Module 6: Student Perspectives

Open-Ended Interviews on Distance Education

Windows Media Player Clips | Quicktime Player Movies | Analysis of Interviews

Windows Media Player Clips (.WMV) Below are the Windows Media Player Versions (.WMV) Note that you may need to download the Windows Media Player in order to view these Download the Windows Media Player here.

Quicktime Player Movies | Back to Top | Analysis of Interviews

Apple Quicktime Movies (.MOV) Below are the Apple Quicktime Player Versions (.MOV) Note that you may need to download the Apple Quicktime Player in order to view these Download the Apple Quicktime Player here.

Windows Media Player Clips |Back to Top | Analysis of Interviews

Analysis of Interviews

Table of Contents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaire

Introduction

Unfortunately, I was a personal acquaintance of all 3 subjects in my interviews. However, I am glad to say that I do not know any of them as a very close friend and in fact, in all 3 cases, my acquaintanceship is more by virtue of circumstance, than by choice. Therefore, it is my hope that this relationship had a minimal impact on the forthrightness and censorship of the responses to my questions.

Notwithstanding my relationship to the interviewees, I still introduced myself very briefly in the beginning of each interview for the purpose of documentation and protocol. Although I had carefully reviewed the overall goals and purpose of my research with the subjects, as well as the details of my procedures and plans (including the placement of the interviews on my website), I nevertheless once again reviewed these briefly as part of my interview.

Anonymity

In all 3 cases, my respondents were completely unconcerned with privacy, and I almost had to convince them it was to their own advantage for me to use discretion. Although I was not in view of the camera for the interviews, the subjects certainly were, and therefore they gave only demographic information which would be relevant to the research while still low risk to any harm to their privacy. Their main concern, rather, was that the videos not be sent to their former instructors, although even this would have been somewhat moot, since no course that was discussed, included the title, course prefix, course number, section, or the name of the instructor. Consequently, the identity of the courses discussed were also protected, and only the most relevant details of the course were divulged (including the subject matter, topical coverage, instructional design, technology used, etc.).

During the introduction, the subjects introduced themselves, but only gave their first name. Afterwards, they were given some freedom to add any other additional demographic information they chose. Surprisingly however, no one gave their age, and there were few hints about marital status. Instead, the subjects somewhat intuitively gave personal information that might be more relevant to the research (whether they had kids at home, held a FT job, etc.). In all 3 interviews, during the introductions, the subjects were again reminded that the video recorded footage of the interviews would not be used for any other purpose without their consent.

Instrument Outline

Below is the full version of the initial interview structure I designed (including questions/topics). When conducting the interview, I intentionally did not look down at my notes or at any book. I did not want to stagnate the flow of conversation, or to create a sense of formalism. My intention was to create a somewhat relaxed sensation of conversation (in fact, I instructed the interviewee to look at me, and not the camera).

In addition to using a highly flexible and open-ended style of conversation, I purposely skipped some questions which I deemed were partially addressed already either indirectly or peripherally in the course of conversation or due to time constraints. On the other hand, if a respondent seemed to really want to include some commentary on some other aspect or topic relevant to the distance course then I was included to allow them to elaborate on that quite a bit, and might even prompt them further if my own interest was piqued.

1. Part I

   1. Introduction

      1. My name

      2. Purpose of my research

      3. Purpose of the interview

   2. Informed Consent

      1. Acknowledgment of understanding of research

      2. Acknowledgment of understanding of purpose the interview

      3. Agreement to the interview

      4. Agreement to interview being posted on internet website

   3. Demographics

      1. First Name

      2. General Info (whatever is volunteered)

2. Part II

   1. Description of the Distance Course

      1. When was/is the course taken

      2. Was partial, or entirely online?

   2. Overall feelings/attitudes about the course

      1. Describe feelings overall about it

      2. Describe attitudes overall about it

   3. Student introductions

      1. Did you have one?

      2. Was it 'self-introductions' (describe it)?

      3. Did you like this, was it effective?

   4. Social collaboration

      1. Was there collaboration among students?

      2. Types of student communications?

      3. Was this good for your, or effective overall?

   5. What are responsibilities of the teacher

   6. What are the responsibilities of the student

   7. How could the course have been made 'better'?

   8. What needed to be improved

   9. What are characteristics of the most successful students

   10. What are the characteristics of the struggling students

   11. What kinds of technology problems experienced?

   12. How could technology have made it better?

   13. Was/is video an important part of distance ed?

3. Conclusion

   1. Would you take another distance education course?

   2. Last minute questions or comments?

   3. Thank you

Relation to Research

As you can see from the outline above, my interview questions, and general methodology were designed only AFTER reaching chapter 6 and the additional resources. Although my execution left something to be desired, it was my greatest desire to precisely target this assignment and match perfectly the requested tasks item for item.

