St.

John's University
St. John's Scholar

Theses and Dissertations

2022

A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF

THEIR EXPERIENCES IN UNDERGRADUATE ONLINE COURSES
Glenda Lander Lugo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_dissertations

Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, Educational Technology Commons, and the Higher
Education Commons
 A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR
EXPERIENCES IN UNDERGRADUATE ONLINE COURSES

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

to the faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

of

THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

at

ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY

New York
by
Glenda Lander Lugo

Date Submitted: 2/24/2022 Date Approved: 5/17/2022

________________________ ________________________
Glenda Lander Lugo Ceceilia Parnther, Ph.D.
© Copyright by Glenda Lander Lugo 2022

All Rights Reserved

 ABSTRACT

A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR

EXPERIENCES IN UNDERGRADUATE ONLINE COURSES

Glenda Lander Lugo

The advancement of instructional technology has significantly influenced course

delivery in higher education institutions and online learning has increased considerably as

an instructional course delivery method. In addition, the changing student demographics

and increasing cost of education have spurred the growth of online learning and have

demonstrated the inevitability of online learning as an alternative to in-class instruction.

Further, the ad-hoc implementation of online learning in higher education due to the

COVID-19 pandemic has validated the use of online environments as a viable

educational platform but has also amplified the challenges associated with providing an

optimal online education experience for students.

The application of traditional education theories to online learning is still evolving

and the research on online course effectiveness has focused primarily on student

outcomes. The objective of this qualitative case study was to capture students’

perceptions of their experiences and the processes that facilitated the outcomes or the

quality of student learning. This study sought to inform the practice of developing

engaging, instructional course design focused on student success and learning. The

research will add to the body of literature regarding students’ perceptions and experiences

in online courses.
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my family. A special dedication to my mom, Roma

Lander, your intelligence, compassion and patience are important for any academic

discipline but were inspiring for me on this journey. To my husband, Anthony and my

children, Aria and Gabriella, you inspire and encourage me. To my mother-in-law and

father-in-law, Olga and Antonio Lugo, thank you for taking care of my kids during the

formative years of their lives. To my sisters, brothers, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law,

nieces, nephews and my extended family and friends, thank you for your love and

support. I have been blessed with the best family!

This is in loving memory of my father, Raphael Lander. Persistence, one of the

qualities we have in common, was really an asset during this process.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge my parents for their discipline and guidance. To my husband, my

children, my family and my in-laws, thank you for your love and support.

To my mentor, Dr. Ceceilia Parnther, I cannot express my gratitude to you for

your knowledge, support and guidance throughout this process. Your dedication to your

mentees and students is truly exemplary and unparalleled.

To my committee faculty members, Dr. Birringer-Haig and Dr. Annunziato. You

were just as amazing in the process as you were as professors. Thank you for the

expertise and insight you provided in support of this study. A special thanks to the chair

and faculty member who allowed me to use the students in my study. Thank you for your

support of my study. To Dr. DiMartino, I appreciate your guidance as an advanced

qualitative research professor. I was positive that I would design a quantitative research

study but the qualitative courses in the program highlighted the merits of qualitative

research. Dr. Cozza and Ms. Rosaria Cimino, thanks for the advisement support. To all

the Ed.D. candidates that I encountered on my academic journey, especially my

unofficial cohort members, Kim, Bette and Linda, and my Saturday writing seminar

colleagues, thanks for running the race and keeping the faith. Thanks to my friend,

Jerline, for the late night dinners!

Finally, thank you God, for your blessings and guidance!

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................4
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................6
Connection with Social Justice and/or Vincentian Mission in Education .......................7
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................8
Design and Methods .........................................................................................................8
Research Design and Data Analysis .............................................................................8
Participants ...................................................................................................................9
Instruments .................................................................................................................10
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................11
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................11
Conclusion......................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................14
Introduction ....................................................................................................................14
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................14
Constructivism Learning Theory ................................................................................14
Review of Related Literature .........................................................................................19
Engagement in the Online Environment ....................................................................19
Online Course Structure .............................................................................................23
Role of Technology in Online Instruction ..................................................................26
Learner Autonomy in the Online Environment ..........................................................29
Conclusion......................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 3 ......................................................................................................................33
Introduction ....................................................................................................................33
Methods and Procedures ................................................................................................33
Research Questions.....................................................................................................34

iv
 Setting .........................................................................................................................35
Participants .................................................................................................................35
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................37
Document Analysis.....................................................................................................38
Interviews ...................................................................................................................39
Asynchronous Online Observations ...........................................................................40
Trustworthiness of the Design ....................................................................................43
Research Ethics...........................................................................................................44
Data Analysis Approach .............................................................................................45
Delimitations ..............................................................................................................46
Researcher Role ..........................................................................................................48
Conclusion......................................................................................................................50
CHAPTER 4 ......................................................................................................................51
Introduction ....................................................................................................................51
Description of Case ........................................................................................................52
LMS Activity Analytics..............................................................................................54
Online Learning Platform Activity Analytics ............................................................54
Findings ..........................................................................................................................55
Theme 1: Student Independent Learning....................................................................56
Theme 2: Instructor Engagement ...............................................................................63
Theme 3: Online Course Design ................................................................................66
Theme 4: Instructional Technology............................................................................70
Conclusion......................................................................................................................73
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................75
Introduction ....................................................................................................................75
Interpretations of Findings .............................................................................................76
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................76
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................78
Implication for Theoretical Framework .........................................................................80
Relationship to Prior Research .......................................................................................81
Engagement in the Online Environment ....................................................................81
Online Course Structure .............................................................................................82
The Role of Technology in Online Instruction ...........................................................82
Learner Autonomy......................................................................................................83

