Write a 1000 words comparison essay on attached articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs
Todd E. Jamison & Doris U. Bolliger
To cite this article: Todd E. Jamison & Doris U. Bolliger (2020) Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs, Journal of Education for Business, 95:5, 275-287, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
Published online: 07 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 304
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjeb20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjeb20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-07
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-07
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698#tabModule
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698#tabModule
ORIGINAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH
Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs
Todd E. Jamisona and Doris U. Bolligerb
aDepartment of Business, Chadron State College, Chadron, NE, USA; bSTEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
ABSTRACT Researchers investigated students perceptions of connectedness in two online graduate- level business programs at a small college in the Midwest. One hundred and six participants completed the Online Student Connectedness Survey. Results indicate participants moder- ately agreed with items on the connectedness instrument. Participants, however, reported dissatisfaction with sense of community in their programs. Statistically significant differences were found with participants responses based on gender and number of successful credit hours completed. Participants reported specific learning activities instructors utilized in their respective programs, and they reported the desire for more interactive instructors who participated more in discussions and provided more timely responses to e-mail and phone calls.
KEYWORDS Business programs; connectedness; graduate education; higher education; online learning
Introduction
Human interaction, whether in person or through electronic means, is integral to human nature. Research has shown consistently that high levels of social connectedness and interaction with peers and instructors attribute to higher levels of retention and overall satisfaction of students with online courses (LaBarbera, 2013). Social connectedness is essential to learner success in higher education. Students who feel connected to others in online courses have reduced feelings of isolation, tend to perform better academic- ally (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008), and complete their programs (Levy, 2007). Feelings of isolation and students need for connectedness in online courses have been investigated by researchers in different dis- ciplines such as education; however, few research studies have specifically focused on student percep- tions of connecteness enrolled in graduate-level busi- ness programs that are offered online. This is surprising given the fact that there are many online graduate-level business programs offered at higher education institutions in the United States. In 2019, there were over 200 institutions that offered accredited masters in business administration programs and over 100 universities offered graduate degrees in other business majors that were delivered fully online (U.S. News & World Report, 2019a, 2019b). For this reason,
it was the purpose of this study to investigate masters students perceptions of feelings of connectedness in two fully online business programs: (a) the master of business administration (MBA) and (b) the master of organizational management (MSOM) degree program.
Connectedness
There are many facets to social connectedness. Traditionally described as a measure of relationship to others, connectedness in online courses includes inter- action among peers, faculty, and students, and inter- dependence of course participants to successfully complete learning objectives (LaBarbera, 2013). It is important to understand connectedness as it can fun- damentally impact academic performance and reten- tion in higher education programs (OKeeffe, 2013). Recent studies have shown a significant correlation between students sense of connection and academic success in online courses and programs (Kim, 2011). Therefore, connectedness is an important component of online courses and programs for adult learners (Barbarick, 2013).
For connectedness to work, faculty and students must have meaningful interactions with each other (Glazer & Wanstreet, 2011). Online courses can be particularly problematic because students usually learn
CONTACT Doris U. Bolliger [email protected] STEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, 5115 Hampton Boulevard, Education Building 4117, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. ? 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 2020, VOL. 95, NO. 5, 275287 https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-06-10
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-6243
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698
http://www.tandfonline.com
anura
Highlight
at a distance and may not have the ability to syn- chronously discuss course topics with other students and instructors. Online discussions offer some level of interaction, but they are often asynchronous and may not be as meaningful to students as discussions in a physical classroom where two-way communication is possible (Simon, Jackson, & Maxwell, 2013).
Bolliger and Inan (2012) developed and validated the Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS), which includes the following four constructs: (a) com- fort, (b) community, (c) facilitation, and (d) inter- action and collaboration. Items on the instrument were derived from the literature and included five modified items developed by Walker and Fraser (2005) on the interaction and collaboration subscale.
Comfort Comfort is defined as a feeling of security in the con- text of online learning environments. This includes perceived comfort and satisfaction with course materi- als, technologies and tools used in the course, and ability to engage in discourse without the fear of per- secution (Yuzer & Eby, 2014). Online students who do not feel secure in their learning environment might feel socially isolated and seek to limit interaction with instructors and peers (Shin, 2002, 2003; Yuzer & Eby, 2014). However, the lack of interaction or social dis- course can lead to low academic performance and high attrition (Moody, 2004; Park & Choi, 2009). For students to be successful in online courses and pro- grams, they should feel secure in their environment, interact with instructors and peers without fear of intimidation, and use course tools without extensive training (Liebowitz, 2013).
