{"id":837,"date":"2016-04-28T16:20:40","date_gmt":"2016-04-28T16:20:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/?p=837"},"modified":"2016-06-07T15:08:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-07T15:08:06","slug":"hostos-online-learning-assessment-a-survey-of-student-perceptions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/hostos-online-learning-assessment-a-survey-of-student-perceptions\/","title":{"rendered":"Hostos Online Learning Assessment: A Survey of Student Perceptions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

By: Prof. Kate S. Wolfe Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences,<\/p>\n

Prof. Sarah L. Hoiland, Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences,<\/p>\n

Prof. Kate Lyons, Associate Professor, Library and Educational Technology,<\/p>\n

Carlos Guevara, Director, Educational Technology and CTL,<\/p>\n

Dr. Kris Burrell, Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences,<\/p>\n

Dr. Jacqueline M. DiSanto, Assistant Professor, Education,<\/p>\n

Prof. Sandy Figueroa, Assistant Professor, Business,<\/p>\n

Dr. Aaron Davis, Instructional Designer, Educational Technology,<\/p>\n

Iber Poma, Coordinator of Student Services, Educational Technology,<\/p>\n

Wilfredo Rodr\u00edguez, Coordinator, Educational Technology,<\/p>\n

Prof. Linda Ridley, Lecturer, Business<\/p>\n

Hostos Community College, CUNY, New York<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Office of Education Technology (EdTech) at Hostos Community College and faculty members from various departments created the Hostos Online Learning Assessment (HOLA) Task Force to design a survey for gathering and assessing data about students\u2019 perceptions of their online learning experiences.\u00a0 The task force wanted to utilize the survey results to identify strengths and weaknesses in online instruction and student preparedness for the online learning environment.\u00a0 Student perceptions of online learning are integral to building upon current best practices and also gauging the preparedness of the students for the online learning environment, particularly in an urban, Hispanic-serving community college.\u00a0 The survey and results will be discussed within the broader context of best practices and online learning assessments as well as the way the HOLA Task Force is utilizing the data to make meaningful changes in the survey instrument, in addittion planning for continuous improvement in online learning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Keywords:<\/em> online learning, asynchronous, hybrid, blended, student, community college, urban, Hispanic, African American<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Hostos Online Learning Assessment (HOLA): A Survey of Student Perceptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hostos Community College (HCC), part of the City University of New York (CUNY), is located in the South Bronx, the poorest congressional district in the country.\u00a0 HCC enrolls approximately 7,000 students, and more than half (5,000) are enrolled full time.\u00a0 Sixty-five percent of students reside in the Bronx and come from families who reside below the poverty line.\u00a0 Sixty percent of students identify as female, and the vast majority of students (85 percent) are 29 years old or younger, with nearly 45 percent under the age of 21.\u00a0 Students at Hostos are ethnically diverse.\u00a0 Nearly 60 percent identify as Hispanic, 22 percent as Black, and 13 percent as Other\/Unknown.\u00a0 Three percent identify as Asian and two percent as White.\u00a0 The majority of first- year students are enrolled in developmental or remedial courses (\u201cStudent Profiles,\u201d 2014).\u00a0 Hostos is categorized under the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) program authorized by Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and has received grants as a Hispanic-serving institution under the Department\u2019s Office of Postsecondary Education (\u201cMinority Institutions\u201d, n. d.).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This uniquely diverse population in an urban, commuter, community college is served primarily by traditional, in-person courses; however, an increasing number of courses are being offered online.\u00a0 The college currently offers two types of online courses:\u00a0 hybrid and asynchronous.\u00a0 At least 30 percent of a course\u2019s content must be offered online to be considered a hybrid course.\u00a0 At least 80 percent needs to be offered online to be considered an asynchronous course (\u201cOnline Learning\u201d, 2016).\u00a0 Blackboard 9.1 is currently the Learning Management System (LMS) that CUNY hosts centrally and is used by Hostos faculty members teaching online content.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Faculty members who want to develop and teach online courses are encouraged to participate in the college\u2019s Online-Teaching Initiative and are considered certified to teach online upon completion of the initiative.\u00a0 Each faculty member who develops an online component for a course submits the online component to the EdTech Leadership Council (ETLC) for review in the form of a Blackboard course shell.\u00a0 The course needs to meet ETLC\u2019s requirements for hybrid (\u201cHybrid Guidelines\u201d, 2016) or asynchronous courses (\u201cAsynchronous Guidelines\u201d, 2016) before it is offered.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Out of 1,270 total sections offered in Fall 2015, approximately 4 percent of courses (59 course sections) were offered in the hybrid modality and 2 percent (29 courses sections) were offered in the asynchronous modality.\u00a0 These numbers have been on the rise since the college began offering partially and fully online courses well over a decade ago.\u00a0 In the last five years, the number of courses offered with an online component has at least tripled.\u00a0 There has been no formal assessment of student perceptions of online learning at Hostos as of yet, but individual faculty are given the results of the standard course assessment by the Office of Academic Affairs.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As education continues to evolve along with technology, there has also been a growth in online delivery of courses in recent years.\u00a0 With online education increasingly becoming readily available in higher education, examining issues like student readiness and online pedagogies has become commonplace in educational institutions.\u00a0 Collins and Halverson (2009) acknowledge that, with educational content steadily transitioning to an online medium, \u201cpeople will need to develop skills to find the information they are looking for, to evaluate its usefulness and quality, and to synthesize the information they glean from the different sources they locate;\u201d these skills qualify as critical thinking <\/em>skills.\u00a0 According to the U.S. Department of Education\u2019s (2016) National Educational Technology Plan<\/em>, the combination of these skills, along with complex problem-solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication, in addition to traditional content knowledge, is the key to creating engaging and relevant online courses.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Allen and Seaman have maintained that online education is an important long-term strategy for the majority of postsecondary institutions (2012) and have self-acknowledged that, based on annual reports conducted over a 12-year period, they are the sole source of comprehensive studies of online education (2015).\u00a0 They reported that \u201cthe number of students taking at least one online course increased by over 411,000 to a new total of 7.1 million\u201d and that one third of all students attending higher-education institutions will take at least one online class (2013).\u00a0 Their 2016 report indicated that the proportion of academic leaders who aver that online learning is an integral component of their institution\u2019s long-term strategic plan is now at an all-time high of 70.8 percent.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As Hostos Community College works toward academic excellence in conjunction with current higher educational trends, attention to content, delivery, and student perceptions needs to be carefully examined, with comparisons to the standards in online learning.<\/p>\n