v
 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................83
Recommendations for Future Practice ...........................................................................85
Intentional Design of Online Courses ........................................................................85
Collaboration between Faculty and Instructional Designers ......................................86
Focus on Faculty Development and Oversight in Online Courses .............................86
Recommendations for Future Research .........................................................................87
Conclusion......................................................................................................................88
APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL .....................................................................................90
APPENDIX B: LETTER OF CONSENT..........................................................................91
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL ................................................93
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .....................................................................94
APPENDIX E: CROSSWALK TABLE ............................................................................96
APPENDIX F: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ..............................................................100
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................101

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Theoretical Framework, Constructs and Applications………...………………. 18

Table 2 Participants Demographics………….……...……….…………………………. 37
Table 3 Interpretative Themes……....……………………………………………….…. 56

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Factors Affecting Students’ Experiences in Online Courses……...…………… 6

viii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The terms online education, online learning and distance education have been

used interchangeably in online education. The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE),

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS) defines online learning as education delivered to students,

separated from the instructors, using one or more technologies (NCES, 2020). Research

statistics indicate that online learning has significantly increased as an instructional

delivery method in higher education and has increased access to higher education by

providing students an opportunity to take classes on their optimal schedule.

A review of a survey of over 1,000 higher education institutions verified that both

online and blended course offerings have increased in higher education institutions. The

survey data also showed that an increasing number of higher education leaders indicated

that online course offerings were integral to their institution’s long-term strategy and that

online learning outcomes are comparable or superior to outcomes for the traditional in-

class instruction (Allen et al., 2007). More recently, an annual report by the Babson

Survey Research Group on the state of online learning in higher education in the United

States, found that enrollment in online education had increased significantly. The annual

report, co-sponsored by the Online Learning Consortium, a collaborative community

focused on the advancement of quality online education, revealed that enrollment in

online courses had steadily increased over the past 14 years and as of Fall 2016, 31.6% of

students were enrolled in at least one online education course (Seaman et al., 2018).

Further, data from the NCES showed that, in Fall 2018, 79% of higher education

1
institutions offered either individual online courses or online degree programs and 35%

of the total Fall 2018 student population were enrolled in at least one online course

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). These statistics demonstrate that the use

of online learning as an alternate learning modality has increased over the last three

decades. Further, the changing education climate, compounded by the coronavirus

pandemic in spring 2020, has demonstrated the inevitability of online learning in higher

education.

However, there are diverging views about the quality of online courses.

Opponents of online education have questioned whether online environments provide as

comparable an interaction as the traditional classroom setting, are wary of the

qualifications of instructors who teach online courses and have asserted that online

programs are not included in the formal faculty structures that have traditionally provided

oversight for instructional course quality (Yang & Cornelius, 2004). Similarly, in a

working paper to review whether online education can be leveraged to increase the

progression and academic success of underprepared and disadvantaged students, Jaggars

(2011) established that online courses do not necessarily lower the cost barriers but that

the technological infrastructure required for online learning posed a significant barrier.

Conversely, advocates of online learning have suggested that online education can build

problem solving, critical-thinking, cognitive and collaboration skills through the

integration of instructional course design and the use of technology in pedagogy

(Ascough, 2002). Proponents also assert that online education can augment program

offerings and improve technology skills of students (Yang & Cornelius, 2004).

These diverging views on the quality of online learning indicate that, although the

2
potential of online education as an alternative learning modality for improving access to

education is widely established, further research on students’ perceptions of online

courses is necessary. The research of online learning has focused primarily on

comparisons with the traditional face-to-face course format and the existing research

literature has mainly highlighted quantitative studies that examine student outcomes in

online courses. However, factors that create the optimal conditions for learning, as

perceived by students, should be considered and need further research because studies

that emphasize technical aspects, compare online learning to the traditional learning

format or focus on quantitative outcomes can obscure the effective evaluation of online

education. Understanding students’ perspectives of these factors is necessary to have a

holistic approach of the dynamics of online education.

Purpose of Study

The purpose this study was to explore the experiences of students enrolled in

online courses at the professional studies college of a private, urban university in the

Northeast United States. There is an inherent benefit of hearing from students’

experiences, particularly since universities are increasingly providing additional online

course offerings, and so research on online education cannot rely solely on quantitative

data or data based on faculty experiences. Students’ voices are important to

understanding their academic experiences and this dialogue can enhance the design of an

online environment that promotes ownership of learning. To address this, the researcher

chose a qualitative descriptive case study research methodology, using a sample of

students enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory computer science course to

understand their perceptions of their online courses and the factors that shape their

3
experiences. The research sought to understand students’ experiences in online courses,

to inform the practice of online course development and to provide additional data, to

faculty and instructional course designers, about the factors that contribute to students’

experiences.

