I usually look for ones that I agree with, because it's first of alleasier to agree with someone th[a]n it is to argue with them, but you also don't have to

55	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  worry about offending anyone, or coming off as rude, since the people you are interactingwith don't know your tone or your personality. (ML)This finding is illuminating since it provides a glimpse to the reason for the lack of criticalthinking in some discussion posts.
Instructor Support, Student Autonomy, and Workload
A familiar complaint, as demonstrated by 8 references of Workload/Negative and confirmed by
Smart and Cappel (2006), is that online courses have heavy workloads requiring student
autonomy and what students perceive to be a lack of instructor support:
My personal opinion about online classes is that online classes place more responsibility
and time on the student[s], rather than the professor. In previous online classes I havetaken, I found that I needed to spend more time throughout the week focusing on my
online classes than my classes that were face-to-face. I did not get the opportunity toattend class one to three times a week, and learn the information auditorally [sic].
Instead, I was teaching the information to myself over the course of many days. Also, I did
not find it appropriate that online classes had different assignments due all throughout
different times in the week. This resulted in confusion for both me and my classmates.
Whereas in a face-to-face class, assignments are usually due on the date that you attend
class. (FP)Organization and Clarity
Students also desired specific instructor characteristics, for example, prompt feedback and e-mailresponse from the instructor, and clear instructions and assessment requirements (asdemonstrated by 6 references of Assessment/Negative):
The way the teacher grades assignments is also unclear in online classes. In my current
class, my teacher is not clear with what she wants in her responses and as a result, someof the students are not doing as well as they deserve. (FC)
56	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	  In particular, strong organizational skills were highly appreciated:
At the beginning of the semester everything was posted on the online syllabus and she
strictly followed the syllabus. For example, we even knew when ou[r] final was going to
be due months ahead of time. I loved her organization. (NT)
Learner Characteristics
Flexibility
One of the greatest advantages of online courses is students’ ability to decide when, where, andhow coursework should be completed, as demonstrated by 20 references of Flexibility/Positive.
This is particularly true for students who emphasize self-paced learning and possess an
independent learning style:
Another benefit to taking online classes is that it makes one’s schedule more flexible.
Instead of spending time in a classroom, online classes allow students to spend time intheir homes. Because almost all of the assignments are posted online, students cans[p]end as much or as little time on each assignment as they think that they need. Also,
some students learn and work better on their own time. Instead of sitting in a classlistening to a teacher lecture, students can read a textbook on their own or teachthemselves the material that they need to know. Also, if they need more time to work on anassignment, they are not restricted because they have all the time that they want to figureout a problem (LB)

57	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Shy/Introverted Students
As confirmed by 3 participants, and reiterated by Osman (2005), shy or introverted students
express satisfaction with online courses:
But, on the other hand, I am a shy person, and I don’t normally speak out in class,especially in response to another student. I would never disagree with someone in class,so an online aspect makes this part better for me. I feel that I am able to actually speak
my mind through the computer, and not worry about someone judging my every spoken
word in class. Through typing, I am able to take my time to think out my response, or
erase my previous thought in order to rewrite my answer. (DR1)
I feel that online classes allow students to freely and openly express themselves,especially if the students are on the quieter side. Online classes allow students who do not
actively participate in classroom discussions a chance to voice their opinion through thecomputer. The safety of an online class allows shy students to show their intelligence
without feeling as self-conscious and worried about their responses. (DR2)Student Investment
Conversely, a lack of student investment would adversely affect student performance andsatisfaction in online courses. The lack of a captive audience and the need to be physically at acomputer with its distractions (Felix 2001) and technical problems are issues students have toface, as stated by QE:
I am not going to spend more time with the online class than I have to. I will just write mypost, fulfill the requirements, and then get on with my day. If there is a discussion in class
I might as well participate because I have a certain time frame blocked out of my day to
be in that class.