Pros and Cons of an Online Class<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Advantages to online courses include \u201clower total cost, more comfortable learning environment, convenience and flexibility, greater interaction and greater ability to concentrate, career advancement, continue in your profession, avoid commuting, improve your technical skills and transfer of credits\u201d (\u201c10 Advantages\u201d, 2012).\u00a0 Advocates of online learning also argue that technology-enhanced education can lead to superior learning outcomes, in addition to greater access for distance learners (Jaggars & Bailey, 2010).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While HCC has taken many steps to ensure that the quality of classes is leveraged by the aforementioned advantages, it should be noted that (like face-to-face courses) there are some real-world disadvantages to online education.\u00a0 These disadvantages include \u201clack of accreditation and low quality, little or no face-to-face interaction, more work, intense requirement for self-discipline and even more intense requirement for self-direction\u201d (Hickey, 2014).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Those who oppose online learning often raise concerns about the quality of online coursework.\u00a0 Jaggars & Bailey (2010) stated that some instructors tended to simply dump their content into an online space rather than take advantage of the online format to develop new curricula around new learning technologies.\u00a0 By understanding and identifying these disadvantages when developing and designing online learning-modalities, HCC has made efforts to avoid these pitfalls and create a program that minimizes these disadvantages, while amplifying the potential advantages that online education offers.<\/p>\n

Reasons for Online Learning<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jaggars (2014) investigated the reasons students were interested in taking online classes. Some reasons that were highlighted included increased flexibility and convenience for their work and travel schedules, a more efficient use of time, the opportunity to learn at their own pace, students\u2019 belief that they could teach themselves certain subjects, and the inability to find available face-to-face sections of particular courses.\u00a0 Jaggars (2014) also examined the type of learning and interactions students preferred.\u00a0 She found that students preferred \u201cto-the-point content\u201d (in comparison to an extended lecture) and fewer distractions from disruptive in-class students.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to Jaggars (2014), \u201cin order to scale online learning offerings appropriately, community college administrators need a stronger understanding of the reasons students take some courses online, and others face to face.\u201d\u00a0 As HCC continues to advance in terms of its offerings and standards for online courses, there is much to be learned from the best practices described in past research from other institutions and the study that the Hostos Online Learning Assessment (HOLA) Task Force is currently conducting.\u00a0 Utilizing these lessons will allow HCC to develop future online courses that work as effectively, if not more so, than the equivalent face-to-face programs, in order to best serve the student population at HCC.<\/p>\n

