The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Understanding Student Attitudes about Distance Education:
The Importance of Excitement and Fear

Esther Smidt, Jennifer Bunk, Rui Li, Ashley McAndrew, and Matthew Florence

90The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Abstract
This quantitative study investigated student attitudes toward distance education at a midsized,
mid-Atlantic state university in the United States. The research question was: Do feelings ofexcitement and fear moderate and/or mediate the relationship between online learning
experiences and student opinions about the current state of online education, namely that
institutions were pushing too much instruction online? Data was collected from students via an
online survey. Findings suggested: (a) students with online experience who were fearful of thislearning mode were the most likely to report that their institutions were pushing too much
online learning, (b) regardless of online learning experience, students who were excited about
this learning mode were less likely to think that their institutions were pushing too much online
learning.
Keywords: student attitudes; distance education; excitement; fear

	
  

91

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Introduction
Distance education has grown exponentially in the last few decades. Between fall 2012 and2013, online student enrollment grew by 5.2%, growing at a higher rate than overall student
enrollment (Lokken & Mullins, 2014). In view of this growth, it is important to investigate theattitudes, perceptions, experiences, and learning outcomes of students, to see how they can
inform the implementation of distance education. This study sought to understand student
attitudes by looking at the psychological processes, specifically the emotions of excitement andfear and their influence on students’ online learning experience. As such, this study aimed tocontribute theoretically by adding to the existing body of knowledge, particularly in the areaof emotion and online learning, and practically, by considering the influence of excitement andfear on students’ online learning experiences.
Literature Review
Students’ Online Course Experiences
As indicated above, the collegiate mode of learning is rapidly changing, and more and more
students are taking online courses during their undergraduate and graduate careers. The online
course experiences and face-to-face experiences of students vary from institution to institution.
Research suggests that student performance in online courses is at least as good as, if not better
than those in face-to-face courses (Lapsley, Kulik, Moody, & Arbaugh, 2008; Reisetter,
Lapointe, & Korcuska, 2007; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart, & Wisher, 2006; Warren &Holloman, 2005). In a study conducted by Ernst (2008), a large percentage of respondents,
85%, were at ease in an online learning environment. Similarly, students in online andtraditional classes did not differ in terms of their attitudes about and feelings of self-efficacy
toward technology. Students in both types of courses had relatively positive attitudes regarding
technology and felt moderately self-efficacious about using technology (Stevens & Switzer,
2006).
Factors that Adversely Impact Student Emotions
An online course experience can negatively impact a student’s emotions about the course for avariety of reasons. Inexperience creates the biggest obstacle. Understanding Internet culture is
an important factor when it comes to finding ease in utilizing the Internet in an online course.
Furthermore, lack of experience leads to lack of confidence, which results in a fear of using
certain functions on the part of students (Carswell, Thomas, Patre, Price, & Richards, 2000).
Other sources of anxiety for most students include lack of experience participating in online
courses, not being accustomed to the electronic environment, and not possessing control overthe systems processes (O’Regan, 2003).
The second factor that negatively impacts a student’s distance education experience is therelationship with the instructor in the online environment. In online courses, students may
experience confusion if instructor feedback is not clear or timely, which leads to anxiety (Hara& Kling, 1999). For instance, if instructors fail to reply to questions in a timely manner, thisleads to an increase in anxiety, especially when there is an issue with an assignment close to
the assignment’s deadline (O’Regan, 2003). These experiences could ultimately result in
students dropping out of online courses (Ivankova & Stick, 2007).
The third factor that is found to create anxiety and dissatisfaction in the online classroom is themode of communication. Many students reported that they felt lost in the multi-threaded
discussion environment. They became confused and frustrated, having difficulty determining

	
  