Community A students sense of community is integral to feeling connected in online courses. Just as in physical social situations, students who feel a sense of community tend to perform better academically in online courses and programs (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Rovai, 2001). Distance students are at a disadvantage because they do not have a physical presence in courses or on cam- pus (Barbarick, 2013). They must make an extra effort to participate in course activities and form connec- tions with peers and faculty. In an on-campus pro- gram, students and faculty usually develop a sense of community simply due to proximity. When students are physically on campus, it is easy to form study groups, visit professors during office hours, and talk with peers before or after class sessions. In an online environment, these types of interactions are difficult
to replicate because of the psychological and transac- tional distance students may experience. Students who feel a disconnect report feelings of isolation and are more likely to drop from online programs than those who do not (Moody, 2004; Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014).
Facilitation of learning Successful online learning takes more than just read- ing a book and answering questions. It involves a community of learners led by an effective facilitator. When students are engaged in discourse and collabor- ation with an involved instructor, they tend to feel connected and perform well (Swan, 2001). Instructors should be friendly and welcoming, encourage open and honest communication, and create a warm envir- onment were students do not feel intimidated by a high level of formality in the communication process (Rovai, 2001). For example, instructors who are overly formal or project an aura of authority may daunt stu- dents, resulting in students feeling less connected and less likely to engage in conversation (Rovai, 2003).
Another tenet of facilitation of learning is ensuring students are engaged in the course. Engaged students usually actively participate in course activities and seek to gain knowledge and skills. An active, learner- centered environment is suitable because it gives stu- dents some level of control over and require them to take ownership of their learning. Students should also participate in team- or group-based activities because these exchanges can facilitate and support student learning (Smart, Witt, & Scott, 2012).
Interaction and collaboration The fourth construct of the OSCS measures inter- action and collaboration in online programs because they are important elements in the success of students. Online courses and programs should include activities to foster interaction and collaboration (Barnard, Paton, & Rose, 2007). This includes developing activ- ities where students work together to complete an assignment or project and share ideas and information freely. Instructors may integrate a variety of informa- tion communication tools such as e-mail, discussion forums, wikis, chat rooms, and so forth for students to utilize while completing collaborative activities and assignments (Melkun, 2012). It is also beneficial for adult learners to integrate tools that allow for syn- chronous interactions (Barbarick, 2013). Frequent interactions with course participants and opportunities for collaboration have shown to increase learner satis- faction and the probability of retention (OKeeffe, 2013).
276 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER
anura
Highlight
Connectedness in online graduate programs
Many students who are enrolled in online graduate programs work in addition to completing coursework and have limited time to spend on activities they believe add no value. This situation can be exacer- bated when students feel disconnected from peers and faculty (Levy, 2007). This can result in high levels of attrition in online graduate programs.
Exter, Korkmaz, Harlin, and Bichelmeyer (2009) found that there was not a significant difference of students perceptions of connecteness between online and on-campus students. However, when students were interviewed, they mentioned they did not know some of the on-campus students and did not have adequate access to the professor outside of courses. They were able to form connections with peers within single courses but not beyond the boundaries of courses in the program. Participants suggested changes to the online program that would allow for more opportunities to connect and collaborate, for example, adding social media, blogs, and program- wide discussion forums. Students asked for places (virtual or physical) where they could gather and col- laborate. Others wanted to be included in on-campus activities via web conferencing.
Fostering connectedness in the online environment
As social connectedness in online courses and pro- grams is an ongoing concern, faculty are engaged in various activities designed to increase feelings of con- nectedness and mitigate feelings of learner isolation. Barbarick (2013) suggested including synchronous components, authentic interactions, and opportunities for sharing in online courses. LaBarbera (2013) pro- vided guidelines for instructors who wish to increase students feelings of connectedness or community in online courses. Timely, meaningful, and personalized feedback that is constructive needs to be provided for students to conceptualize a persona of the professor. Students who received frequent, timely feedback from professors felt a higher level of connectedness than students who received summarized feedback of overall performance in a course. Instructors should provide several opportunities for interactions inside and out- side of the classroom to improve connectedness.