Theoretical Framework

The study was guided by the constructivist theoretical framework. Constructivism

learning theory suggests that learning is an active process and that students have

ownership of their learning and assessment. Within the constructivist model, the learner

is at the center of learning and is not merely a passive participant. As a learner-centered

approach, one of the goals of constructivism is to create a meaningful, communicative

and collaborative environment, all important characteristics of an online learning

environment.

In online environments, students are able to engage with the instructor, other

students and the course in a more purposeful way and the roles of the student, instructor

and technology in the online learning environment are guided by the principles of

constructivist learning theory. With online peer interactions, students are exposed to

multiple perspectives, which allow for deeper construction of knowledge (Schrader,

2015). Specifically, online discussion and interaction in an asynchronous online

environment can facilitate the constructivist approach to knowledge creation. The

constructivist instructor in an online environment focuses on the learning process in ways

that allow for deeper thinking in the construction of knowledge and so the primary

responsibility of the instructor in a constructivist, learning environment is to create a

collaborative, problem-solving environment where students become active participants in

4
their own learning (Gold, 2001). Further, technology, used in online learning

environments, extends classroom boundaries, creates new learning communities and

accesses diverse collaborators in the learning process (Schrader, 2015).

However, although constructivism is widely discussed in the context of the

standard learning process, the framework is underexplored in the context of online

learning (Schrader, 2015). Prior research on the constructivist framework has

demonstrated the need for extending the research on constructivism to online learning

where students create knowledge in the absence of physical co-presence. This study fitted

with the prior research on constructivism in exploring how learners learn but also sought

to understand, in the context of the constructivist learning theories, how students’

learning experiences are shaped by the online learning communities. The review of the

theoretical framework and literature underscored the need for understanding students’

subjective experiences as well as the meaning students make out of those experiences

(Seidman, 2006) and justified the need for additional qualitative research into students’

experiences in online environments.

Conceptual Framework

Based on the constructivist theoretical framework and on a synthesis of the

relevant concepts in the existing literature, the following conceptual framework was used

to explain the logic of the research study (Figure 1). Constructivism provided the theories

that supported the study, and in this study, the constructivist paradigm was further

explored in the context of online learning. The systematic literature review revealed

categories, such as student engagement, online course structure, education technology

and learner autonomy, that influenced students’ perceptions of their experiences in online

5
courses.

Figure 1

Factors Affecting Students’ Experiences in Online Courses

Significance of the Study

The design of online learning communities has historically been technology-

driven instead of student-focused. Additionally, the research on online course

effectiveness has focused primarily on student quantitative outcomes, such as course

grades, which may not necessarily capture the core student experience, the process that

facilitated the outcomes or the quality of student learning. Understanding the perspectives

of student enrolled in online courses is key to understanding students’ experiences, is

integral to student satisfaction and is important to implementing online practices that

enhance students’ experiences and promote learning.

6
 The NCES statistics indicate that online learning has significantly increased as an

instructional course delivery method in higher education. The advancement of

instructional technology has significantly influenced course delivery in higher education

institutions. However, the coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020 emphasized the need for

additional research on the factors that shaped students’ experiences in online courses.

Although the ad-hoc implementation of online learning during the pandemic validated the

use of online learning as a viable educational platform, it also amplified the challenges

associated with providing an optimal online education experience for students.

There is a need for the current study because at the core of the research problems

are issues related to retention and persistence of students. Student retention and

persistence are not only key components of student success but are important parts of

higher education institutions’ admission processes, reputation and core constituency. This

study sought to inform the practice of engaging instructional course design focused on

student learning and to add to the body of literature researching students’ perceptions and

experiences in online courses.

Connection with Social Justice and/or Vincentian Mission in Education

The study focused on students enrolled in online learning at a private, urban

university that affirms student mobility as part of its mission. The university’s mission

and core values are focused on promoting supportive and enriching academic

environments that allow all members of the university community to be successful

(University, 2021).

The traditional institutional university structure is constrained by geographical

boundaries and can be a barrier for many non-traditional students. Non-traditional

7
students are typically not able to afford the traditional tuition and board schedule and may

need to supplement university, state and federal aid with income from work. Online

education is changing the landscape of education. It offers learning opportunities for non-

traditional students who do not reside in proximity of a university or who have other

commitments that prevent them from participating in the traditional instruction structure.

Online learning offers options for academic access, progression and success in higher

education by providing students the opportunity to work around their schedules while

participating in instruction either synchronously or asynchronously.

Research Questions

The study explored the experiences of students enrolled in online courses and was

guided by the following research questions:

1) How do undergraduate students enrolled in the professional studies college at a

private, urban higher education institution describe their experiences in online

courses?

2) What factors shape the experiences of undergraduate students enrolled in online

courses in the professional studies college at a private, urban higher education

institution?

Design and Methods

Research Design and Data Analysis

The study was a qualitative descriptive case study research methodology that

explored the commonality of the experiences of students enrolled in undergraduate online

courses at a private, urban university in the Northeast United States.