Although my interview questions went beyond those suggested as the 2 core issues (characteristics of DE students, and the responsibilities of students), I was very careful to ensure that I included those 2 questions in all 3 interviews. As listed in the Outline above, and will be discussed below, there were various additional questions that went beyond these two core issue however.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results

Summary of findings

Overall, the initial reaction to the responses provided by the 3 students interviewed might be construed as more negative than positive. However, it is my personal contention, that this may not be representative of all distance education students and could even have been a result of the approach and questions made. In other words, the design of the interview, the questions asked, and other variables could have potentially been manipulated to elicit a more positive slant to the whole process, and likely to the overall tone of responses received.

Whereas all 3 students seemed to indicate that if given a choice, they would prefer to a face-to-face class over a distance education course, only 1 of the students (Nancy) indicated that she would probably not be interested in ever taking another distance education course under any circumstances. In general, this seems to support the "philosophical assumptions" in the Preface to Simonson et al. (2006), which are also reiterated on pg. 5 (Ch. 1) of the text. It is not clear from the textbook what actual published research supports this, but nevertheless it does make sense and seems true.

There was some discussion of the characteristics and responsibilities of DE students, but those two topics have their own sections below. In attempting to summarize the overall patterns and themes of the interviews however, it is worth mentioning a last particularly salient issue for each of the 3 respondents. Whereas all 3 respondents seemed to agree that the informal social aspects of F2F instruction were a big part of what was lacking from the DE course environment, none of the 3 subjects seemed to agree that it was very effective in DE, even when it was required as part of the performance grade in the DE class (such as a required number of responses to discussion posts of self-introductions).

Although two respondents were definitely agreed when prompted that these "intro's" were actually a good thing, and substituted in some measure for the lack of social bonding, as is seen in F2F between a student and immediately surrounding students, they still reverted shortly thereafter in their seeming attitudes, to the idea that this was just merely "more work" or additional tasks which were unnecessary. Recommendations for experimental alternatives to this are below.

Characteristics of DE students

The picture that emerges from my own research (3 interviews) of the 21st century distance education student are as follows: (1) 20's to 40's in age, older than typically fresh high-school students, (2) Those who are attempting to complete an initial degree, without quitting their FT job, (3) Those who are attempting to obtain a secondary degree (graduate degree) but who need to remain employed full-time while doing so. These characteristics coincide with many students who don't really even prefer DE over F2F, but still demand it, as a necessity for those with full-time jobs, scheduling conflicts, excessive commuter distances, etc.

Unlike Benson (2004) as cited in Ch 6., pg. 258 of Simonson et. al. (2006) I did not find a difference between blue collar and white collar students, however, that is quite possibly due to my small sample size. In all 3 subject interviews of my DE students, there was no reported problems at all with getting access to recourses or class materials via the internet. I will admit though, that in general there does seem to be a correlation between the general level of self-motivation and success in a DE environment, within the 3 interviews I performed, and based upon my own additional knowledge of these subjects beyond the interviews.

In addition , it is my general opinion, that Smith & Dunn (1991), as cited in Ch. 6 of Simonson et. al. (2006) on pg. 161 were also correct in stating that cognitive abilities are an indicator of success in DE. However, I would disagree that this has as large an effect for the middle of the bell curve. Because differences in intelligence near the middle of the bell curve are similar, personality variables such as motivation are likely to have a stronger impact on success between such students. On the other hand, for those who are significantly below the mean IQ, this could be a larger impact, even where the student is highly motivated. Likewise, for the rare student who is 2 SD's or more above the mean, they might have a difficult time communicating, or maintaining engagement due to boredom or lack of challenge and a sense that they are simply performing meaningless tasks without learning.