Research Design<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Office of Education Technology (EdTech) solicited faculty members who were leaders on campus with regard to online teaching to be part of a task force to design a survey for gathering data about students\u2019 perceptions of their online learning-experiences.\u00a0 The authors of this article comprise that task force, and, as a group, represent the Office of Educational Technology, the Department of Behavioral & Social Sciences, the Business Department, the Education Department, and the Library.\u00a0 In the spring of 2015, a pilot 23-question survey was distributed, and 161 students responded.\u00a0 The authors met during the summer of 2015 to analyze the data and to discuss whether revisions needed to be made to the survey; as a group, they decided that more specificity was needed to create a more streamlined survey experience for students.\u00a0 The HOLA Task Force came up with the following four revised hypotheses:\u00a0 (1) students would indicate that their experiences in online courses is comparable to their experiences in face-to-face courses (in terms of workload, level of course difficulty, and engagement with both the instructor and other students in the course); (2) there would be a relationship between the perception of workload intensity and course difficulty and students’ experience with prior online courses; (3) students would access the course from multiple devices and multiple locations, and (4) students would indicate ease in navigating their hybrid and asynchronous courses.\u00a0 In order to collect data formally, the authors obtained human-subject research approval from the college\u2019s Human Research Protection Program (HRPP, formerly known as Internal Review Board [IRB]) in September of 2015.\u00a0 Since the data was collected as an aggregate, correlations between students\u2019 experience with online courses and their perceptions of workload intensity were not analyzed.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Office of Educational Technology was crucial in identifying the participants. The Blackboard administrator identified all of the faculty members listed in the university-wide course management system (CUNYFirst) who were teaching either hybrid or asynchronous courses during the fall 2015 semester and sent that list to the EdTech Director, one of the Principal Investigators (PI) for this study, who emailed the faculty and asked them to share a link that included the informed consent and 23-question HOLA survey with their students on Blackboard 9.1.\u00a0 Students were not incentivized to take the survey (no payment or extra credit were offered).\u00a0 Since some of the PIs were also faculty providing the link to the survey to their hybrid and asynchronous students, the HOLA Task Force made sure that the surveys would be anonymous so the PIs had no way of knowing which students completed the survey.\u00a0 Students who chose to click the HOLA survey link were asked to read an informed consent form and check a box to proceed with the survey.\u00a0 Data was only collected electronically, further reducing the risk of students being identified, as no handwriting was required at any time during the study.\u00a0 Students were also given the option to exit the survey at any point without penalty from their instructor and without the PIs\u2019 knowledge.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Students submitted survey data through a web-based form. Only the PIs had access to the raw data that was being generated.\u00a0 While data was shared through protected email accounts and via Google Drive during the student survey period, once the research period ended, all research data was moved from any online space to a secure server that is stored at Hostos Community College.\u00a0 Hostos already provided security protocols to store confidential information for the college.\u00a0 The authors protected participants\u2019 confidentiality and anonymity by coding the data as an aggregate, which meant that each course was viewed as a group.\u00a0 In the event that data did reveal any identifying factors of participants, the data was coded to remove these revealing factors.\u00a0 With these measures in place, the authors were confident that they were doing all that was necessary to protect the integrity of the data collected and the anonymity of the students who participated.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Office of Educational Technology (EdTech) wanted to use the data collected from the survey to identify areas to provide professional development for faculty developing hybrid and asynchronous courses in order to deliver online content more effectively for students.\u00a0 This study could identify areas where faculty might improve their knowledge of teaching pedagogy. In addition, EdTech wanted to use the data collected to make recommendations to college administrators on needed resources.\u00a0 The authors have identified similar efforts to survey students in online courses but none that identified similar populations.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The authors felt that the revised instrument will provide more pertinent information for the task force, especially the EdTech office, since they oversee the development of hybrid and asynchronous courses at Hostos Community College.\u00a0 If better practices for the delivery of hybrid and asynchronous course can be identified by students enrolled in online courses, they can be addressed during the developmental stages of future course design with faculty members.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The 198 students who participated in this survey comprised slightly less than 10 percent of the 2,003 individuals registered in online courses.\u00a0 They were enrolled in ten different courses across the content areas:\u00a0 Computer Literacy (MAT 130), Field Experience in Early-Childhood Education (EDU 113), Office Systems and Procedures (OT 104), United States History through the Civil War (HIS 210); Anthropology (ANT 101), Business (BUS 100), Business Communications (BUS 203), Psychology (PSY 101),\u00a0 and Sociology (SOC 101).\u00a0 Nearly 23 percent had no idea they had enrolled in an online course and 4.7 percent enrolled for the online course as an added section so as to be considered full-time students.\u00a0 Three students had a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from being on campus for class.\u00a0 In terms of previous experience with online learning, 42 percent reported that they had taken a hybrid course at Hostos prior to the current semester, and 3.5 percent completed one at another college.\u00a0 Eighteen percent of participants responded that they had taken an asynchronous course at Hostos, and four percent completed one at another college.\u00a0 Forty-seven percent of participants acknowledged that this was their first online class.\u00a0 Our total is 114.5 percent because students were allowed to check all responses that applied and may have taken a combination of online courses at Hostos and\/or at Hostos and another college.<\/p>\n