A qualitative study was appropriate for this study because the research sought to

8
understand the shared experiences common to a heterogeneous group of students.

Qualitative research examines the meaning individuals assign to social or human issues

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Students’ voices are important to understanding their academic

experiences and this dialogue can enhance the design of an online environment that

promotes ownership of learning.

The case study research was appropriate for this study since it focused on the

exploration of a real-life phenomenon bounded by time and place - the shared

experiences of a heterogeneous group of students enrolled in an asynchronous online,

introductory computer science course in the professional studies college at a private,

urban higher education institution. The research collected data from students, within a

specific context, regarding their experiences in online courses and developed a composite

description of the experiences of the students (Moustakas, 1994). The focus was on

understanding the meaning of the students’ experiences by analyzing the data iteratively

and identifying emerging themes that captured the composite experiences of the students

and the nature of their lived experiences (Moustakas, 1994). The students’ own voices

were used to highlight their experiences and reflections throughout the findings.

To capture the students’ experiences, the research questions were aligned with the

data sources. Qualitative data about the factors that shaped student experiences, including

the perception of student engagement, course structure, technology use and learner

autonomy in online learning, were collected via document analyses, individual semi-

structured interviews and course observations.

Participants

The study focused on the experiences of 10 students enrolled in an asynchronous

9
online, introductory computer science course in the professional studies college at a

private, urban university in the Northeast United States. All participants of the study were

matriculated in undergraduate degree programs and enrolled in the asynchronous online,

introductory, computer science course in the fall 2021 semester. The participants were

selected through purposeful, convenience and snowball sampling. First purposeful

sampling, was used to identify a specific asynchronous online course, deliberately

selected to adequately capture the heterogeneity in the population of online students

(Maxwell, 2013). A purposeful sampling strategy allowed for the selection of specific

student participants that could provide information relevant to the research questions

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Once access to the course was secured, a convenience sample

was employed to interview students who were accessible to the researcher based on the

responses to the requests for interviews. To further facilitate the data collection, snowball

sampling was employed to recruit additional participants. Initial student interview

participants recommended and helped to identify additional study participants who were

enrolled in the course and fitted the research criteria.

Instruments

The data collection instruments were document analyses, interviews,

observations and field notes, designed by the researcher and guided by the research

questions, related literature and the constructivist paradigm. The document analysis

focused on the review of key course documents such as course syllabus, modules,

materials, assignments and rubrics, as well as the online learning platform. The

interview questions explored the learner-centered, collaborative approach of the

constructivist framework on how knowledge is constructed. The questions examined

10
the roles of student engagement, course structure, instructional technology and learner

autonomy in the online environment. Observations occurred as a complete observer in

the asynchronous online course. The observations provided an opportunity to fully

observe participants in the online setting and, as a result, limited ethical consideration

associated with student behavior when students are aware that they are being observed.

Data Collection Procedures

Potential participants were recruited via email and course announcements, which

included a description of the study, time commitment and student responsibilities.

Document analysis was the first data collection instrument and occurred in the fall 2021

semester. This was supported by participants’ interviews, which occur concurrently with

any subsequent document analysis and online observations. During the data collection,

participants were engaged with follow-up questions for clarification on the recorded data.

Participants were also be included in the data validation to reflect on the accuracy of the

account. After the data collection, the preliminary analyses with themes, attached to the

transcript data, were taken back to available interview participants to validate how well

their experiences were represented in the data analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Definition of Terms

The operational definitions of the key terms used in this study are as follows:

Asynchronous Learning: Asynchronous learning is instruction that occurs on an

open time schedule. The term is generally applied to instruction and learning that

occurs in different locations and at different times. In the asynchronous model,

students access the course and complete assignments on their own schedule (Great

Schools Partnership, 2014).

11
Course structure: The course structure is defined as the content, modules and

assignments organized to create a learning path for students. In an online learning

environment, the course structure typically includes a Learning Management System,

a portal where students can access the course content, interact with the instructor and

peers and monitor progress. The instructional mode of delivery can be synchronous,

asynchronous or hybrid (Friedman & Moody, 2020).

Education Technology: Education technology (Ed Tech) is the teaching and learning

hardware and software used to facilitate technology-enabled instruction. Ed Tech

facilitates collaboration and increases student engagement in active and interactive

learning environments (Top Hat, 2021).

Learner Autonomy: Learner autonomy is the extent to which the learner manages

the learning experiences, engages with the subject matter and evaluates the decision

of the learning program without the intervention of the instructor between learner and

content (Keegan, 2005).

Online Learning: Online learning is defined as education delivered to students,

separated from the instructors, using one or more technologies (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2020).

