On-line Learning:
Preliminary Analysis of Interviews
Background
The frequency of courses delivered on-line is continuing to grow rapidly across the country
and in all types of colleges and universities. There is also a growing literature on the impact of
such courses. Some researchers have identified misconceptions dealing with the time
requirements and constraints, the lowered quality of student learning, the ease of taking on-line
courses, and the lack of interactivity and engagement (Bonk, 2002). Other researchers address
challenges including political and public pressure for new accreditation and quality standards
(Eaton, 2001). Faculty concerns about teaching loads and compensation and institutional
concerns about costs and sustainability are also an issue (Carr, 2001).
Present Study
In the present study, Monica Guzman (a WSU senior Psychology student) and I interviewed
WSU university administrators to explore their mental models about on-line teaching and
learning. Mental models are assumptions, theories, and generalizations that influence an
individual’s worldview and behavior (Gentner & Stevens, 1983). Exploring mental models of
on-line teaching and learning uncovers concepts and causal beliefs that explain the process by
which on-line instruction promotes student learning. The mental models of university
administrators are particularly relevant to study, as such models presumably inform their
decisions about which, how many, and the size of on-line classes to offer in their academic unit.
A total of 7 Department Chairs/Associate Deans and 6 Deans were interviewed in the late
summer and early fall of 2007. Four of the chairs/associate deans and two of the deans had
experience teaching on-line but all were responsible for monitoring the success of and deciding
upon the number and type of on-line courses their academic unit would offer in a given semester.
Questions were posed concerning the attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and knowledge about online classes compared to on-campus classes. We defined an on-line class as having instruction
being delivered exclusively through the World Wide Web. An on-campus course has instruction
delivered in person, even though the class may be augmented with on-line technology. We
exclude hybrid courses, which require less contact time than traditional classes.
Each decision-maker answered 25 questions comparing on-line to on-campus classes. Five
general questions addressed a) the decision-maker’s responsibilities, b) the importance of on-line
courses to the academic unit for which they are responsible, c) the importance of on-line courses
to the university, d) their judgment of on-line degrees, and e) the enrollment patterns for on-line
and on-campus courses. Following the general questions, the next set of 20 questions addressed
participants’ attitudes towards and knowledge about on-line classes and their future. Ten of the
questions addressed lower-division (General Educational) classes and 10 were exactly the same
questions but addressed to upper-division classes in the major.
Participants were asked questions comparing on-line and on-campus classes from the
perspective of students (6 questions), faculty members (6 questions), and the overall curriculum
(4 questions), and then about the future of on-line courses (4 questions). For questions addressing
the student perspectives, we asked about the learning outcomes, satisfaction, and academic
impact. For example, we asked, Do you think that the learning outcomes are the same for
students who take on-line and on-campus general education courses, or are the learning
outcomes greater for one course than the other? The same question was then posed for on-line
courses in their major. For questions addressing faculty perspectives, we asked about challenges
and demands, satisfaction, and impact. For example, we asked, Do you think faculty members
face the same challenges and demands when successfully teaching on-line and on-campus Gen
Ed courses, or are the challenges and demands harder for one course than the other? Again, the
same question was posed for on-line courses in their major. For each of these 6 questions, a
quantitative response was requested on a 5-point scale, ranging from favoring on-campus classes
(1) to favoring on-line classes (5), with a score of 3 reflecting a neural response. Neutral
responses were encouraged if participants claimed that there were no differences between the
class types or they claimed that one type of class is favored under certain conditions and the
other is favored under other conditions. Participants were asked to qualitatively justify each
quantitative response.
The four curriculum questions explored participants’ beliefs about the ways in which on-line
courses impact the curriculum; that is, the contribution of on-line courses to the intellectual
outcome expected of students graduating from the academic unit. The questions addressed the
extent to which on-line courses contributed both more positively and more negatively than oncampus courses to the overall curriculum. For example, we asked, Would you say that on-line
Gen Ed courses contributes to the curriculum in the same way as Gen Ed on-campus courses or
do on-line courses contribute more positively to the curriculum than on-campus courses? As
before, the question was repeated for on-line courses in the major. Qualitative responses were
scaled from no difference between the courses (1) to substantially more positive/negative (5).
Again, all quantitative responses were probed for qualitative justifications.
