Students and Faculty – Do They Agree on What Makes an Effective Online Classroom? Kayla Westra -Minnesota West CTC. Presentation at the Brightspace Minnesota Connection at Normandale Community College on April 14, 2016.

1. Kayla Westra
Minnesota West Community and Technical College

2. Minnesota West CTC
 Liberal Arts and Technical
Education
 Five campuses, two centers, and
one course location in a
geographical area that comprises
19 southwestern Minnesota
counties, covering approximately
22,000 square miles

3. Focus
 What makes an effective online learning
environment?
 Do faculty and students agree?
 Are their perceptions aligned?
 Do both “see” the environment the same
way?

4. Background of the Problem
 Online teaching and learning is fairly new
(last 20 years)
 Early online instruction mirrored classroom
instruction
 Faculty preparedness varies
 Digital immigrants and digital natives
 Focus of research has been on faculty and
not on students

5. Literature Review Top Five
 Community colleges have embraced online
delivery.
 Access has prompted growth in this area.
 Most faculty don’t understand online
classrooms until they teach in that medium.
 Students have defined expectations.
 Exceptional online classes don’t just
happen.

6. Why Focus on Two Year
College?
 10+ years of archival data with same
instrument
 Leader in distance education
 Focus on teaching and learning

7. Methodology Overview
Two areas of focus
 Students
• Student survey data (archival) – quantitative
• Student comments (archival) – qualitative
 Faculty
• Survey data – quantitative
• Faculty comments - qualitative

8. Measures
 Mixed methods study
 Primary – quantitative
• Focus was on Section V of the IDEA survey
(Teaching Methods and Styles)
 Secondary – qualitative
• Open ended comment at end of survey

9. Sample
Students
n=10,000
Online courses with 15+ students
Minnesota West only
Faculty
n=100
Online course with 15+ students
Minnesota West only

10. Data Collection
Individual Development and Educational
Assessment (IDEA) Student Ratings of
Instruction
• 20 Teaching Methods (Section 5)
• One open-ended comment
• Voluntary
• Anonymous
• Students: 3 years of data
• Faculty: single-state, random, non-stratified
survey

11. Limitations
 One institution
 College freshman and sophomores only
 Voluntary survey (students and faculty)

12. Chapter 4 – Findings
 Quantitative – Three distinct analyses
• Student data
• Faculty data
• Comparison of student and faculty data
 Qualitative – coded and analyzed

13. Findings - Student Quantitative
Data
 Six semesters, over 10,000 survey
responses from 618 online courses.
 Top two teaching methods identified by
students:
• Question 3: Scheduled course work (class
activities, tests, projects) in ways which
encouraged students to stay up to date in
their work
• Question 12: Gave tests, projects, etc. that
covered the most important points of the
course

14. Findings – Faculty Quantitative
Data
 97 faculty who taught during the 2012-5 time frame
 32 respondents (33 percent)
 Over 53 percent had 10 or more years of online
teaching experience
 56 percent Liberal Arts
 38 percent technical faculty
 6 percent other areas
 Identified same top two teaching methods (3 and 12)
as students

15. Findings – Student Qualitative
Data
 One year of open comments
 862 comments
 Analyzed against the 20 Teaching Methods (section V)
 570/862 correlated to teaching methods
 Top was question 1, dealing with personal interest in
students
 Second was question 17, providing timely and relevant
feedback
 220 “positive” comments

16. Findings – Faculty Qualitative
Data
 Only six comments provided, and only
three related to teaching and learning.
 No meaningful qualitative data.

17. Summary
 Questions 3 (scheduling of coursework)
and 12 (Gave tests and assignments
relevant to coursework) were highest
ranked for both students and faculty
 Other questions not aligned as closely,
although six of top nine were similar for
both.
 Broader discrepancy for those questions
that were not as aligned.

18. Summary and Discussion
 Six of top nine similar for students and
facultySTUDENT RANKINGS FACULTY RANKINGS
1 Question 3, Scheduled course work (class activities,
tests, projects) in ways which encouraged students
to stay up to date
Question 3, Scheduled course work (class activities,
tests, projects) in ways which encouraged students to
stay up to date
2 Question 12, Gave tests, projects, etc. that covered
the most important points of the course
Question 12, Gave tests, projects, etc. that covered the
most important points of the course
3 Question 1, Displayed a personal interest in students
and their learning
Question 17, Provided timely and frequent feedback on
tests, reports, projects, etc. to help students improve
4 Question 4, Demonstrated the importance and
significance of the subject matter
Question 10 , Explained course material clearly and
concisely
5 Question 5, Formed "teams" or "discussion groups" to
facilitate learning
Question 4, Demonstrated the importance and
significance of the subject matter
6 Question 17, Provided timely and frequent feedback
on tests, reports, projects, etc. to help students
improve
Question 1, Displayed a personal interest in students
and their learning
7 Question 19, Gave projects, tests, or assignments that
required original or creative thinking
Question 7, Explained the reasons for criticisms of students’
academic performance
8
Question 11, Related course material to real life Question 11, Related course material to real life
9 Question 6, Made it clear how each topic fit into the
course
Question 2, Found ways to help students answer their own
questions

19. Student Top Ten Not in
Faculty Top Ten
 Question 5, Formed “teams” or "discussion
groups” to facilitate learning was listed as
fifth for students, and twentieth (last) for
faculty.
 Question 19, Gave projects, tests, or
assignments that required original or
creative thinking was listed seventh for
students, and fourteenth for faculty.
 Question 6, Made it clear how each topic fit
into the course was listed ninth for
students, and nineteenth for faculty.

20. Summary and Discussion –
IDEA categories
Section Faculty Students
Section E. Structuring Classroom
Experiences
4
(3, 10, 12, 17)
4
(3, 6, 12, 17)
Section D. Encouraging Student
Involvement
1
(11)
2
(11, 19)
Section C. Establishing Rapport 3
(1, 2, 7)
1
(1)
Section A. Stimulating Student Interest 1
(4)
1
(4)
Section B. Fostering Student Collaboration 0 1
(5)

21. Summary of Student Qualitative
Data
 Reinforced the quantitative data
 220 positive comments (out of 292
generic comments) – 75%
 Related to veteran faculty?

22. Conclusions
 Alignment in some areas, and not in
others.
 Three of top five questions were the
same for both.
 Six of top nine questions were the same
for both.
 Two of student top ten were listed as
nineteen and twenty for faculty.

23. Importance?
 Alignment in expectations is great, but…
 More may be learned from the
disconnects
• Question 5: using discussion forums
• Question 10: clear explanations important
• Implications for Faculty and Course
Design
• Discipline and learner maturity are factors
• Faculty development is important
• Student expectations are relevant

24. Significance of Research
 By better understanding student
expectations and alignment with faculty
perceptions, faculty can enhance their
courses
 Significant to faculty, instructional
designers, professional development
coordinators, and administration

25. Suggestions for Additional
Research
 Review all of the data (10+ years) to
look for additional longitudinal patterns
 Expand beyond one college
 Gather more data on professional
development and impact on online
learning

26. Faculty and Student Perceptions
of Effective Online Learning
Environments at a Two-Year
College
Questions?