Responsibilities of DE students

During all 3 interviews I asked the interviewee what they considered the responsibilities of the DE student to be. Responses in all cases where very similar: to complete coursework assigned and to turn it in on time. During the first two interviews, after an initial answer which was somewhat limited in scope, I attempted to probe deeper. After several encouragements to elaborate or provide more, the response was merely a recapitulation or rephrasing of what was already stated. Next, I attempted to hint that perhaps the student had a shared responsibility to communicate in ways that would stimulate the environment of collaboration and community. This did not have the intended effect, and did not appear to have a large impact or to resonate logically with the interviewees. However, in at least one case, this interaction did result in uncovering of one other student responsibility which might have been overlooked.

It was suggested by one interviewee that students had a responsibility to communicate back to the instructor any comments, criticisms, or compliments which they might have, in order to improve the course. One of the interviewees suggested that students do this throughout the course, whereas two other interviewees suggested that this is in effect accomplished by the end of course evaluations which students fill out. As mentioned above, further prodding of the first 2 interviewees as to other responsibilities was not met with prolific responses. On the other hand, during another unrelated portion of the interview with the third subject, a similar comment about feedback and evaluation of the course was made by the interviewee. It was suggested by Randy, during his interview, that the effects of student feedback are usually not of greatest benefit to those students currently enrolled in a DE course, but is most likely to benefit those those who enroll in subsequent semesters. This is significant, because if students view course evaluation in this perspective, they are most likely conceptualizing the course evaluation as a true responsibility they must full-fill, even without any immediate personal benefit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparisons

Relationship to textbook (Ch.6)

As Simonson et. al. (2006) relates on pg. 5 "student say they do not really want to learn at a distance", and yet "students are increasingly demanding to be allowed to learn at a distance" for various reasons. This statement was supported by the interviews I conducted, because although all 3 subjects stated they would prefer a face to face environment, that they needed and benefited from the opportunity and freedom to take a DE course which fit their own schedule.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) as cited in Simonson et. al. (2006) state that "without establishing a community of learners in a distance setting, the potential for success is limited" and suggest that "the responsibility for creating this culture...is the responsibility of all participants, not just the instructor." This statement may be more a perception or value judgment of instructors of DE courses, but not of students. The interviews I conducted indicated that DE students may be unaware of this, or that they do not agree with it. Further research or interviews should be conducted to clarify whether DE students are unaware of this, whether they perceive that such activities which create a culture of community will benefit themselves and all others in the course, or whether they disagree that it (1) will benefit them or anyone else in the course or (2) that it SHOULD be their responsibility, even if it does benefit them. In other words, though some students feel it would benefit them to take more ownership of their eating experience in a restaurant, and that they could actually serve their own dishes at a cafeteria style (buffet) line, they may prefer to believe that this should be part of the cost they pay, and that someone else choosing their portion size and or merely picking from predetermined combinations of entrees listed in a menu is more to their liking. Some students may wish to complete a course with minimal work, and may feel that learning can still be maximized without increasing work or involvement (even socially) on their own behalf.

Along these same lines, according to Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland (2005) as cited on pg. 159 of Simonson et. al. (2006) "many distance students are cited as being independent learners" and yet they "derive value from collaborative learning experiences". This statement was supported by two of the three interviews I conducted. At least two of the interviewees, although they did not immediately give the impression that they wholeheartedly agreed, or even recognized that participatory social collaboration beyond the mere academics of a DE course subject, would increase the benefit to all who are enrolled, they did however agree that this probably would increase involvement and therefore generate some atmosphere of community which then could have some benefit to students, because of increased tendency toward communication. It should be added though, that the students were to some extent merely agreeing with a series of statements which to a degree were 'asking for agreement', in the sense that they related logical arguments such as "can see that if A, then B?" and so on.