92

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

“who” was talking to “whom” about “what.” Generally, students tended to “withdraw” or “justobserve.” These reactions would create a negative impact on online communications, such as
creating “discontinued” feelings and interfered with students’ ability to think and reflect on themessages (Tu & McIsaac, 2002).
Factors that Positively Impact Student Emotions
On the other hand, positive experiences in the distance education setting can create a welcome
environment, which can lead to higher levels of satisfaction regarding their course. The biggest
factor contributing towards a positive online learning experience has to do with the instructor.
An instructor has a definite role in making the online environment successful (Ali & Ahmad,2011). Interaction is different in this environment (Walker & Hackman, 1991), with its
emphasis on the instructor’s role as the mediator between student and materials (Beaudoin,1990) or between student and technology (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994). Therefore,
the instructor must be cognizant of the increased diversity of learners, and then accordingly
determine test formats, measurement practices, and assessment strategies (Banerjee &Brinckerhoff, 2002). Doing so may persuade and motivate students to accept the e-learning
environment (Selim, 2005).
The instructor must also be available to the student, for example, by quickly replying toquestions through email. Even if the responses are not solutions, showing that the problem isbeing worked on is helpful (Carswell, et. al., 2000). According to Inman, Kerwin, & Mayes (ascited in Ali & Ahmad, 2011), students expect three things from an instructor in the distancelearning environment: helpful materials for interacting with the distance learning medium,some on-campus sessions, and availability in the time of need. In online learning environments,
obtaining student feedback about needs and preferences is crucial for the successful design andimplementation of this environment (Sahin, 2007). E-learning environments demand atransition of the roles of students and instructor. The instructor’s role is to become a facilitator
who stimulates, guides, and challenges his/her students by providing students with freedom
and responsibility, rather than that of a lecturer focusing on the delivery of instruction (Huynh,2005). Learner satisfaction is felt when there is a perceived learner-instructor interaction taking
place in the virtual classroom (Abdous, 2010).
Another factor that contributes towards the positive emotions of online learners is tailoring
instruction to students’ learning styles. Findings suggest that online education can be a superiormode of instruction if it is targeted to learners with specific learning styles (e.g., visual andread/write learning styles) and with timely, helpful instructor feedback of various types.
Although cognitive and diagnostic feedbacks are important factors that improve perceived
learning outcomes, metacognitive feedback can induce students to become self-regulated
learners (Eom, Ashill, & Wen, 2006).
Yet another aspect that facilitates a positive emotional experience by online learners istechnological support and training. There is a need to educate students on technologies andother tools used in order to minimize communication breakdown. Distance education students
must understand how Internet connections work in order to avoid issues with bandwidth,
dropped connections, and other factors that impede communication (McDyre, McAndrew, &Smidt, 2015). Adequate technical training in student success and learning is important (Holder,2007); however, not all Internet-delivered courses assess students’ computer skills prior toenrollment or provide technology and computer skill training during the course. Many
university instructors assume traditional college students are “computer literate” and“technology savvy.” However, recent research has appeared questioning the computer skills

	
  