Quantitative Data<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hypothesis 1:\u00a0 The online learning experience is comparable to the face-to-face learning experience.\u00a0 <\/strong>The majority survey respondents indicated that online courses were the same level of difficulty (57 percent) as face-to-face courses.\u00a0 Nearly 20 percent found the coursework to be less difficult, and nearly 24 percent found the coursework to be more difficult.\u00a0 Sixty percent of respondents also stated that they spent the same amount of time in an online course as in a face-to-face course, 32 percent reported spending more time working in an online course, and nearly 8 percent reported spending less time.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hypothesis 2:\u00a0 Students will access online courses from multiple devices and multiple locations. <\/strong>\u00a0Participants overwhelmingly (87.9 percent) believe they have adequate access to technology to meet the needs of the course.\u00a0 A personal laptop was the most frequently selected choice (132 students), followed by cell phones (80), devices at Hostos (80), a personal desktop (70), and tablets (47).\u00a0 Only 23 students indicated that they used someone else\u2019s device.\u00a0 Students accessed their courses from home (184), work (64), the Hostos library (63), the Hostos computer lab (60), another site at school (25), or alternate site off campus (24).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hypothesis 3:\u00a0 Students will indicate ease in navigating online courses.\u00a0 <\/strong>Findings indicate that students are able to locate what they need for class, such as assignments (181 students), the syllabus (169), their grades (167), the exams (156), online discussions (144), and contact information for the instructor (130).\u00a0 More than 100 participants also responded that it was easy to find policies, and 89 reported that it was easy to locate additional tools for the course.\u00a0 When asked whether they were able to find feedback about their progress in the course, 80 students answered that they strongly agreed, and 94 students agreed with the statement.<\/p>\n

Enrollment, Motivation, and Student Engagement <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In addition to the formal hypotheses, the HOLA Task Force also wanted to examine whether students realized they were enrolling in an online course, why they enrolled in an asynchronous or hybrid course (if they knew), and how timely students perceived communication to be between themselves and faculty and themselves and their classmates.\u00a0 The majority of students (71 percent) realized that they were registering for an asynchronous or hybrid course and 29 percent were unaware that the course required full- or part-time online attendance.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Students indicated that they had enrolled in an online or hybrid course for the following reasons:\u00a0 not applicable (\u201cI didn\u2019t realize I was signing up for a partially online or fully online course\u201d) (23 percent); work or family obligations that prevented them from being present on campus (22 percent); they could not find anything else that would fit their schedule (16 percent); the sections were full (2 percent); or the course was only offered online (6 percent).\u00a0 Seventeen percent of students indicated \u201cOther.\u201d\u00a0 There is a discrepancy between the responses to the very first question on the survey which asked whether they realized that they were registering for an asynchronous or hybrid course, with 29 percent indicating they did not, and the fourth survey question which had had as a choice not applicable (\u201cI didn\u2019t realize I was signing up for a partially online or fully online course\u201d), where 23 percent of respondents chose this option.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When asked whether they interacted with their instructors in a timely fashion, 26 percent said they were \u201cexcellent,\u201d 18 percent were \u201cabove average,\u201d 37 percent said \u201caverage,\u201d and 11 percent claimed to be \u201cbelow average.\u201d\u00a0 When asked how well they responded to peers in a timely manner on BlackBoard, 14 percent selected \u201cexcellent,\u201d 13 percent said they were \u201cabove average,\u201d 40 percent self-identified as \u201caverage,\u201d and 21 percent selected \u201cbelow average.\u201d\u00a0 Compared with an in-person course, 32 percent of respondents strongly agreed and 47 percent agreed that they were as actively engaged in the course and with the professor.\u00a0 Emails were used by 91 percent of the students to communicate with the professor, followed by in-person office hours (41 percent).\u00a0 Video chat software (2 percent), text messages (9 percent), and phone calls (7 percent) were also ways respondents indicated they communicated with their instructor.<\/p>\n

