dr. nasrin nazemzadeh, phd dissertation defense, dissertation chair, dr. william allan kritsonis

8/14/2019 Dr. Nasrin Nazemzadeh, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-nasrin-nazemzadeh-phd-dissertation-defense-dissertation-chair-dr-william 1/42

Social Presence in Online Courses:

An Examination of Perceived Learning

and Satisfaction

A Dissertation Defense

by

Nasrin Nazemzadeh

Dissertation Chair: William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.Prairie View A & M University

Educational Leadership

November 2008



Committee Members Dissertation Chair:

William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

Dissertation Committee:

David Herrington, Ph.D.

Solomon Osho, Ph.D.

Tyrone Tanner, Ph.D



Dissertation Defense Format What is Social Presence? Statement of the Problem Subject of Study Purpose of the Study Instrumentation Research Methodology Research Questions and Summery of Findings

Null Hypotheses Tables Conclusions Recommendations Recommendations for Further Study



Social Presence According to Short (1976), the degree to which a person is perceived as “real” in mediated

communication. Characteristics: 1. Interactivity

Short, Williams & Christie (1976), Interaction between instructorsand students, & among students 2. Mediated Communication

Those communications that occur via computer mediated (i.e., discussion board, e-mail

and chat rooms) between two or more individuals 3. Immediacy

Anderson (1979), Those nonverbal behaviors that reduce physicaland/or psychological distance between teachers and students

4. Reciprocal Awareness

Rafaeli (1998), Not only the presence of interactivity but also a recognition and

awareness of the interactivity by participants 5. Connectedness

Rovai (2001), Sense of involvement and engagement



Statement of The Problem Online education is the fastest growing segment of the

higher education industry. This growth is global. Spague

(2007) projects that enrollment in distance-teachinginstitutions will grow to 120 million by the year 2025.Two year colleges have recognized the importance of online education to their long term growth strategiesmore than other types of institutions. Therefore, it isimportant to investigate if this growth will compoundthe educational deficits that have been documented intraditional education.



Subjects of the Study

The study was conducted on students

enrolled in online courses in theDepartment of Business and Technology

at Lone Star College-Tomball in

Tomball, Texas. The results of the studymay be generalized to the population of

students at Lone Star College-Tomball.



Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to examine the role of

social presence in online courses at a community

college. Specifically, the study examines the

relationship of social presence in online courses to

students’ perceived learning and satisfaction with

their educational experience. The result of thisstudy will help educational leaders to utilize more

effectively the online instruction.



Instrumentation

After careful analysis of several developed

instruments, a modified instrument consistingof 48 questions was selected. This minimized

the need for validation. The first 42 questions

are multiple-choice, and the last six requirewritten responses.



Instrumentation The instrument was placed with Wonder Survey

Inc. Students logged on to the Wonder Survey

web site where they directly answered thequestions and submitted the results electronically

to Wonder Survey. A total of 150 students, 52.1%

of the invited students completed the survey.Wonder Survey tabulated the responses and

provided the results. The questions and the

choices were relabeled for convenience.



Research Methodology

Data-Analytic Methods used:

1. Descriptive Statistics 2. ANOVA

3. Multiple Regression Analysis

4. Logit Analysis of Binary Dependent VariableModels.



Research Question # 1 and

Summary of Findings Does the online learning experience contribute to

feelings of isolation among students?

My research shows that 32% of the respondents indicatedthat they felt isolated. This proportion is significantly

different from zero as evidenced from a t-stat = 8.4, and

its P-value = 0.000. Moreover, the greater the prevalence

of these feelings, the less satisfied students typically are,

and the less they perceive to learn.




Summary of Findings What factors influence student satisfaction in online classes?