93

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

and technology knowledge of K-16 students (Koroghlanian & Brinkerhoff, 2007). A task
analysis of each Internet-delivered course should be undertaken to determine the technicalskills needed in the course. These skills should be specified, and tutorials, handouts or selfstudy guides concerning the technical skills needed should be provided to students prior to thestart of the course (Koroghlanian & Brinkerhoff, 2007). Institutions offering Internet-delivered
courses through course management systems such as WebCT, Desire2Learn, or Blackboard
should provide scaffolds addressing shortcomings in the Help and other documentation
incorporated into these systems based on the frequency of questions posed by students at thoseinstitutions (Koroghlanian & Brinkerhoff, 2007).
Excitement and Fear
Following from the research above, there is reason to believe that excitement and fear are
relevant emotions when considering how experience with online courses relates to student
reactions to online learning. For example, lack of experience with Internet culture can beassociated with decreased confidence and increased fear of technology (Carswell et al., 2000;
O’Reagan, 2003). In addition, experience with online courses can result in fear when students
get confused about feedback (Hara & Kling, 1999) or uneasy about the multi-threaded natureof online discussion (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Also, several research studies cited above indicatedthat when instructors are responsive, providing timely feedback and tech support, students can
respond positively and with excitement (e.g., Ali & Ahmad, 2001; Koroghlanian &Brinkerhoff, 2007).
There are also theoretical reasons to explore excitement and fear. From a theoretical standpoint,
the study of discrete emotions dates back to mid-1980. Several theorists have categorizedemotions and linked them with core cognitive processes. (See Roseman & Smith, 2001 for an
overview such approaches.) Smith and Lazarus (Lazarus, 1991; 2001; Smith & Lazarus, 1990),
for example, define fear as a core negative emotion that indicates an inability to copeemotionally with a stimulus. Izard (2013) defines excitement as a fundamental human emotionthat is characterized by interest in what is new or possible. Thus, by investigating these twocore emotions, one negative and one positive, we can further understand the cognition
associated with them and ultimately get a glimpse into why students may be reacting the way
they are.
Institutional Pressure for Online Courses
There has been some research focusing on the institutional pressure brought to bear on faculty
to teach online (Baran, Correia, & Thompson, 2011; Kang, 2012; Redmond, 2011). Grant(2004), for example, investigated factors that contributed to teacher education faculty’s
decision to pursue professional development in distance education technologies. Factors
mentioned by Grant included extrinsic factors, namely external pressures from department anduniversity administration for faculty to teach online. It should be noted, however, that thepressure was “moderate (but not overwhelming)” (p. 335), which contrasted with Lesht &Windes’ (2011) finding that “some felt excessive pressure” to teach online. Meanwhile, Bower(2001) stated that “[m]ost faculty … have not responded as quickly and enthusiastically asadministrators would like” (para. 2). Furthermore, while Betts (1998) found that 25% of
surveyed faculty experienced institutional pressure to teach online, Vernon, Vakalahi, Pierce,
Pittman-Munke, and Adkins (2009) discovered that nearly 67% of social work faculty
experienced the same pressure.
In contrast, in spite of anecdotal data suggesting that students experience a similar pressure to
take online courses, for example, when there are no seats left in their preferred face-to-face
	
  

94

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016sections (Filimban, 2008), there has been a dearth of research focusing on students being forced
to take online courses.
In view of this, our research question follows: Do feelings of excitement and fear moderate
and/or mediate the relationship between online learning experiences and student opinions about
the current state of online education, namely that institutions are pushing too much instruction
online?
MethodParticipantsParticipants were 16,000 part- and full-time students from a mid-sized public university in the
Mid-Atlantic region of the US who were invited via email to participate in an online survey on
distance learning attitudes. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants were free
to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. A total of 1,453 students responded,yielding a 9.1% response rate. Data for 53 of the participants was discarded due to failure tocomplete at least half of the survey (final N = 1400). Participants consisted of 20% males and
80% females. 85% of the students who completed the survey reported their status as full-timeand 67% of students in the sample completed 91 or more credits. 12% of respondents were
graduate students and 88% were undergraduates. The breakdown of participants by the collegeof their major was as follows: 26.5% from the College of Arts and Science, 24.2% from theCollege of Business and Public Affairs, 18% from the College of Education, 25.3% from theCollege of Health Sciences and 2.5% from the College of Visual and Performing Arts and 3.6%
undeclared. The mean age of the respondents was 23.06 (SD = 6.9) with a range of 17-67 years.
The ethnic breakdown of the survey respondents was as follows: 3.4% Asian or PacificIslander, 8.3% Black, African or African American, 3.4% Hispanic, 82.8% White or European
and 2.1% Other.
Measures
Demographic Variables
The following variables were used: gender (0 = male; 1 = female), part-time/full-time status (0= part-time; 1 = full-time), number of credits completed, and age (in years).
Online Course Experience
Participants were asked if they had taken any of the following types of courses during the mostrecent academic year: face-to-face, hybrid/blended, and online. Students who selected “online”
were coded as “1” (having online course experience) and students who did not choose “online”
were coded as “0” (not having online course experience). 22% of participants reported taking
an online course during the most recent academic year.
Excitement/Fear
The survey included the prompt: “Do the following developments fill you more withexcitement or with fear?” Response options included “more fear than excitement” or “moreexcitement than fear” and the responses were coded such that a higher score indicated more
excitement than fear. The item we used in our analyses was “the growth of online education.”
50% of respondents endorsed “more fear than excitement” and 50% endorsed “moreexcitement than fear.”