Qualitative Data<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Of the 180 asynchronous and hybrid students who wrote in a response to the question \u201cWhat are the most useful features of the online component of this course?<\/em>,\u201d only 63 (35 percent) students responded with one or more Blackboard features (MyGrades, Discussion Forums, Blogs, Wikis, Recorded Lectures, Exams, Assignments, Calendar, Syllabus, Collaborate, and Course Content).\u00a0 Of the 63 students who responded with a Blackboard feature, 21 (12 percent) students listed MyGrades as the most useful online feature. \u00a0Another 20 (11 percent) students responded \u201cevery part is useful or good\u201d or a general \u201cBlackboard\/Blackboard tools.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Responses that did not include a Blackboard feature were coded as:\u00a0 (a) flexibility\/ accessibility (time, place, and\/or device); (b) self-directed learning; (c) interaction with instructor and\/or peers; (d) course design; (e) a combination of the coded categories; and (f) computer skills.\u00a0 Thirty-eight respondents (21 percent) wrote comments that could be categorized as flexibility and\/or accessibility that related to either their own time, where they could access course material, and\/or how they could access course material.\u00a0 Many of these responses were similar and included \u201cyou can do it in any place and time,\u201d \u201caccessibility,\u201d \u201cflexibility,\u201d \u201cmeet only once a week and get to do the homework online,\u201d and \u201cthe time it allows me to take other classes.\u201d\u00a0 Twenty-seven respondents (15 percent) wrote responses related to self-directed learning, such as \u201cIt allows me to work at my own pace,\u201d \u201cBeing able to take quizzes, tests, and discussions as my time permits,\u201d and \u201cI am able to get the assignments done early enough so that I can finish it before the due date.\u201d\u00a0 Thirteen students (7 percent) commented specifically on course design.\u00a0 The lengthiest comments were related to course design–students decidedly wanted to talk about the positive aspects of course design of their current course, and a few even stated how prior online courses were not designed in a user-friendly manner.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eleven students (6 percent) wrote specifically about interactions with peers and instructors, in addition to those who cited interactive spaces such as Discussion Forums, Blogs, Wikis, and Collaborate; these course-design elements included another 20 students, for a total of 31 or 17 percent.\u00a0 Many students commented on how much they valued being able to get timely feedback from their instructors on assignments and other grade-related items.\u00a0 Two students combined flexibility and course design, one student combined flexibility and self-directed learning, and one student stated course design and self-directed learning were the most important Blackboard features.\u00a0 Two students specifically stated \u201cit helps you obtain better computer skills,\u201d and two comments were off topic.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Of the 95 participants who answered the question \u201cDo you have any suggestions for improving the online component of this course?<\/em>,\u201d 40 respondents (42 percent) responded \u201cN\/A,\u201d \u201cno suggestions,\u201d \u201cgood as is,\u201d or specific positive comments about their professors.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Twenty-five participants (26 percent) wrote the following suggestions related to course design:\u00a0 content, assignments, and online tools should be broken down and\/or better explained (6 participants); more time on assignments and discussions (4 students); students should be able to see their letter grade not just points earned (4 students); more videos, both professor lecturing and web-based (3 students); more time on tests (2 students); students should be able to see their test answers after the test (2 students); less work (2 students); and style and organization of the course (2 students).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fifteen students (16 percent) suggested improving communication in the online environment, and participants made the following suggestions:\u00a0 live chats (5 students); more feedback and communication (4 students); more reminders (4 students); in-person recitation (1 student); and fewer Blackboard Announcements that are placed at the top instead of the bottom of the home page (1 student).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Five students suggested improvements to Blackboard.\u00a0 Of these, two students delineated technical difficulties with Blackboard, including system errors, two students did not like the Blackboard app, and one student did not like the scrolling required in the Discussion Forum.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Six students had miscellaneous suggestions that included online instructors coordinating due dates, improving Safe Assign, making it easier to tell that a course is hybrid on CUNYFirst (our college\u2019s registration system), making it easier to correct typos, and offering a chance to work on one\u2019s grade when it drops. There was one student who had suggestions but could not think of any at the time.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Three students recommended additional online courses, and two participants\u2019 feedback fit into more than one of the coded categories.\u00a0 One student wrote, \u201cDue dates should have two sessions instead of one due to many unexpected things that can happen throughout the course. Also many assignments can\u2019t be sent until its due date.\u00a0 Blackboard sometimes isn\u2019t working and materials disappear.\u201d\u00a0 This participant indicated both technical problems with Blackboard as well as suggestions for course design.\u00a0 Another student wrote, \u201cI would suggest making the \u2018Contact the Professor\u2019 more accessible than making the inbox hard to find.\u00a0 Though I\u2019d rarely needed it for this course, I find it hard to message on Blackboard due to the way the messaging is set up.\u201d This comment makes suggestions about Blackboard, course design, and communication with the professor.<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The primary objective of the study was to ascertain student perceptions of their online learning experiences at Hostos Community College.\u00a0 The HOLA Task Force designed a survey aimed at measuring students\u2019 perceptions of their online learning experience.\u00a0 Two additional objectives were part of the study as well:\u00a0 to use the data collected from the survey tool to identify areas to provide professional development for faculty developing hybrid and asynchronous courses and to use the data collected to make recommendations to college administrators about needed resources.<\/p>\n

H1<\/u>:\u00a0 The majority of students (60 percent) perceive online courses to be similar to face-to-face courses in terms of difficulty level contradicting other literature that demonstrates that students perceive online courses to be easier (Jaggars, 2014).\u00a0 This could be explained by our student population, which is disproportionately remedial in comparison to other community colleges.\u00a0 Additionally, the high number of English Language Learners and students who speak a language other than English at home may result in fewer students perceiving any course as \u201cless difficult\u201d than others.<\/p>\n

H2<\/u>:\u00a0 Our data shows that students access their online course from multiple devices and in multiple locations.\u00a0 Given the tremendous capabilities of Smartphones and laptops, it makes sense that the vast majority (90 percent) of respondents believed they had adequate access to technology; however, our survey did not specifically address issues of Internet connectivity nor did it address which devices students have access to during quizzes and exams.\u00a0 More specific questions such as \u201cDid you ever lose your Internet connection during a quiz or exam?\u201d would be helpful.\u00a0 Also, several students in the qualitative section made comments to the effect that the Blackboard App was not particularly useful (thus making it difficult to complete work on their phones) and\/or that Blackboard posed technical problems as a course management system.\u00a0 Members of the HOLA Task Force have indicated that students report losing their Internet signal during a quiz or exam and many others use their cell phone for lengthy written responses on Journals, Blogs, Wikis, and Discussion Forums and also on quizzes and exams.\u00a0 Thus, students may have access to multiple devices but lack the appropriate device and\/or stable Internet connection to succeed on a particular task.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 With respect to students accessing the course from multiple devices and multiple locations, the majority of students accessed their online classes via their personal laptop from home. Moving forward, the HOLA Task Force will seek more specific data in terms of which devices are being used for what tasks and in which places are they most likely to complete coursework.\u00a0 This will illuminate some of the lingering questions related to Internet access and the limitations of cellular devices with specific Blackboard features such as quizzes and exams.<\/p>\n