To encourage interaction, instructors should create spaces for course participants outside the course itself and be actively involved in courses. Teaching or instructor presence is another important element that can contribute to students feelings of connectedness.
When instructors are not present in their courses, stu- dents do not have many opportunities to connect with them. Richardson et al. (2015) developed online instructor profiles after examining instructor presence behaviors in archived online courses. According to the authors, effective online instructors fulfill the follow- ing roles: advocate (supports student learning), facili- tator (participates in discourse), sense-maker (clarifies concepts), organizer (structures content), and main- tainer (administers actions). Involving students in activities outside the courses (e.g., off-campus events; institutional publications and ceremonies; student government activities) was recommended by Exter et al. (2009).
Individual characteristics
Gender and age Few researchers have investigated the impact of gen- der and age on perceptions of community in college courses and programs. Shea (2006) found that women felt slightly more connected than men did in the online environment. Results of a study that focused on perceptions of connectedness to the campus showed women felt more connected than men (Summers, Svinicki, Gorin, & Sullivan, 2002). In con- trast, Ngozi, Ada, and Christy (2010) investigated per- ceptions of school connectedness and found no significant differences based on gender. Researchers (Shea, 2006; Summers et al., 2002) who investigated differences of perceptions based on age found no sig- nificant differences. Ngozi et al. (2010), however, found a significantly higher perceived level of con- nectedness with students 1724 years old than with students who were 25 years old or older.
Disciplines and time in programs Researchers found no significant differences in levels of connectedness between disciplines. They noticed, however, that students in computer science courses had the lowest mean. Students perceptions in liberal arts, natural science, engineering, and education were not significantly different. Feelings of connectedness were statistically significantly different between sopho- more and senior students. Seniors had higher mean scores than sophomores (Summers et al., 2002).
Research purpose and questions
The literature on students perceptions of connected- ness in online programs in limited. Few researchers have addressed graduate students perceptions, and
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 277
very few studies have focused on students in fully online master-level business programs. Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to investigate graduate students perceptions of connectedness in fully online MBA and MSOM programs. The following research questions guided the study:
Research Question 1: What are students perception of connectedness in the MBA and MSOM online pro- grams as measured by the OSCS?
Research Question 2: How do students responses dif- fer based on individual characteristics (age, gender, program, successful hours completed)?
Research Question 3: What are students perceptions regarding instructors integrating activities into their courses to foster connectedness?
Research Question 4: What interactions would stu- dents like instructors to integrate into their courses to foster connectedness?
Method
Setting and sample
Participants in this study were graduate students enrolled in online MBA and MSOM programs at a small regional college in the midwestern United States. The college was selected because it has two business programs that are delivered fully online and researchers had access to the population. Both busi- ness programs are similar in scope but the coursework differs slightly. The MBA program is designed to be a generalist program and does not have a specific focus area. In contrast, the MSOM program does not require students to complete advanced accounting and economics courses. Instead, students choose a focus area in human services, natural resources or sports management. Students enrolled in the MBA program may choose to complete either a thesis or internship as their culminating experience. Both programs are designed to be completed in two years with a full- time, nine-credit-hour load each semester or within 2.5 years with a part-time, six-credit-hour load each semester.
There are approximately 190 students enrolled in the MBA program and 83 students enrolled in the MSOM program. Students in the MBA program are located primarily in the United States; however, a few students do not live in the United States. Students in the MSOM program are all domestic students, and most reside in the northern Rocky Mountain region in the United States.
The college has no official standards or require- ments for instructors to include components pertain- ing to interaction or connectedness in online courses. Instructors may seek assistance with instructional design and development, but these services are lim- ited. The instructional technology team consists of only a few professionals who are unable to support the faculty with all instructional design and technol- ogy needs.
Participants
The majority of participants (n¼106) were men (53.8%) and 46.2% were women. Their ages ranged from 21 to 60 years old (M¼ 32.68, SD¼10.31). More than one third of students (34.9%) were in their first year of their program, whereas 65.1% were in their second year of study. Most participants (77.4%) reported that they were enrolled in the MBA program; 22.6% of participants were MSOM students.