Finally, the last four questions addressed participants’ beliefs about the future of on-line
courses in their academic unit. Participants were asked about the future growth and retrenchment
of on-line lower- and upper-division courses in their academic unit. The questions were posed as
statements to which participants could express strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5),
with 3 being neural. For example, participants rated the statement, On-line General Education
course offerings in my academic unit have the potential to increase over the next 5 years.
Results
General quantitative responses regarding decision-makers’ responsibilities and beliefs about
on-line classes in their academic unit. Generally, all decisions-makers saw on-line courses as
popular with students, extremely important to the university, and a critical area of enrollment
growth. However, all were at least a little skeptical about the value of degrees based exclusively
on on-line classes, particularly for learning a scholarly discipline (e.g., leading to an Associates
or Bachelor Degree). The general concern that was expressed related to the lack of social
interaction between and among faculty and students. The deans generally characterized their role
as facilitators who are responsible for on-line class policies in their academic unit, given student
enrollment trends. In contrast, the chairs/associate deans characterized themselves as monitors
who track the quality and quantity of courses being provided by their academic units.
Quantitative responses regarding on-line classes from student, faculty, and curricular
perspectives. An initial statistical analysis revealed no overall differences between the two levels
of decision-makers on any of the quantitative questions. Follow-up analyses showed that two
questions showed a bias favoring on-campus courses over on-line courses, and one question had
the reverse pattern. Decision-makers believed that the overall impact on students is greater for
on-campus than on-line courses. Many acknowledged a subtle but important role in student
learning of spontaneous and interpersonal interactions between students with each other and the
faculty member in on-campus classes. Similarly, decision-makers believed that the overall
impact of faculty on students is greater for on-campus than on-line courses. As one decisionmaker expressed it, students never expressed to him that their intellectual lives have been
changed in his on-line classes, but have done so on a number of occasions in his on-campus
classes. In contrast, faculty members were seen as facing greater challenges and demands when
successfully teaching on-line and on-campus classes. Decision makers cited both the demands of
being responsive 24-7 to on-line students who seem to regularly expect such responsiveness and
the challenges of learning to effectively communicate using the technology.
The curricular impact of on-campus and on-line courses was compared in questions exploring
whether or not on-line courses have a greater positive and a greater negative impact in the
curriculum. There were no differences by decision-makers in judgments of the positive or
negative impact of on-line compared to on-campus courses on the curriculum However, there
was a significant difference in the homogeneity of variance between the groups. The variance of
both positive and negative curricular impact judgments was much higher for the chairs/associate
deans than they were for the deans.
Quantitative responses regarding the future of on-line classes. Finally, the last set of
questions assessed the likelihood that there would be increases and decreases in lower- and
upper-division on-line courses. Statistical analyses revealed no differences between the
administrators. Overall, the decision makers agreed that both lower- and upper-division on-line
courses are likely to increase and unlikely to retrench over the next five years.
Verbal justifications. There was broad agreement in decision-makers’ quantitative
judgments comparing on-line and on-campus classes. However, there was more diversity in
participants' verbal justifications of their quantitative responses. The participants’ verbal
justifications were particularly revealing on items in which they responded equivocally about the
status of on-line and on-campus classes. On these items, participants expressed that whether online or on-campus courses were “better” or “more successful” in terms of learning outcomes,
satisfaction, or impact depended on certain factors or conditions. Such responses were scored as
a 3 (neutral), but extensively probed to explore the nature of the features or characteristics which
are believed to contribute to successful on-line courses. We characterized these verbal
justifications as reflective of mental models, as they express an intuitive theory of predictor
variables of on-line course success.
When probed, decision-makers articulated complex interactions among four classes of
variables or characteristics. For example, many participants considered student characteristics as
an essential predictor of on-line class success. But the participants varied in which student
characteristic played a key role. These characteristics included psycho-social maturity (on-line
students need to be mature in monitoring and accepting responsibility for their performance),
learning style (on-line students need to be comfortable learning verbally from text and
independently), and motivation (on-line students need to be highly motivated to finish the
course). Another characteristic or variable often mentioned by the participants concerned on-line
class features. But again, there was variability in the features assumed to impact on-line class
success. Some participants identified class size (on-line classes are less successful with too
many students) and the range of interactive technologies used (on-line classes are most
successful with technologies which promote interactivity). The pedagogical content of the
courses was also considered important to the success of an on-line class. Some suggested that
on-line courses were more successful when training specific skills rather than conceptual
understanding. Others suggested that on-line course success depending on whether the material
could be communicated in story-like narratives, rather than as technically-based analyses. Still
others claimed that on-line classes that are more content- than process-oriented would be more
successful. Finally, faculty characteristics were considered important in on-line course success.