H3<\/u>:\u00a0 The quantitative findings suggest that students perceive that they generally navigate the Blackboard course site fairly well and qualitative feedback about current instructors was very positive, however, many students wrote lengthy responses about course design when asked about Blackboard features.\u00a0 They also referenced poor course design in their previous online courses.\u00a0 Thus, targeted professional development for faculty who have been teaching online for several years is recommended to help them update their course design.\u00a0 This coincides with larger studies of online learning that show course design is one of the most important aspects of student performance in the online environment (Jaggars & Bailey, 2010).<\/p>\n

Enrollment, Motivation, and Student Engagement<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The issue of students being uninformed that they had enrolled in online courses (29%) is still a problem in spite of the efforts of the Office of Educational Technology to initiate various methods of student awareness during the advisement and registration periods.\u00a0 Much discussion with, and support from, the Registrar\u2019s Office is still needed to initiate more effective methods of course identification for the student.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The findings of this survey support Jaggars\u2019s (2014) qualitative findings, which indicate distance, scheduling, and ease, were primary reasons for taking an online class; the remainder of students either didn\u2019t realize they were enrolling in an online class, or they were taking the class for other reasons.\u00a0 The \u201cOther\u201d that 17 percent of students indicated is puzzling and requires further investigation.\u00a0 One solution would be to allow students to write in reasons that are not included in the list.\u00a0 The HOLA Task Force could also interview students to gain a deeper knowledge about their motivation for taking online courses.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Our findings coincide with Jaggar\u2019s (2014) findings in terms of similar reasons why students choose to take an online course such as flexibility, convenience, and efficiency.\u00a0 HOLA\u2019s findings coincide with Jaggars\u2019 reasons for taking a course, with 45 percent of Hostos students citing distance, flexibility, or time as a reason for taking an online course.\u00a0 Jaggars\u2019 qualitative analysis suggests that students choose online courses based on the following three factors:\u00a0 \u201c(1) whether the subject area was well suited to the online context, (2) whether the course was easy or difficult, and (3) whether the course was \u2018interesting\u2019 and\/or \u2018important\u2019\u201d (p. 13).\u00a0 Regarding course difficulty, Jaggars identifies that \u201ceasy\u201d seemed to symbolize humanities-type courses as opposed to math and lab courses.\u00a0 Nearly 63 percent of survey respondents were in \u201chumanities-type courses,\u201d which might be indicative of Hostos\u2019 unique student demographics, their orientation to higher education, linguistic difficulties, and\/or college readiness, but only 8 percent of students registered for the course because they thought it would be easy.\u00a0 In contrast to our survey results, Jaggars found that most students preferred to take online courses because they thought the course would be easy for them.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The majority of the students who responded to the survey either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt actively and enthusiastically engaged with the course and the professor, thereby implying that there was equal or even greater interaction between students and faculty in the online learning environment than in the face-to-face classroom.\u00a0 The survey does not distinguish one-way communication (such as Blackboard Announcements, which are relayed to students\u2019 linked email accounts, written feedback on assignments, discussions, quizzes, etc.) from two-way communication (such as emails between instructors and students, office hours, online chats, Skype, Blackboard Collaborate, text messages, and\/or phone calls).<\/p>\n