Listed in table 9 Instructor’s social presence

The extent to which students feel they are part of a group, and Effective communication with the instructor and with other

students

Factors that detract from it are:

Feeling threatened,

Feeling isolated, and

Missing not seeing and hearing the instructor




Summary of Findings Is the online learning experience detrimental to students’

motivation? The related item in the instrument reads: The

online course stimulated my desire to learn. According to my research, overall, 66% agreed with the

statement and 34% disagreed. The proportion that

disagreed is significantly different from zero, t-stat = 8.76,

probability value = 0.000. A significant proportion of

students report that the online course did not stimulate

their desire to learn.




Summary of Findings What factors influence learning outcomes? According to my

research:

Feeling part of a group Being able to communicate with other students and with the

instructor

Learning about the instructor

Feeling isolated

Feeling threatened

Missing not seeing and hearing the instructor

The motivation to participate.




Summary of Findings Is perceived learning related to social presence? The evidence in Tables 11 and 12 shows that a

statistically significant proportion of thosereporting decreased learning, missed not seeingand hearing the instructor, reported decreasedquantity and quality of interaction with theinstructor and with students, expressed feelings of isolation, were less motivated to learn, and learnedless about the instructor. All of the above are

components of the larger picture of social presence.




Summary of Findings What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of online education?

The main perceived strength is flexibility: Ninety-four % of the respondents in

this study indicated that they took the online course because it allowed more

flexibility in time management. Consistent with this finding, the overwhelming

majority of respondents indicated that they are willing to take another online

course.

Weaknesses: The results also indicate that the respondents missed not seeing and

hearing the instructor, felt isolated and threatened, were less motivated to learn,

were less satisfied with the educational experience, reported that the amount

learned decreased, their motivation to participate decreased, the amount and

quality of interaction with the instructor and students decreased, and the online

course did not provide an educational experience similar to the classroom .



Null Hypotheses

H01. There is no statistically significant difference

between the personal experience of the online

course and that of the classroom. (Rejected).

H02. There is no statistically significant relationship

between labor force activity as measured by

average weekly hours of work, and the decision to

enroll in online courses. (Not Rejected)



Ho2. There is no statistically significant relationship between labor force

activity, as measured by average weekly hours of work, and the decision to

enroll in online courses (Not Rejected).

Table 4

________________________________________________

Hours/Week Percent of Respondents t-Stat P-value _________________________________________________

1-10 18.7 -1.12 0.26

11-20 14.0 -2.22 0.03

21-30 10.7 -3.09 0.00

31-40 32.7 1.66 0.1

Over 40 24.0

The decision to enroll in online classes is not systematically

related to hours worked per week.



Does the decision to take another online course depend

on labor force activity? Answer: No

Table 5

_______________________________________________

Hours/Wk Percent of respondents willing t-Stat P-valueto take another online course

__________________________________________________

1-10 89 -0.75 .46

11-20 95 0.11 .9221-30 94 -0.08 .93

31-40 90 -0.77 .44

Over 40 94

The difference in means is not statistically significant at .05 and .01 level.



Null Hypotheses

H03. There is no statistically significant

relationship between commuting time to

school and the decision to enroll in online

courses (Not Rejected).



H03. There is no statistically significant relationship

between commuting time to school and the decision to

enroll in online courses (Not Rejected). Table 6 ___________________________________________________________ _

Commuting Time Percent of

(minutes) Respondents ___________________________________________________________ _

0-15 44

16-30 30.7

31-45 17.3

46-60 5.3

Over 60 2.7

Contrary to expectations, commuting time does not systematically relate to thedecision to enroll online. Evidently, 74% percent of the students live within ashort distance from the school.

Commuting time and the willingness to take



Commuting time and the willingness to take

another online course (No Relationship is

Found).

Table 7

____________________________________________________________________

Commuting Time Percent of respondents willing t-Stat P-value

(minutes) to take another online course

________________________________________________________________

0-15 95 -0.33 .74

16-30 96 -0.32 .74

31-45 73 -1.91 .06

46-60 100 0.00 1

Over 60 100

There is no statistically significant relationship between commuting time and thewillingness to take another online course.



Null Hypotheses

H04. There is no statistically significant

relationship between student satisfaction with

the educational experience and the

instructor’s social presence (Rejected).