58	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Practical Applications
This paper began with the argument that it is important to investigate students’ attitudes about
distance education—that their thoughts and feelings matter. These attitudes vary based on
students’ individual differences. For example, the introverted students in this study thought
differently about online courses when compared with their extroverted counterparts. It is also
important to consider context, e.g. commuter students or students who work full time think
differently about online courses when compared with traditional, on campus students. In otherwords, it is simplistic to decide that ‘face-to-face courses are always better’—online courses may
be better for some students in some contexts while face-to-face courses may be better for otherstudents in different contexts.
Having said that, here are six practical applications that can be drawn from the findings of thisstudy:
1. Implement discussion boards carefully: Ensure that tasks are well designed—they should
encourage critical thinking, creativity, collaborative learning, and open expression, andcater to a variety of learning styles. Avoid closed-ended questions. Instead, encourage
student generated questions. Also, task responses do not have to be text-heavy. Use
discussion leaders, small groups, and multiple types of discussion boards. Encourage
students to subscribe to discussion threads so that they will be informed of replies to theirposts.
2. Consider blended courses: These courses may be the best of both worlds, although moredata is required before this conclusion can be definitively drawn. However, students do
think very positively of these courses.
3. Focus on interaction and rapport: To make up for the lack of face-to-face interaction,cultivate instructor-student and student-student online interaction and rapport. Encourage
students to connect with the instructor and one another as individuals. Synchronous
59	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  audiovisual communication can feature greatly in this regard. In this way, it is hoped thatstudents would move away from a preference for agreeing with their peers’ posts inasynchronous discussion.
4. Give students a realistic preview of the course: Ensure that students understand thatonline courses require a new set of skills from them—autonomy, time management,
intrinsic motivation, and student investment. Set students’ expectations so that they can
decide whether an online course is right for them.
5. Be very organized: Explicit and clear guidelines for assignments and tasks are critical.
Prompt feedback and e-mail response is crucial.
6. Be clear about what does, and does not, constitute cheating: Online course instructors
must set clear guidelines regarding academic honesty. For example, if students are
expected to work alone for an assignment, this must be communicated. However, if
assessments are “open book,” the instructor should clearly communicate that using thebook and supplementary materials is completely acceptable.
Conclusion
By its very nature, a qualitative study is context-specific. In this instance, the findings are derived
from teacher candidates in a Mid-Atlantic mid-sized state university. Therefore, it is illuminatingthat this study’s findings confirm what has been found in previous studies and add nuances that
contribute to further knowledge in the field of distance education. Findings suggest students favor
blended learning format and value the flexibility of an online environment. This is especially true
for students who are shy or introverted in the face-to-face classroom. Students also expressedinteraction is key to course success not only with their instructor but also with their peers. On theother hand, instructors should provide clear structure and guidance in addition to educating
students about course expectations and responsibilities in online courses. It’s also important tooffer well-designed and creative tasks such as audiovisual content for multiple learning styles.
60	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Using students’ perceptions about distance education to help identify best practices is a logicalapproach. We hope that these six practical applications would give instructors a place to begin as
they compare their online courses against the “evaluative judgment[s] made by [students] withregard to [distance education]” (Weiss 2002, p. 175).

61	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the
UnitedStates.

Pearson.

Retrieved

February

04,

2014,

from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541571.pdf
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance indistance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126.
Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivationin the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(2), 714-722.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., & Wozney, L. (2004). How
does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empiricalliterature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439.
Carswell, A. D., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distanceeducation environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 56, 475–494.
Chapman, D., Storberg-Walker, J., & Stone, S. (2008) Hitting reply: A qualitative study tounderstand student decisions to respond to online discussion postings. E-Learning, 5(1), 2939.
Felix, U. (2001). A multivariate analysis of students' experience of web based learning.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 21-36.
Gibbs, G. (2010). The importance of context in understanding teaching and learning: Reflections
on thirty five years of pedagogic research. Retrieved February 04, 2014, fromhttp://issotl10.indiana.edu/plenary.html
Gilbert, J., Morton, S., & Rowley, J. (2007). E-­‐learning: The student experience. British Journalof Educational Technology, 38(4), 560-573.
Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk.
Computers & Education, 54(3), 693-700.

62	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Kehoe, J., Tennent, B., & Becker, K. (2005). Using the web to enhance tertiary education
learning

experiences.

Retrieved

February

04,

2014,

from

http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw05/papers/refereed/kehoe/paper.html
Lee, S.J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationshipamong student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online
learning. The Internet and Higher Education. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Ofﬁce of Planning, Evaluation, andPolicy Development.
Mockus, L., Dawson, H., Edel-Malizia, S., Shaffer, D., An, J., & Swaggerty, A. (2011). The
impact of mobile access on motivation: Distance education student perceptions. World
CampusLearning

Design.

Retrieved

February

04,

2014,

from

http://learningdesign.psu.edu/research/MLRTWhitePaper.pdf
Osman, M. E. (2005). Students’ reaction to WebCT: Implications for designing online learning
environments. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 353-362.
Petter, S., & McLean, E. R. (2009). A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS
success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level.

Information &Management, 46(3), 159-166.
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2013). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher
education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education
Research and Development (in press).
Sitzmann, T. M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D. W., & Wisher, R. A. (2006). The comparative
effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 623–664.
Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students' perceptions of online learning: A comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(1), 201-219.

63	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education
2014	
  

Volume 2 - Issue 1 - Winter	
  Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008) What drives a successful elearning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction.
Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction:

Separating evaluations, beliefs, andaffective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194.

64