Limitations<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The 10 percent participant response rate is one limitation and that 10 percent disproportionately includes students from the classes being taught by HOLA Task Force members, because all of the PIs teaching online courses in the fall of 2015 made the link available to their students.\u00a0 This in turn may skew the results since faculty on the HOLA Task Force are some of the more experienced faculty teaching online and also serve as mentors in the Asynchronous and Hybrid Initiative.\u00a0 Although a link to the survey was sent to all faculty teaching online courses, the number of courses represented in the survey mirrors the courses taught by HOLA Task Force faculty.\u00a0 The HOLA Task Force will brainstorm ways to engage their colleagues to encourage other faculty to make the link available to students in their online classes.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Although survey questions were developed after a pilot survey was administered and data were analyzed, our participants\u2019 responses have shown us several questions that need to be more specific and additional questions that need to be added to help us better understand student perceptions of online learning, some of which have been discussed. Additional areas to explore include:\u00a0 (a) Did the professor provide any type of orientation to Blackboard?; (b) Had the student ever taken another course with the professor before the online class?; and (c) Were these students high-achievers who do not usually find academic work difficult?\u00a0 In order to understand the specific findings such as those related to course difficulty, Internet access and ease of use, reasons for enrolling in an online course, and engagement, additional questions should be added to the survey.\u00a0 Demographic information that does not necessarily compromise anonymity should be obtained, specifically, age, employment status, and college major, because certain responses might indicate the learner has had more exposure to technology in general.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The learning styles of the students were not identified during the survey.\u00a0 If the online environment does not support how the student learns, it is expected that that student\u2019s responses would be negative; conversely, a course would be conducive to learning and more enjoyable for a person whose strengths are addressed within a specific academic environment.\u00a0 Elements such as motivation and task persistence can affect student engagement and comfort, including when learning online; sociological requirements can support positive attitudes toward a course if the individual learner\u2019s need is met; and locating online tools is easier if they are presented in a perceptual modality that is complementary to that of the user (Dunn, 2003).<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Studies of online education are in their infancy and comprehensive national studies of online learning are merely a decade old.\u00a0 There is a definitive lack of research specifically geared toward Hispanic-serving institutions, particularly within the community college setting.\u00a0 Thus, this exploratory survey and analysis highlights particular ways that participants\u2019 perceptions in a Hispanic-serving institution do not mirror those of students taking online courses nationwide and provides important data and analyses regarding student perceptions of online learning.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Most importantly, our findings indicate that Hostos participants register for online courses for different reasons than participants indicate in national surveys.\u00a0 Few register for an online course because they think it will be easier than a face-to-face course.\u00a0 The particular challenges that community college students face, especially at Hispanic-serving institutions, are likely part of the reason why students register for an online course.\u00a0 Further research is needed to illuminate the \u201cOther\u201d (17.2 percent), as well as more detailed data regarding the 22.4 percent of respondents who indicated that they registered for an online course because of family or work commitments.\u00a0 What types of commitments do students have and how does the online environment help students foster non-cognitive skills such as goal setting, task persistence, and time management as a result of the flexibility and accessibility online courses provide?\u00a0 Our qualitative open-ended response feedback also strongly shows that students value the flexibility\/ accessibility and self-directed learning that takes place in the online environment.\u00a0 The HOLA Task Force needs to continue work to reduce the number of students who do not realize they are registering for an online class by utilizing the data from this survey to push for urgent changes in the online registration system and to inform success coaches and advisors.\u00a0 In addition, the HOLA Task Force will continue to work on including an online readiness module in every course shell, which would help all students prepare for the online environment, but particularly those who are new to online learning and\/or those who did not know they registered for an online course.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Participants also indicated in the qualitative responses that course design heavily impacts their experience in the online environment, which supports national research.\u00a0 Hostos\u2019 Online Teaching Initiative ensures that all new courses are created through a collaborative environment that includes mentoring and a final course review, however, additional professional development should be strongly encouraged and focus on new online tools and pedagogies and research-based best practices.\u00a0 Communication in the online environment should also be viewed as part of the course design.\u00a0 Many students wrote lengthy responses about the high quality communication they had with the professor and\/or other students.\u00a0 Further information about what types of online communication students prefer as well more specific questions about communication to distinguish one-way communication from two-way communication and individual and group communication would broaden our understanding of this crucial aspect of online learning.\u00a0 Areas of strength at Hostos, such as course navigation and communication with faculty and peers, should be capitalized through these professional development opportunities.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In conclusion, the HOLA Task Force will continue to work toward examining student perceptions of online learning through a modified survey instrument, as well as considering amending our research design to include focus groups in order to learn more about students\u2019 motivation for registering for an online course, course design and online communication.\u00a0 The Hostos Online Teaching Initiative will utilize survey results to shape professional development opportunities for faculty currently teaching online courses, as well as in developing training for faculty who are new to online course development.\u00a0 Also, we hope to work to make online registration more transparent so that all students make an informed choice regarding course selection and modality.\u00a0 By sharing our survey results with HETS and at conferences, we hope to collaborate with our colleagues at other colleges and universities and continue to expand the existing research about online education at Hispanic-serving institutions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Alexander, M., Lynch, J. E. , Rabinovich, T., & Knutel, P. G.\u00a0 (2014).\u00a0 Snapshot of a hybrid<\/p>\n

learning environment.\u00a0 Quarterly Review of Distance Education<\/em> 15<\/em>(1), 9.\u00a0 Retrieved from http:\/\/www.infoagepub.com\/qrde-issue.html?i=p54c3c2c317626l<\/a><\/p>\n

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J.\u00a0 (2015-2016).\u00a0 Grade level.\u00a0 Tracking online education in the United <\/em><\/p>\n

States.<\/em>\u00a0 Retrieved from http:\/\/www.onlinelearningsurvey.com\/reports\/gradelevel.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J.\u00a0 (2012-2014).\u00a0 Grade level.\u00a0 Tracking online education in the United <\/em><\/p>\n

States.<\/em>\u00a0 Retrieved from http:\/\/www.onlinelearningsurvey.com\/reports\/gradechange.pdf<\/p>\n

Collins, A., & Halverson R.\u00a0 (2009).\u00a0 Rethinking education in the age of technology:\u00a0 The<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 digital revolution and schooling in America.\u00a0 <\/em>New York, NY:\u00a0 Teachers College Press.<\/p>\n