Instrument
The OSCS (Bolliger & Inan, 2012) was administered to participants after seeking permission from the authors. The instrument consists of 25 Likert-type scale questions and has four scales: (a) community, (b) comfort, (c) facilitation, and (d) interaction and collaboration. The instrument is a validated and reli- able instrument and has a 5-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original reliability of the instrument was high (.97), and the internal reliability coefficients for all subscales were high: comfort (a¼ 0.97), community (a¼ 0.96), facilitation (a¼ 0.94), and interaction and collaboration (a¼ 0.97).
One multiple-response item was added to solicit responses pertaining to which instructional activities instructors used in online courses. Two open-ended questions asked students to share what instructors did to foster connectedness and what they would like instructors to do to foster connectedness. Demographic questions included age, gender, academic program, and number of credit hours successfully completed in the program.
Data collection
The data were collected during a four-week period in spring 2018 semester after obtaining permissions from the universitys Institutional Review Board. All 273 students enrolled in the MBA and MSOM programs
278 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER
were invited to participate via e-mail. The invitation contained an embedded link to an online survey housed on a secure server. Participants were provided with information about the study and their rights as research subjects prior to completing the online sur- vey. Participants were invited to register for the draw- ing of one of ten $30.00 Amazon gift cards by completing a Google form. Three reminders were sent to students to increase the response rate. One hun- dred and fifteen individuals completed the survey; the response rate was approximately 40%.
Data analysis
Upon completion of the data collection process, data were analyzed, cleaned, and coded.
Statistical assumptions were examined. Results showed that the assumption of homogeneity of var- iances was violated, as assessed by Levenes test for equality of variances (p¼ .014). Welchs analysis of variance was used due to the homogeneity of vari- ance violation.
Two cases that were invalid or had missing data were deleted from the data set. Seven students who were not enrolled in either the MBA or MSOM pro- gram were removed. Four outliers with a z score of ±3.0 were deleted. One hundred and six valid cases remained. The internal reliability coefficient of the instrument was very high (a¼ 0.94). The reliability for subscales was also very high: (a) comfort (a¼ 0.86), (b) community (a¼ 0.89), (c) facilitation (a¼ 0.81), and (d) interaction and collaboration (a¼ 0.88).
Frequencies and descriptive statistics were gener- ated for Likert-type items. Independent t tests with Bonferroni correction were performed to ascertain dif- ferences in responses based on gender, academic pro- gram, and hours completed in the program. A series of one-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni cor- rection were run to determine differences based on age groups. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using open coding and frequency count (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Patton, 2015). Categories were generated and added to the codebook. Frequency counts were tallied for each category and emerging themes were developed.
Results and discussion
Perception of connectedness
Because the scale has 25 Likert-type items that range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), scale scores can range from 25 to 125. Participants scores
ranged from 54 to 122 (M¼ 90.69, SD¼ 13.886), and the mean score for the instrument was 3.63 (SD¼ 0.555). These results indicate students felt mod- erately connected in their online courses. These results are not surprising because recent studies that used the OSCS yielded similar findings (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Exter et al., 2009; Finn, 2018; Ford, 2015). However, students agreement or disagreement varied between the instruments four subscales. When asked how important connectedness is to students, the majority (67.0%) indicated that it was important or very important; the mean score was 3.75.
Comfort Over 90% of participants agreed with items 2 and 4. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed with items on the comfort subscale. Most students (94.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their instruc- tors had created a safe online environment, and 93.4% felt comfortable with introducing themselves. Over 80% of students agreed with Items 1, 4, 7, and 8. Students felt comfortable in their learning environ- ment (87.7%), had no difficulties expressing them- selves (84.9%), had no difficulties expressing their feelings and thoughts (84.0%), and communicated effectively (83.0%). Item 5 had the highest (M¼ 4.49) and Item 6 had the lowest mean score (M¼ 3.65). This subscale had the highest mean (M¼ 4.12) of all four subscales (Table 1). These results indicate that students were comfortable in the online learning environment in general, and they were able to com- municate and share with other course participants while completing online learning activities. These findings are not surprising given the fact that students who enter college today have an information-age mindset (Frand, 2000, p. 16); they are accustomed to constant technological change, access to rapidly emerging technologies, and constant access to infor- mation and connectedness to others via their mobile devices.