Student Engagement: Student engagement refers to the degree of active

participation in the course and the level of student-student, student-instructor and

student-content interaction exhibited by students. Student engagement has also been

defined as students’ levels of interest and motivation to learn course topics (Briggs,

2015). The common types of student engagement are behavioral engagement, which

refers to student’s participation level and involvement in the social aspects of

12
 learning, emotional engagement, which refers to student attitudes towards the

academic experiences, and cognitive engagement, which refers to student motivation

and ownership of their learning goals (Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

Traditional Face-To-Face Learning: Traditional Face-To-Face (F2F) learning is an

instructional method where students are taught the course content at a specified date

and time in physical proximity to the instructor. F2F instructions allows for physical

student-instructor and student-student interactions (Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

Synchronous Learning: Synchronous learning is instruction that is paced on a

specific time schedule despite not being in physical proximity. The term is applied to

forms of instructions that occur at the same with the aid of technology-enabled

devices (Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

Conclusion

Chapter one provided insights into the purpose of the study and highlighted the

significance of researching students’ experiences in online courses. Chapter two will

review how this study aligned with the constructivist theories and will explain how the

constructivist theoretical framework guided the organization of this research. Chapter two

will also synthesize the existing literature on this research, demonstrate how this study

was supported by the prior research and provide a basis for further exploration of learning

in the absence of physical co-presence.

13
 CHAPTER 2

Introduction

The purpose this study was to research the experiences of students enrolled in

online learning courses at the professional studies college of a private, urban university in

the Northeast United States. The study explored students’ perceptions of their online

courses and the factors that shaped their experiences. The research sought to inform the

practice of online course development and implementation and to assist faculty and

instructional course designers in understanding the factors that contributes to students’

experiences.

Chapter one provided the context and the purpose of the study and outlined the

significance of the study in understanding students’ experiences in online courses.

Chapter one also defined the theoretical and conceptual frameworks and the research

questions that guided the study. Chapter two further analyzes the constructivist

theoretical framework in the context of online learning, reviews the related literature and

identifies emerging categories in the existing research on learning in an online

environment.

Theoretical Framework

Constructivism Learning Theory

The study was guided by the constructivist theoretical framework. Constructivist

theory posits that learners are actively involved in the learning process and in the

construction of meaning and knowledge. The major constructivist theorists hypothesized

within the contexts of cognitive development and social interaction, contexts that are

explored in online learning. Dewey’s (1938) social and cognitive constructivist

14
perspectives theorized that education and inquiry should be integrated with real

experience. Bruner’s (1971) social constructivist theory posited that learning is an active

process in which learners create new concepts based on prior knowledge. Piaget’s (1977)

cognitive constructivism proposed that cognitive development is largely independent, and

the interaction of experiences and ideas is critical in the creation of knowledge.

Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism focused on interaction and collaboration

between peers and theorized that knowledge is co-constructed as learners engage in the

learning process and learn from one another.

These constructivist theorists present that learners make meaning through social

interaction as well as knowledge engagement (Schrader, 2015). Primarily, constructivist

theory suggests that students have ownership of their learning and assessment. As a

learner-centered approach, one of the goals of constructivism is to create a meaningful,

communicative and collaborative environment (Gold, 2001). Thus, constructivist learning

is reliant on the reciprocal interaction between students and instructors, and within

student groups in order to co-construct learning and by default, to increase engagement,

learning, and perceived satisfaction. The constructivist model provides a theoretical basis

for studying learning, including the roles of learners, instructors and technology, in online

environments.

Although the constructivist framework focuses on the learners’ control of

knowledge acquisition, the theory also emphasizes the facilitating role of the instructor.

Therefore, to foster this engagement, the online instructor is responsible for creating

approachable, communicative and collaborative learning conditions in the online

environment (Schrader, 2015). Gold (2001) also referenced the importance of the role of

15
the online instructor as faciliatory in three distinct roles – organizational, social and

intellectual. The organizing role is centered on the course structure, objectives,

procedures and timelines. In the social role, the instructor is responsible for creating an

approachable, communicative and appropriate online environment. The intellectual role

is focused on the process of learning and understanding the course content through

assignments, questions and other course structures. In effect, the role of the constructivist

instructor is to facilitate the learning process.

The online peer interactions, afforded by technology and social media, expose

students to multiple perspectives, which allow for deeper understanding (Gold, 2001).

Further, information and communications technologies provide students with increased

access to content, support greater autonomy in learning and allow for deeper thinking in

the construction of knowledge. Essentially, education technologies used in online

learning alter the ways in which students communicate, collaborate, construct knowledge,

and as a result support the constructivist approach. In online environments, knowledge is

extended where there is communication, dialogue and engagement in a learning

community. Information and communications technologies extend classroom boundaries,

create new learning communities and access diverse collaborators in the learning process

(Schrader, 2015). Therefore, given the evolving technology and media tools available in

online learning environments, the constructivist learning paradigm must evolve to

promote learning using new media (Schrader, 2015). In examining the link between

constructivism and social media, Schrader posits that media shapes how the current

generation of learners learn and know and enhances the opportunities for knowledge

evolution. Further, the cognitive processes of assimilation of information, the

16
accommodation of new experiences and the appropriation of new skills all evolve with

interaction with online media and are mediated by technology (Schrader, 2015).

Thus, constructivism, as a theoretical framework, can explain the scaffolding

support required in education to construct knowledge and meaning in an environment

enabled by technology. Technology and media, as mediums of learning, provide greater

opportunities for interpersonal interaction and for co-construction of knowledge. New

technology and media “augment cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning, not so

much by expanding the theories, but by expanding their reach, affording more

communities to be joined together in constructivist learning” (Schrader, 2015, p.33).