	
  

95

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

OutcomeThe survey included the prompt “What are your opinions about the current state of online
education?” and the following item was used in analyses as our outcome: “[my institution] is
pushing too much instruction online.” The item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale with
Strongly Disagree (1) and Strongly Agree (5) as anchors and 16.7% of respondents endorsed
agree/strongly agree, 30.4% endorsed neutral, and 52.8% endorsed disagree/strongly disagree.
Results
Correlation Analyses
To explore our research question, “Do feelings of excitement and fear moderate and/or mediate
the relationship between online learning experience and student opinions about the current stateof online education, namely that institutions are pushing too much instruction online?” we firstran a set of preliminary correlations which are reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Correlations among all study variables
Measure1 Part/FullTime
2 Number ofcredits
3 Age

M
.852
2.90
23.0
6

4 Gender.798

5 Onlinecourseexperience.220

6
Excitement/fea
r

1.50

7 My
institution ispushing too
much
instruction
online

2.52

SD
.35
5
1.4
4
6.9
5
.40
2
.41
3
.50
0
1.0
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

--.008

--

-

.171*
*

--

.502

-.048

-.001

-.015

--

-

.111*

.197*

.007

--

.043

.107*

-.011

.174**

--

-.034

-.007

.056
*

.092*
*

.364*
*

*
*

*

*

.181

*

*

-

*

.101

*

*

.042

-

* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Pairwise N= 1292-1400
An inspection of the correlation table indicated that the following variables were significantly
correlated with the extent to which students thought their institution was pushing too much
instruction online: gender (r = -.056; p < .05), online course experience (r = -.092; p < .001)
and excitement/fear (r = -.364; p < .001).

	
  

96

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Moderation Analyses
Given that the preliminary correlation analyses revealed that gender, online course experience,and excitement/fear were all predictive of our outcome, we ran an exploratory moderation
analyses to test for possible interactions among these three variables. Multiple regression
analyses were performed using the method suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The
following control variables were entered in the first step of the regression: part/full time,number of credits, and age. Next, the main effect variables (gender, online course experience,and excitement/fear) were added in step 2 of the regression. All two-way interaction terms wereentered in step 3 and finally the three-way interaction (gender X experience X excitement/fear)
was added in the fourth step. The results can be viewed in Table 2.
Table 2. Moderation Analysis

Predictors
Step 1
Part/Full Time
# Credits
Age

Outcome: My institution is pushing too much
instruction online
R2
β
ΔR2
.033
-.002
.057

Step 2
GenderOnline Teaching Experience
Excitement/Fear

.004

.004

.145

.141***.155.010**

.155

.000

-.003
.219*
-.275***

Step 3
Gender X Online Teaching Experience
Gender X Excitement/Fear
Online Teaching Experience X
Excitement/Fear

-.090
.081
-.339***

Step 4
Gender X Online Teaching Experience
X Excitement/Fear--Note. Standardized regression coefficients from the best-fitting model are shown.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Listwise N = 1234
A significant change in R2 at the third step (after adding the two-way interactions; (ΔR2 = .01,
p < .01)) indicated that, as a group, the two-way interactions explained significant variance inoutcome over and above the effects of the control and main effect variables. Inspection of the
	
  