Many students today are more familiar with online learning environments than students of previous gen- erations. In fall 2016, 31.6% of college students were taking at least one online course. As enrollment in online courses at higher education institutions has been steadily increasing over many years (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018), one can assume that many graduate students have been exposed to online courses during their undergraduate studies. Perhaps some have even taken online courses as high school students.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 279
Community Overall, students did not agree highly with items on the community subscale. Many participants selected the neutral option for these statements. The highest agreement was with Items 9 and 11; however, less than half of the respondents got to know faculty and peers well (46.2%) or thought making acquaintances was easy (44.3%). The highest disagreement was with Item 12. Students (67.9%) strongly disagreed or dis- agreed with the statement that they spent a lot of time with their peers; this item also had the lowest mean (M¼ 2.21). The community subscale (M¼ 2.68) yielded the lowest mean score of all subscale (Table 2).
The low mean score on the community subscale indicates that students in this study did not feel they were part of a community. Researchers have found similar results (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Finn, 2018; Ford, 2015). However, it is a concern that over half of participants disagreed that they are not emotionally attached to or spend time with their peers, and that their peers do not know them well. According to Liu (2006), lack of community in online courses can be attributed in part to the temporary and goal-oriented nature of online learning and limited opportunities for interaction in online courses. To engage students, reduce feelings of isolation, and avoid burnout,
community formation and presence should be encouraged and supported (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Tinto, 1975).
Facilitation Over 80% of students agreed or strongly agreed with four items on the facilitation subscale: Item 15 (87.7%), Item 16 (86.8%), Item 17 (86.8%), and Item 20 (80.2%). They agreed instructors promoted collab- oration and interaction, integrated collaboration tools, and were responsive. Approximately, only one third of participants (33.0%) agreed that instructors partici- pated in online discussions (Item 19). This item had the lowest mean (M¼ 4.17) on the subscale (Table 3).
It is encouraging that so many students agreed that their online instructors promoted collaboration and were responsive to students. Very few instructors, however, according to respondents participated in online discussions. Researchers have pointed out that instructors can increase students sense of community by being present. Instructor presence and interaction are an important aspect of student satisfaction and engagement (Bolliger & Martindale, 2004, Martin & Bolliger, 2018). When students are learning in online environments that do not require synchronous meetings or sessions, there are limited opportunities to engage with instructors (LaBarbera, 2013). The
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and percentage for comfort subscale items (N¼ 106). Percentage
Item M SD SD/D N A/SA
1. I feel comfortable in the online learning environment provided by my program. 4.25 0.778 2.8 9.4 87.7 2. I feel my instructors have created a safe online environment in which I can freely express myself. 4.42 0.599 0.0 5.7 94.3 3. I feel comfortable asking other students in online courses for help. 3.72 0.993 11.3 24.5 64.2 4. I feel comfortable expressing my opinions and feelings in online courses. 4.19 0.770 2.8 13.2 84.0 5. I feel comfortable introducing myself in online courses. 4.49 0.651 0.9 5.7 93.4 6. If I need to, I will ask for help from my classmates. 3.65 0.996 13.2 24.5 62.3 7. I have no difficulties with expressing my thoughts in my online courses. 4.14 0.774 2.8 12.3 84.9 8. I can effectively communicate in online courses. 4.11 0.760 1.9 15.1 83.0 Overall 4.12 0.571
Note. Scale items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A¼ agree; D¼ disagree; N¼ neutral; SA¼ strongly agree; SD¼ strongly disagree.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and percentages for community subscale items (N¼ 106). Percentage
Item M SD SD/D N A/SA
9. I have gotten to know some of the faculty members and classmates well. 3.27 1.159 29.2 24.5 46.2 10. I feel emotionally attached to other students in my online courses. 2.41 0.974 55.7 30.2 14.2 11. I can easily
Read more
Applied Sciences
Architecture and Design
Biology
Business & Finance
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Education
Engineering
English
Environmental science
Spanish
Government
History
Human Resource Management
Information Systems
Law
Literature
Mathematics
Nursing
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Reading
Science
Social Science
Home
Homework Answers
Blog
Archive
Tags
Reviews
Contact
twitterfacebook
Copyright © 2021 SweetStudy.com
Recent Comments