H04 . There is no statistically significant relationship betweenstudent satisfaction with the educational experience and theinstructor’s social presence (Rejected, t-stat = -4.43).

Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit The estimation sample is 1 – 150.

_______________________________________________________

Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob Constant 1.35239 0.2897 4.67 0.000 miss -1.64007 0.3701 -4.43 0.000 log-likelihood -89.6610156 no. of states 2 no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2

______________________________________________________ The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, very

good, or good and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘miss’equals one if respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they missed not seeing

and hearing the instructor. The t-stat of the coefficient is negative and highly



H04 . There is no statistically significant relationship between student

satisfaction with the educational experience and the instructor’s

social presence (Rejected, t-stat = 2.82).

Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit The estimation sample is 1 – 150 ___________________________________________________________ Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob Constant 2.37308e-016 0.2236 0.00 1.000 ins 0.987387 0.3496 2.82 0.005 log-likelihood -96.3789935 no. of states 2 no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2

___________________________________________________________

The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, verygood, or good and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘ins’equals one if respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they learned a greatdeal about the instructor. The t-stat of the coefficient is positive and highlysignificant, thus decisively rejecting the null hypothesis.



H04 . There is no statistically significant relationship

between student satisfaction with the educational

experience and the social presence (Rejected, t= 3.67).

Modeling Satisfaction with the Educational Experience by Logit The estimation sample is 1 – 150 ______________________________________________________________________

Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-prob

Constant -0.374693 0.2770 -1.35 0.178

group 1.31296 0.3581 3.67 0.000

log-likelihood -93.5351378 no. of states 2

no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2

___________________________________________________________ The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected excellent, very good, or good

and equals zero otherwise. The independent variable, ‘group’ equals one if respondentsstrongly agreed or agreed that even though they were not physically in a traditional classroomthey still felt that they were part of a group. The t-stat of the coefficient is positive and highlysignificant, thus decisively rejecting the null hypothesis.



H05 . There is no statistical evidence that students

feel isolated by the online experience (Rejected t =

-4.52).

Modeling Satisfaction with Educational Experience by Logit The estimation sample is 1 – 150 _______________________________________________________

Coefficient Std.Error t-value t-probConstant 1.02165 0.2244 4.55 0.000

isol -1.71480 0.3796 -4.52 0.000

log-likelihood -89.5007031 no. of states 2

no. of observations 150 no. of parameters 2

_________________________________________________________ The dependent variable equals one if the respondent selected

excellent, very good, or good and equals zero otherwise. Theindependent variable, ‘isol’ equals one if respondents strongly agreedwith feelings of isolation while taking an online course. The t-stat of

the coefficient is negative and highly significant, thus decisively



Null Hypotheses

H05 . There is no statistical evidence that students

feel isolated by the online experience (Rejected). H06 . There is no statistical evidence that students

find the online medium to be a poor way to

communicate with the instructor (Rejected).



Null Hypotheses

H07. There is no statistical evidence thatstudents find the online medium to bethreatening (Rejected).

H08. There is no statistically significantrelationship between perceived learning andsocial presence in online education(Rejected).



Table 9. Focuses on Perceived Satisfaction

with the Educational Experience in Relation

to Social Presence

Table 9 shows descriptive statistics (means),

i.e., the percent of students who rated their overall educational experience in the online

course in relation to social presence and

perceived satisfaction. Twenty-twoquestions from the instrument were selected

for this purpose.



Table 9. Description

1. Students rated their overall educational experience intaking an online course as follows: Excellent (17%), VeryGood (19%), Good (24%), Satisfactory (31%), and Poor (8%).

Question 1, column 2 shows that 50% of the students whorated their educational experience as excellent agreed withthe statement “Learned a great deal about the instructor.” As

we move to the right we find the following numbers: 66, 52,40, and 0. We observe a tendency for the proportion of students who

learned a great deal about the instructor, to decrease as their perception of the educational experience worsens.