97

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

My Institution is Pushing Too Much Instruction Online

standardized regression coefficients revealed that the two-way interaction between experienceand excitement/fear (β = -.339, p < .001) was significant in predicting our outcome. The othertwo two-way interactions were not significant. This significant interaction is illustrated in
Figure 1. As indicated by the figure, excitement/fear and online course experience interacted
to predict the extent to which respondents felt that their institution was pushing too much online
instruction. The relationship between experience and the outcome was positive for those who
were fearful but negative for those who were excited. Those students who were the most likely
to believe that their institution was pushing too much instruction online were those who had
online course experience and were fearful about the growth of online education.
3.5

3

2.5
More Fearful
More Excited

2

1.5

1
No Online Course Exp.

Online Course Exp.

Figure 1. Excitement/fear and online course experience interaction to predict the extent towhich respondents felt that their institution was pushing too much online instruction
Mediation Analyses
Given the strong correlation between fear/excitement and our outcome, and in an attempt todemonstrate the importance of fear/excitement over and above online course experience, we
also tested whether feelings of excitement or fear mediated the relationship between online
course experience and the extent to which students believed that their institution was pushing
too much instruction online. Multiple regression analyses were conducted using the methodsuggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The following variables were used as controls: gender,
part/full time, number of credits, and age. The first step was to establish a connection between
our predictor and outcome variable. In this instance our predictor was online course experience.
We thus regressed our outcome onto online course experience and online course experience
	
  

98

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

was significant (β = -.082; p < .01). With the predictor showing a significant relationship, we
proceeded to step 2 which consisted of showing the relationship between the predictor (online
course experience) and the mediator (excitement/fear). For this step the mediator(excitement/fear) was regressed onto the predictor (online course experience) and it wassignificant (β = .158; p < .001). With the relationship between predictor and mediator
established, the final step was to conduct a multiple regression with both online course
experience and excitement/fear as predictors. To establish mediation, it was necessary to showthat excitement/fear was significant in predicting our outcome and that once excitement/fear
was added to the regression equation, the relationship between online course experience andthe outcome weakened. To test this, the outcome was regressed onto online course experienceand excitement/fear. The results showed that excitement/fear significantly predicted ouroutcome (β = -.371; p < .001). In addition, the relationship between experience and the outcome
became non-significant (β = -.025; p = .373). Thus, the results indicated that excitement/fear
mediated the relationship between online course experience and the extent to which student
thought that our institution was pushing too much instruction online such that those students
who had online course experience were more likely to be excited about the growth of online
education and this excitement, in turn, was negatively related to believing that our institution
was pushing too much instruction online.
Discussion
This study investigated students’ attitudes by considering how emotion influenced theirperceptions of their online learning experiences. More specifically, the research question asked“Do feelings of excitement and fear moderate and/or mediate the relationship between online
learning experience and student opinions about the current state of online education, namelythat institutions are pushing too much instruction online?”
Our moderation analyses demonstrated that the relationship between online course experiences
and the extent to which students thought that our institution was pushing too much online
instruction depended on fear/excitement. Specifically, this relationship was positive for thosestudents who reported being more fearful than excited about the growth of online educationand negative for those students who reported being more excited than fearful. Students who
had online course experience and were fearful about the growth of online education were themost likely to think that our institution was pushing too much instruction online. This might bebecause they had already gained online course experience and might be pressured by theinstitution to take more online courses. Conversely, of the students who were excited about thegrowth of online education, students with online course experience were less likely to consider
that our institution was pushing too much instruction online in comparison to students without
online course experience. Furthermore, as a general group (without regard to online course
experience), students who were fearful about the growth of online education were more likely
to consider that our institution was pushing too much instruction online in comparison withstudents who were excited about the growth of online education. This was perhaps because
being excited about online education predisposed students towards online education and theywould not feel institutional pressure to take online courses.
In addition, our mediation analyses revealed that excitement/fear about the growth of online
education mediated the relationship between online course experience and students’ opinions
that institutions were pushing too much instruction online. In other words, excitement/fear wasa key explanatory variable in understanding why course experience was related to the tendency
to think that one’s institution was pushing too much instruction online. This finding has
important practical value because emotions like excitement or fear can be modified but