Participants cited faculty responsiveness to on-line students (responding to emails, returning
submitted work), faculty responsibility in learning the technology, and faculty communication
skills as key to on-line course success.
Not only did the factors judged as predicting on-line class success vary across participants, so
did the accounts of the interactions among the variables. For example, one participant articulated
a three-way interaction between student characteristics (experienced, mature, and motivated),
faculty characteristics (communication skills), and class characteristics (fewer enrollments).
Another participant cited another three-way interaction between student characteristics
(motivation), faculty characteristics (responsibility), and pedagogical characteristics (contentoriented). All participants articulated complex models involving multiple interacting variables.
No two decision-makers articulated the same set of variables in their models and no two
decision-makers articulated the same model.
Discussion
Summary of Results. Taken together, the findings suggest that decision-makers believe that
on-line courses are central to the growth of the university and expect on-line offerings to increase
over the next 5 years. But these judgments and predictions were not based on a naïve view of the
strengths and limits of on-line teaching and learning. Participants’ mental models of successful
on-line teaching and learning were complex and diverse, although senior administrators were in
closer agreement than less-senior administrators in their judgments of the strengths and limits of
on-line courses for the curriculum. There were shared concerns about the instructional limits and
student learning outcomes in on-line courses. The concerns focused on restricted interactivity,
which was articulated in a variety of ways in the decision-makers’ responses. This concern was
expressed in answers to questions about the impact of on-line courses on student learning,
faculty impact on on-line students, and the impact of on-line courses on the curriculum. The
concerns about interactivity were also expressed in participants’ mental models of on-line course
success which emphasized the importance of faculty communication skills, use of
communication technologies, pedagogical content which minimizes social interaction (a contentoriented, analytically-oriented, and skill-based pedagogy), and students who can learn more
autonomously (i.e., mature, disciplined, and motivated).
Implications and Follow-Up. As a follow-up on the present study, we are proposing three lines
of research exploring the central role played by social interaction in on-line classes. The limits
of social interaction in on-line courses may create a fundamentally different experience for
students enrolled in on-line and on-campus versions of the same course. The more minimal
social component in on-line than on-campus classes may diminish the importance of students
actively coordinating different conceptual perspectives. That is, without extensive exposure to
others’ (even the faculty members’) less scripted and more natural social interactions, students
may not appreciate the value of hearing and making sense of other points of view on issues and
distinguish them from their own. Evidence of this diminished perspective taking was found by
Amsel & Johnston (2008), who demonstrated that students in an on-line class had more difficulty
correctly identifying the beliefs of their physics professor than those in the same on-campus class
taught by the same professor.
The difference between on-line and on-campus classes in the role of coordinating multiple
perspectives would make for different student experiences. Students in on-campus classes may
have an experience in which they are broadening their focus to understand new viewpoints, and
students in on-line classes may have an experience in which they are narrowing their focus to
overcome course challenges. In one line of future research we will examine course
representations of students enrolled in on-campus or online sections of the same course taught by
the same faculty member. Using questionnaires, we will explore their mental representation of
the courses (i.e., their ideas about the nature and goals of the course, and the learning process)
and what they are learning. A second line of research will explore whether students first exposed
to a discipline by taking an on-line or on-campus course are equally likely to take a second
course in that discipline and to major or minor in that discipline. The data will be culled from
records through an interface we develop to explore the patterns of enrollments of on-line
students. A host of related enrollment questions will also be explored given the availability of
the interface. A third line of research will involve exploring how on-line faculty provide social
interaction and their beliefs regarding the role of social-interaction in on-line courses, and the
impact on on-line students of this interaction. Both novice and more experienced faculty
members will be interviewed and qualities of their social interactions will be compared to the
social interactions occurring in on-campus courses.