This study fitted with the prior research on constructivism in exploring how

learners learn but, although constructivism in widely discussed in the context of the

standard learning process, the framework is underexplored in the context of technology-

enhanced online learning. Prior research on the constructivist framework has

demonstrated the need for extending the research on the constructivism in the context of

online learning which allows students to create knowledge in the absence of physical co-

presence. Therefore, the study sought to explore, in the context of the constructivist

learning theories, how students’ learning experiences are shaped by these online learning

communities. The theoretical concepts of cognitive and social constructivism (Table 1)

“is the psychological foundation and explains the theoretical scaffolding necessary to

construct new meaning in education created by the abundant and novel building blocks of

technology” (Schrader, 2015, p.32).

17
Table 1

Theoretical Framework, Constructs and Applications

Framework Construct Application

Constructivism Cognitive Constructivism Meaningful, communicative
(Dewey, 1938) and collaborative online
(Piaget, 1977) environment
Co-construction of knowledge
Intellectual role of the
instructor in enabling
understanding of the course
content using the course
structures
New technology allowing for
deeper reflection in the
construction of knowledge
Technology extending
classroom boundaries, creating
new learning communities and
accessing diverse collaborators
Social Constructivism Online interactions allowing
(Bruner, 1971) for deeper understanding of the
(Vygotsky, 1978) content
Online interactions facilitating
more diverse perspectives and
interpretations
Faciliatory role of the
constructivist instructor in
enabling organization, social
and intellectual interactions
Intellectual role of the online
instructor in the defining
learning process and
supporting outcomes

The literature review included studies grounded in constructivist learning theory.

The organization of the literature was guided by the components of online learning

18
environments that extend the scope of constructivist learning, augment the cognitive and

sociocultural context of constructivist learning, affect learner development and facilitate

knowledge construction. The following categories emerged in the review of the related

literature and was used to organize the literature review - engagement in the online

environment, online course structure, education technology in online instruction and

learner autonomy in the online environment.

Review of Related Literature

The literature review focused on studies of students enrolled in online courses,

was based on a systematic database search of EBSCOhost, ERIC (EBSCO), ERIC

(ed.gov) and JSOTR databases conducted in 2021 and included peer-reviewed articles

published between 2000 and 2021. The review referenced online course descriptors,

including terms such as engagement, engaged theory, engagement theory, community of

inquiry, learning community, online course organization, course content, information

and communication technology, self-regulation, self-direction and self-assessment. The

literature search was further refined to include research that was guided by the

constructivist framework or by theoretical concepts that aligned with, or are grounded, in

social and cognitive constructivism. The literature review highlighted relevant findings in

the following areas: student engagement, online course structure, education technology,

and learner autonomy.

Engagement in the Online Environment

Engagement in an online course refers to interaction, connection and active

participation in the course. The literature reviewed in this section focused on relational

interaction, such as student-instructor, student-student and student-course interaction, that

19
shaped the experiences of students enrolled in online courses.

In a study that examined students’ perceptions of online learning and instructional

tools, Armstrong (2011) theorized that online engagement and communication were

important to student learning and success. The researcher used interviews, think-aloud

observations and online focus groups to gathered data from 16 participants who were

previously enrolled or were currently enrolled in online courses. The framework of

approach to learning was used to guide the data analysis. The approaches to learning as

described in the literature were deep – where learners are able to organize information,

critically examine ideas and make meaningful connections that promote learning,

strategic – where learners aim for the highest possible grade by employing effective study

and time management approaches and surface – where learners emphasize the replication

of information. The requisite regulation integral to the approaches to learning is

consistent with the social constructivist theory of self-regulation. Self-regulation, as

defined by social constructivists, is the process where students attain beliefs about their

abilities and competencies, evaluate the structure and difficulty of learning tasks, and

develop strategies to accomplish goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2003). The findings by

Armstrong (2011) revealed that although participants considered online learning to be a

convenient alternative, students were apprehensive about instructor engagement and

indicated that the quality of instructor communication was valuable to the students’

experience. Faculty’s absence from the educational conversation resulted in perceived

reduction in academic quality. In essence, communication and engagement in the

educational conversation were important to the perceived academic quality, which in turn

influenced the participants’ approaches to learning.

20
 The significance of student engagement in shaping students’ experiences in online

courses was also explored by Blackmon and Major (2012) who examined the factors that

impacted the online classroom. Using a qualitative research synthesis of peer-reviewed

articles, including interview data and comments from students describing their online

experiences, the researchers aggregated the finding into themes and subthemes. Guided

by engaged theory, more specifically the theory of constitutive abstraction, the

researchers suggested that the students, enrolled in online environment, experience

learning more conceptually and intellectually. Engaged theory is consistent with the

constructivist approach in that it emphasizes the social and cognitive processes required

for engagement in learning enabled by technology. The findings showed that the

instructor’s accessibility and ability to provide students connections with peers had a

strong influence on students’ experiences. This implies that although students are

responsible for interaction in an online environment, students enrolled in online

environments experience learning more abstractly and cognitively and the ability of the

instructor to create an interactive, learning experience influenced student engagement.