Table 10. Description

1. The difference between each group mean andthose who rated their experience as poor, the

benchmark group, is examined and t-stats and p-values were calculated in order to test the nullhypothesis that the difference in group means iszero.

2. In question 1 (Learned a great deal about theinstructor), the t-stats shown in columns 2, 3, 4& 5, are significant, indicating that we reject thenull hypothesis that the difference in each group

mean relative to poor raters is zero.



Table 10:Results

The main characteristics that distinguish the poor raters from the other four groups are as follows:

Students tend to feel threatened Students tend to feel isolated They miss not seeing and hearing the instructor They do not feel part of group

They are less motivated to participate and to learn, and in fact theyreport decreased learning They see the online educational experience as very different from that

of the classroom Finally, they were much less likely to enjoy the online course.



Table 11. Focuses on Perceived Learning

in Relation to Social Presence

Table 11 shows descriptive statistics (means),

i.e., the percent of students who rated theamount learned in the online course in

relation to social presence. Nineteen

questions from the instrument were selectedfor this purpose.



Table 11 Students rated the amount they learned in the online course

as follows: Increased (29%), Increased Somewhat (10%), No Change (38%), Decreased Somewhat (16%), and

Decreased (7%). Column 2 shows that of those students indicating that the

amount learned increased, only 37% missed the instructor’s presence, as compared to 63% of those reporting that theamount learned decreased somewhat (column 5), and 100%

of those who indicated that the amount learned decreased(column 6).

We observe an inverse relationship between perceivedlearning and social presence; specifically, as perceived

learning decreases, a larger percentage of students missedthe instructor’s resence.



Table 12

1. The difference between each group mean andthose who said that the amount learned decreased,

the benchmark group, is examined and t-stats and p-values were calculated in order to test whether thedifference in means is statistically significant.

2. In question 1 (Learned a great deal about theinstructor), columns 2, 3, 4 & 5, the t-stats aresignificant, indicating that we reject the nullhypothesis that the difference in each group mean

relative to the benchmark group is zero.



Table 12: Results

The main characteristics that distinguish the “leastlearners” from the other four groups are as follows:

Students tend to feel threatened Students tend to feel isolated They missed not seeing and hearing the instructor They do not feel part of group Are less motivated to participate and to learn The online educational experience is very different

from that of the classroom.



Overall Results

The results in tables 11 & 12 confirm those

reported in tables 9 and 10, and providestatistically significant evidence that

educational outcomes are adversely affected

by a diminution of social presence in onlineclasses.



Conclusions

This work shows that in a statistically significant proportion of online students:

The motivation to learn decreases

Tend to feel isolated Tend to be threatened

Miss not seeing and hearing the instructor Find the online medium to be a poor way to communicate and

interact with others, and

In fact, the report shows a decrease in perceived learning.

All of the above underscore the importance of social presence inonline education. This is an important issue that educationalleaders should take into account.



Recommendations

1. Training classes to prepare instructors to design quality online courses 2. Alerting students about the negative aspects of online learning and how to

overcome them 3. Pre-testing students to determine if they are ready to tackle online courses

4. Instructors should encourage students to interact with others by assigning group projects, case studies and discussion questions via chat-room and discussion board

5. Instructors must have an active participation rule in classes in a way that studentsfeel the instructor’s social presence

Informal gathering of instructors with students or among students 6. Use streaming videos to make sure the students feel the instructor’s social

presence.



Recommendations for Further Study

1. A study should be conducted to include a larger sample of students in the Lone Star College System in order to determinethe extent to which the results generalize to students in other departments besides Business and Technology, and in other

locations 2. A study should be conducted to include undergraduate

students at the university level in order to ascertain if the resultsgeneralize to a larger cross section of students including juniorsand seniors.

3. A study should be conducted to include graduate students atthe university level in order to ascertain if the results generalizeto them as well.

dr. nasrin nazemzadeh, phd dissertation defense, dissertation chair, dr. william allan kritsonis

Documents