Definition of e-learning in English.\u00a0 (n.d.).\u00a0 Retrieved from<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.oxforddictionaries.com\/us\/definition\/american_english\/e-learning<\/a><\/p>\n

Dunn, R.\u00a0 (2003).\u00a0 The Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model and its theoretical cornerstone.<\/p>\n

In R. Dunn & S. A. Griggs (Eds.), Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model <\/em><\/p>\n

Research.\u00a0 Who, What, When, Where, and So What? <\/em>(pp. 1-6).\u00a0 Queens, NY:\u00a0 St. John\u2019s University\u2019s Center for the Study of Teaching and Learning Styles.<\/p>\n

Hickey, R.\u00a0 (2014, December 5).\u00a0 5 disadvantages to consider about online education<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved<\/p>\n

September 14, 2015, from https:\/\/www.petersons.com\/college-search\/5-disadvantages-to-<\/a><\/p>\n

consider-about- online-education.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n

Hostos Community College, Office of Academic Affairs.\u00a0 (2014). Student profiles<\/em> [Data file].<\/p>\n

Retrieved from http:\/\/www.hostos.cuny.edu\/oaa\/oir\/PublicDocuments\/StudentProfile.p<\/a>df<\/p>\n

Hostos Community College, Office of Educational Technology.\u00a0 (2016).\u00a0 Asynchronous<\/em><\/p>\n

guidelines<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from http:\/\/commons.hostos.cuny.edu\/online\/initiatives\/ asynchronous-initiative\/asynchronous-guidelines\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Hostos Community College, Office of Educational Technology.\u00a0 (2016).\u00a0 Hybrid guidelines<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Retrieved from http:\/\/commons.hostos.cuny.edu\/online\/initiatives\/hybrid-initiative\/ hybrid-guidelines-and-requirements\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Hostos Community College, Office of Educational Technology.\u00a0 (2016).\u00a0 Online learning<\/em>.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Retrieved from http:\/\/commons.hostos.cuny.edu\/edtech\/online\/online-learning- frequently-asked-questions\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Jaggars, S.\u00a0 (2014).\u00a0 Choosing between online and face-to-face courses:\u00a0 Community college<\/p>\n

student voices.\u00a0 American Journal of Distance Education,<\/em> 28<\/em>(1), 28-28. doi:10.1080\/08923647.2014.867697<\/p>\n

Jaggars, S., & Bailey, R.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0 Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students:<\/em><\/p>\n

Response to a Department of Education meta-analysis<\/em>.\u00a0 Academic Commons, Columbia<\/p>\n

University.\u00a0 Retrieved from: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.7916\/D85M63SM<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Education Database.\u00a0 (2012, January 9).\u00a0 10 advantages to taking online classes<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved<\/p>\n

from http:\/\/oedb.org\/ilibrarian\/10-advantages-to-taking-online-classes\/<\/a><\/p>\n

SR Education Group.\u00a0 (2016).\u00a0 List of accredited online degree programs<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.guidetoonlineschools.com\/degrees<\/a><\/p>\n

United States Department of Education.\u00a0 (n. d.).\u00a0 Lists of postsecondary institutions enrolling <\/em><\/p>\n

populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students <\/em>[Data file].\u00a0 Retrieved from https:\/\/www2.ed.gov\/about\/offices\/list\/ocr\/edlite-minorityinst-list-pg4.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Watters, A. (2015, February 4). The automatic teacher<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from<\/p>\n

http:\/\/hackeducation.com\/2015\/02\/04\/the-automatic-teacher\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Zemsky, R.\u00a0 (2014).\u00a0 With a Mooc Mooc here, and a Mooc Mooc there, Here a Mooc, there a<\/p>\n

Mooc, everywhere a Mooc Mooc.\u00a0 The Journal of General Education:\u00a0 A Curricular Commons of the Humanities and Sciences, 63<\/em>(4), 237-243.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 By: Prof. Kate S. Wolfe Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Prof. Sarah L. Hoiland, Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Prof. Kate Lyons, Associate Professor, Library and Educational Technology, Carlos Guevara, Director, Educational Technology and CTL, Dr. Kris Burrell, Assistant Professor, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Dr. Jacqueline M. DiSanto, Assistant Professor, Education, Prof. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[147,143,153,154,23,148,150,145,142,140,144,146,141,132,97,149],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aaron-davis","category-carlos-guevara","category-dr-jacqueline-m-disanto","category-dr-kristopher-burrell","category-english","category-iber-poma","category-linda-ridley","category-prof-jacqueline-m-disanto","category-prof-kate-lyons","category-prof-kate-s-wolfe","category-prof-kris-burrell","category-prof-sandy-figueroa","category-prof-sarah-l-hoiland","category-spring-issue-april-2016","category-volume-vi","category-wilfredo-rodriguez"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=837"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":995,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/837\/revisions\/995"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hets.org\/ejournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}