	
  

99

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

students’ past online course experience cannot. Administrators and faculty can, for example,
help engender an excitement for online learning among all students, whether or not students
have taken an online course. In addition, our findings also suggest that increased online course
experiences may result in more excitement and a decreased sense of pressure to take online
courses. However, further research is needed to confirm our findings and to better understandthe relationship among online course experience, excitement/fear, and students’ perception of
the institutional pressure to take online courses
In other words (and as demonstrated in Figure 1), of the students who were fearful about thegrowth of online education, students with online course experience were more likely toconsider that their institutions were pushing too much instruction online in comparison to
students without online course experience. The former might feel so because they had alreadygained online course experience and might feel pressurized by the institution to take more
online courses. Furthermore, as a general group (without regard to online course experience),
students who were fearful about the growth of online education were more likely to consider
that their institutions were pushing too much instruction online in comparison with students
who were excited about the growth of online education, the latter perhaps because they werealready predisposed towards online education and would not feel institutional pressure to takeonline courses. And finally, the magnitude of opinion about institutions pushing too much
instruction online was greater between students with online course experience who were more
fearful and more excited in comparison with the same two groups of students without online
course experience.
Conclusion
Although our research begins to demonstrate how excitement/fear shapes student opinions
about distance education, this study is not without its limitations. The standard limitations of
single-source, correlational survey data certainly apply to this study – e.g., causal inferences
cannot be made and common method bias may explain some of the relationships. In addition,although we were able to demonstrate that students who had online course experience and were
fearful about the growth of online education were the most likely to think that their institution
was pushing too much instruction online, there are other factors that can affect these negative
opinions. For example, the exact nature of the online course experience (e.g., Was it an elective
or required course? How much online teaching experience did the instructor have? What kindsof interactions did the students have with peers?) and other affective reactions (e.g., anger,
cynicism) may play a role in these opinions. Future research should explore these and otherfactors in order to paint a more complete picture of why and how students are affected bydistance education.
Future research should also delve deeper into some of our results. Qualitative data testing ourassumption that excitement about online education predisposes students to feeling less pressure
to take online courses would be fruitful. In addition, further research should explore therelationship between online course experience and student opinions. In what cases are moreexperience associated with positive vs. negative opinions? Lastly, given that our results
revealed the key role that excitement/fear plays in shaping student opinions, further researchshould continue down this avenue to not only confirm our findings, but to also explore how
institutional efforts to engender excitement might be associated with more positive opinions
about online learning.
Distance education is rapidly growing and it is important to understand how students’emotions, particularly excitement and fear, can affect their perception of the online learning
experience. Findings of this study suggested that when students were fearful of the growth of

	
  

100

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

online learning, they felt that their institution was pushing too much online instruction.
However, we also found that excitement/fear played a key role in shaping students opinions
about online education and that increasing excitement might help create a more positive climate
among students with regards to their opinions about online learning.

	
  

101

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

References
Abdous, M., & Cherng-Jyh, Y. (2010). A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomesin face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments.
Internet and Higher Education, 13, 248-257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.005
Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distancelearning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 2(2), 118-134.
Banerjee, M., & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (2002). Assessing student performance in distanceeducation courses: Implications for testing accommodations for students with learning
disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(3), 25-35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770202700303
Baran, E., Correia, A., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Criticalanalysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance
Education, 32(3), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649009526701
Betts, K. S. (1998). An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in
distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional
study.
Retrieved
October
18,
2003
from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html.
Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal ofDistance Learning Administration, 4(2).
Carswell, L., Thomas, P., Petre, M., Price, B., & Richards, M. (2000). Distance education via
the Internet: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1)29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00133
Eom, S. B., Ashill, N., & Wen, H. J. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning
outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
Ernst, J. V. (2008). A comparison of traditional and hybrid online instructional presentation incommunication technology. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 40-49.
Filimban, G. Z. (2008). Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of online learningtechnology at Oregon State University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon
State University, Oregon.
Grant, M. M. (2004). Learning to teach with the web: Factors influencing teacher education
faculty. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 329–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.005
Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Students’ frustrations with a Web-based distance education
course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved February 25, 2000, fromhttp://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html. Crossref
102