Relationship to other research

Unlike intelligence, one factor I found to be highly relevant to the success of DE students is knowledge level. Whereas 'g' may be related to general emotional engagement, motivation and ease of communication, knowledge level may impact success through similar but nevertheless different processes. Students who are otherwise intelligent (such as my interviewee 'Nancy') may have had no prior knowledge of a subject, and may be expected to have this knowledge level as an assumption of the class. In fact, Nancy stated that this was a problem for her as well as several other students in her class.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommendations

Instructors

In my opinion, if a student has prior knowledge of a subject and is taking a class which is far below their knowledge level within that topical area, then they can become disengaged with the course activities. The same is also true for students who feel anxiety and uncertainty because of their own sense of being expected to know far more than they do for the course. One method to alleviate these situations, are for instructors to provide an objective multiple choice pre-test in a course which is highly quantitative or empirical (such as a course in advanced anatomy, or quantum mechanics).

Communication within a distance education course is essential. Instructors should not only provide for easy communication between instructor and student, but also between students themselves. Students should also have some reassurance of privacy in their communications between each other. Lastly, because some students are highly protective of their identity information, there may also be a need to create a completely alternative identity for the student, such as a way for emails to be directed to a created temporary email address, then forwarded to their permanent one. This would be more so true for men with criminal records, or women who are fearful of men stalking them and such. Hopefully, most students will be easier to work with, and not have a problem with getting emails at their true address so things don't get so complicated.

Although most graduate students do have the faculties to grasp the benefits to themselves of communication patterns which create a sense of community and a culture of open social collaboration, they may not immediately recognize the ultimate benefits to themselves through a causal chain of improvements in overall communication in the course and emotional and personal involvement and engagement. Instructors of DE courses would do well to take this into consideration and may wish to present this as a set of arguments within the syllabus, rather than to merely state the antecedents. In other words, rather than merely stating the responsibilities of students (shared communication and informal collaborations with peers which creates a community), instructors should present the entire causal chain and place emphasis on the potential payoff or benefits to students within their syllabi or introductory statements to the course.

Lastly, instructors should recognize that graduate students are not weighing and comparing one course for pros and cons. Although an instructor who only teaches 1 or 2 subjects (perhaps with several classes or sections of the same course) in a single semester, students may have double that number which they are taking, and even 3 or 4 times that number when choosing from the larger pool of available course for which to register. Perceptual changes on behalf of the instructor may be necessary in order to fit reality in some cases, rather than require that reality (students perceptions) shift toward their own. For instance, mere benefit alone is not motivation enough for many students to become sold on a task and thus fully engaged. Student should be constantly probed by instructors for further, deeper, richer feedback, both informally and formally (not just at end of course evaluations). Unlike a F2F environment, the DE class may not have as many opportunities for this type of non-academic communication and therefore students may not feel as inclined to initiate it without invitation.

Administrators

Based on interviews with and research on DE students, their characteristics, success factors, their perceptions of their responsibilities and investigations of the characteristics of successful DE courses, my recommendations to University administrators of DE course are that under all circumstances, and at any cost, students be provided the opportunity to communicate with each other in some manner. Administrators should ensure this by requiring it of technology support professionals who configure and administer the technologies involved, and of instructors who establish the class 'rules' by which the class operates.

Incentives and rewards should be made to instructors based not only on their performance (as reviewed by students and by independent quality reviewers) but also based on their usage of best practices in DE (and particularly in DE) environments. At present, there does not seem to be an adequate quality review system by which administrators can ensure quality in the DE environment. The current system by which standards are promulgated appears to be a mere product of traditional pedagogical environments, which of course does not apply to the DE course.

Administrators should require that all course syllabi be made available to all students prior to registration/enrollment. Because it may not be practicable for instructors to conduct pre-test prior to registration of knowledge levels, and of preparedness to take a DE course, there should be some means by which students can estimate the work load, knowledge level required, and have more realistic expectations of the course prior to becoming 'trapped' in a situation they are unhappy with. After the standard registration period is over, a test of preparedness by an instructor would do little good, because students will feel pressured to remain in a course against their own better judgment, simply because they have paid a lot of money for it, or because of course credit requirements (continuous enrollment requirements for their program or for financial aid) and because in some cases of the investment they may have already made into the course up to that point (purchase of textbook, rearrangement of work schedule, etc.). By requiring that all syllabi be made available to all students prior to registration, not only will students be able to make more informed decisions about whether they are prepared, but this will also indicate that instructors have prepared for the course ahead of time, and have planned activities with a pedagogical strategy and set of learning goals in mind.

Windows Media Player Clips | Back to Top | Quicktime Player Movies