Similarly, research by Jaggars and Xu (2016) demonstrated a correlation between

students’ interactions and performance in online courses. In an effort to understand how

online course design and instructional features influence student-level outcomes, Jaggars

and Xu (2016) examined the relationship between course grades and interpersonal

interaction in online courses. Using anonymized data from students enrolled in different

online course sections across a state system of community and technical colleges, as well

as interviews from instructors and students, the researchers discovered a significant

correlation between interpersonal interaction and course performance in online courses.

21
The finding showed that although students valued courses that leveraged learning

technologies, were well-designed and included defined objectives, the interpersonal

interactions were what predicted students’ outcomes.

The implication of student engagement to students’ experiences in online courses

was also reviewed by Hugg Blakey and Howell Major (2019) who examined students’

conceptualization of engagement in online courses. The researchers, using a qualitative

research methodology, underscored the limitations in the qualitative research literature on

student engagement in an online setting. Guided by the framework of engagement theory,

they explored the concepts of cognitive, emotional, behavioral and agentic engagement in

online courses. Engagement theory is consistent with constructivist approaches in that it

emphasizes peer collaboration and education communities (Kearsley & Shneiderman,

1998). The researchers used open-ended interviews questions, related to the four-

component model of student engagement in online courses, to examined students’

definitions of engagement and students’ descriptions of online course attributes as it

related to their levels of engagement. The findings revealed themes associated with

students’ perceptions of engagement and the specific engagement types that facilitated

learning. Students perceived engagement as active participation between students and

faculty and indicated the importance of cognitive engagement, represented as student’s

motivation and approach, to the learning experience. The findings also showed the

importance of emotional engagement, characterized as the student’s view of the course

and the importance of learning, to the learning experience. Essentially, to demonstrate

engagement and establish ownership of the course, students had to be motivated to

engage and had to understand the importance of the learning in the online course.

22
 The significance of learner engagement was also explored by Zhang et al. (2020)

in a quantitative study aimed at identifying student-based perceptions of online learning.

The researchers interviewed undergraduate business students enrolled in online courses at

a California state university and explored factors that were important to the success of the

students. The findings revealed that online social comfort was important for students

enrolled in online courses. Online social comfort refers to the student’s degree of comfort

and security in participating in online discussions (Zhang et al., 2020). The researchers

found that student’s perception of online learning comfort was a significant factor in

determining whether the student enrolled and subsequently engaged in online courses and

that student engagement can be facilitated by instructors that provide an interactive online

environment that encourages participation.

The research studies presented thus far highlighted the implication of engagement

in supporting learners in online environments. Collectively, the findings provided a basis

for further exploration of the significance of interaction in online courses and for review

of how the online course structure can support student engagement in the absence of

physical co-presence.

Online Course Structure

The existing research literature also indicated that course structure was important

to students’ experiences in online courses. Course structure refers to the design, content,

modules and assignments as well as the objective, requirement and assessment aspects of

the course organized to create a learning path that promotes student learning (Moore &

Keegan, 1993). This section explored the findings in the existing research literature on

students’ perceptions of the impact of course structure on the quality of the online

23
learning experience.

The implications of course structure to online learning environments was

supported by Yang and Cornelius (2004) who established that course organization was

important to students’ experiences in online courses. In a qualitative study, using course

documents, observations and interviews with participants enrolled in online courses at

two different universities, the researchers examined the quality of online courses and the

factors that influence students’ online experiences. Data analysis, which was conducted

simultaneously with data collection, was done through extensive coding of the interviews

and transcripts. The findings of the research revealed that course structure including

course design, navigation ease, internet connection stability and asynchronous online

participation contributed to positive experiences for students. The perceived significance

of course structure to an effective online experience indicated that students attributed

well-design course to positive experiences in online courses.

Similarly, in the study that examined students’ perceptions of online learning and

instructional tools, Armstrong (2011) validated the significance of online course structure

to student learning and success. The researcher found that the lack of organizational

structure was a factor that decreased the learning experience. The findings showed that

the structure of the learning environment, attributes of online assessments and the

perceptions of the academic rigor of the online environment shaped students’ approaches

to learning. In addition, poorly design course content contributed to perceived negative

experiences in online courses. This research aligns with studies that indicate that the

layout of the course does have an impact student’s satisfaction.

Gray and DiLoreto (2016) also explored the relationship between course structure

24
and perceived learning and student satisfaction in online learning environments. In

research focused on improving online education and on informing practices for

increasing retention in online learning, the researchers hypothesized that course structure

would have a statistically significant impact on both perceived student learning and

student satisfaction. Using an online survey instrument to collect data from 187

participants enrolled in a minimum of one online course, the researchers explored the

impact of course structure, learner interaction and instructor presence on student learning

and satisfaction. The findings showed that, although mediated by student engagement,

there was a significant and positive correlation between course structure and perceived

student learning and course structure and student satisfaction. The research aligns with

the studies that indicate that well-structured course design is important for student

satisfaction and perceived learning in online learning environments.