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Hillman, D. C. S., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner interface interaction in
distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies forpractitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
Holder, B. (2007). An investigation of hope, academics, environment, and motivation as
predictors of persistence in higher education online programs. Internet and Higher
Education, 10(4), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.002
Huynh, M. Q. (2005). Viewing e-learning productivity from the perspective of Habermas’
cognitive interests theory. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 3(2),33-45. https://doi.org/10.4018/jeco.2005040103
Inman, E., Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distancelearning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(6), 581-591.
https://doi.org/10.1080/106689299264594
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral programin educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research inHigher Education, 48(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4
Izard, C. E. (2013). Human emotions. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Kang, H. (2012). Training online faculty: A phenomenology study. International Journal on
ELearning, 11(4), 391-406.
Koroghlanian, C. M., & Brinkerhoff, J. (2007). Online students’ technology skills and attitudes
toward online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2) 219-244.
https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.36.2.i
Lapsley, R., Kulik, B., Moody, R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Is identical really identical? An
investigation of equivalency theory and online learning. Journal of Educators Online,5(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2008.1.3
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lesht, F., & Windes, D. (2011). Administrators' views on factors influencing full-time faculty
members' participation in online education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 14(4). Retrieved January 05, 2016 fromhttp://distance.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter144/lesht_windes144.html.
Lokken, F. & Mullins, C. (2014). Trends in eLearning: Tracking the impact of eLearning at
community colleges. 2013 Distance Education Survey Results, Instructional
Technology Council.
McDyre, B., McAndrew, A., & Smidt, E. (2015). Investigating an online TESOL course using
the framework of Transactional Distance Theory. In Zeng, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
4th Annual International Conference on Language, Literature & Linguistics (L3 2015)(pp. 144-149). GSTF. https://doi.org/10.5176/2251-3566_l315.13
O’Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Online learning, 7(3), 78-92.
Redmond, P. (2011). From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions.
G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing
In
Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. (pp.1050-1060). Retrieved January 05,
2016 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/Redmond-full.pdf.

103

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Reisetter, M., Lapointe, L., & Korcuska, J. (2007). The impact of altered realities: Implicationsof online delivery for learners’ interactions, expectations, and learning skills.
International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 55-80.
Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties,
controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 1-19). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning
environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1302-6488.
Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor
models. Computers and Education, 49, 396-413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of
web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609-637). New York: Guilford
Press.
Stevens, T., & Switzer, C. (2006). Differences between online and traditional students: A studyof motivational orientation, self-efficacy, and attitudes. Turkish Online Journal ofDistance Education, 7(2), 90-100.
Thompson, N. L., Miller, N. C., & Pomykal-Franz, D. (2013). Comparing online and face-toface learning experiences for nontraditional students: A case study of three online
teacher education candidates. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233251.
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online
classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
Vernon, R., Vakalahi, H., Pierce, D., Pittman-Munke, P., & Adkins, L. F. (2009). Distanceeducation programs in social work: Current and emerging trends. Journal of Social
Work Education, 45(2), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700081
Walker, K. B., & Hackman, M. Z. (1991). Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as
primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service (ED: 344266).
Warren, L. L., & Holloman, H. L., Jr. (2005). Online instruction: Are the outcomes the same?
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 148-151.

104