Eom and Ashill (2016) also highlighted course design as a critical success factor

that must be effectively managed to realize the full potential of online learning. Grounded

in constructivist learning theory, the researchers examined the determinants of student’s

perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in online courses. The study was based on

the responses on 372 participants who had completed at least one online course at a

university in the Midwestern United States. The findings revealed that course design was

the strongest predictor and had a positive significant relation with students’ learning

outcomes and satisfaction. Students who had a positive perception of course design

reported higher learning outcomes and higher levels of satisfaction. This implies that

students’ perceptions of overall course usability are correlated to student satisfaction and

learning and that a more logical and organized course layout was linked to higher student

25
satisfaction with learning in the online course (Eom & Ashill, 2016).

These research studies highlighted the correlation between course design and

students’ experiences in online courses. The findings demonstrated that online course

structure influence students’ experiences and have implications for how course design

can leverage technology to enhance learning experiences in online environments.

Role of Technology in Online Instruction

The role of technology in shaping students’ experiences in online course also

emerged as a recurring category in the literature reviewed. Fundamentally, instructional

technology enables the implementation of constructivist approaches. Instructional

technologies change how content is delivered, alter the ways in which students interact

with the course and transform how students learn in online courses. The research

literature, on the role of education technology in online instruction, reviewed the

intentional use of technology to support the course content, demonstrated how students

perceive technology implementation in online courses and examined how technology is

leveraged to support student learning.

The role of technology on students’ participation in an online learning

environment was explored by Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005). Using a case study

qualitative approach and guided by cognitive load theory, the researchers reviewed the

factors influencing participation of students enrolled in online graduate courses at a

Midwestern university in the United States. Although cognitive load theory is based on

the assumption that human cognitive architecture is limited in the amount of information

that can be processed in working memory at any given time and suggests that

constructivist strategies facilitate information overload (Kirschner, 2002), constructivist

26
approaches, such as problem-based and inquiry-based learning, support conditions for

human data processing. Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) suggest that scaffolding, used

extensively in constructivist learning approaches, can reduce the cognitive load by

allowing learners to focus on tasks relevant to the learning goal and as a result learn in

more complex domains. The findings indicated that the characteristics of course

technology and interface influenced online learner participation and learning outcomes.

Further, the researchers established that students’ technology skill levels influenced the

level of student participation and their reflective focus in the course. Consequently, the

appropriate level of technology used, including pedagogically user-friendly online

technology interfaces, can result in more in-depth reflections and problem-solving

approaches. The study implied that students need to be prepared for technology in online

learning and that monitoring student patterns of participation can assist with identifying

students’ needs and supporting student learning in online environments.

Armstrong (2011) also posited that, undergraduate students’ perceptions of online

learning environment and tools influenced their approach to learning. The researcher

found that students’ perception of the value of technology used in the course depended on

the speed and consistency of communications enabled by the technology and on the

instructors’ technology skills. The findings showed that participants’ perceptions of

negative characteristics of technology were attributed to the use and implementation of

the tool and were not inherent to the technology itself. This suggested that the value of

technology use in online courses was not necessarily attributed to the actual technology

tool used but was based on the implementation and the quality of communication enabled

by the technology tool.

27
 The research by Rubin et al. (2013) also supported the effect of technology,

leveraged to mediate online learning, on the community of inquiry (CoI) and on student

learning and satisfaction with online courses. Using participants enrolled in online course

at a large Midwestern university, the researchers focused on two of the more popular

common Learning Management Systems (LMS) used to provide course content and to

communicate with students. Regression analyses were used to determine the effect of the

LMS affordances, including ease of communication and ease of navigation, on learning

outcomes and course satisfaction. The research was guided by the CoI framework, a

collaborative constructivist model that perceives online courses as effective when

instructors and students form an online learning community consisting of teaching

presence, social presence and cognitive presence. Teaching presence was defined as he

instructors’ organization and design of course materials and guidance for interaction to

support learning. Social presence referred to the connection between students in an online

course and cognitive presence described students’ intellective engagement with the

course concepts and abilities to develop competence. The findings revealed that students’

perceptions of the potential of the LMS predicted teaching, social and cognitive presence.

Further, the researcher found that technology was important to building an online

community, facilitating the teaching, social and cognitive presence and promoting

satisfaction with online courses. The perception of technology affordances, in supporting

the online course, had significant independent effects on teaching presence, with ease of

communication and navigation predicting teaching presence and ease of communication

predicting social and cognitive presence. In effect, the technology used to teach online

courses is important to the teaching and learning experience.

28
 These research studies on the role of technology underscored the value of the

intentional use of technology to leverage course content and to support learning in online

environments. The use of technology gives students the latitude to control the learning

process and impacts learner autonomy in the online environment.

Learner Autonomy in the Online Environment

Learner autonomy was another significant categorization that emerged from the

literature review. In an era where online courses may be the only option for a

heterogeneous group of students who may not necessarily have the online experience, the

self-efficacy skills or the self-regulation tools required for learning in online

environments, learner autonomy examines the perception of the roles of students and

instructors in autonomous learning. In online learning environments, students are

expected to take a more proactive approach to their education, and course outcomes

depend heavily on students’ attitudes towards online learning. Learner autonomy is

contingent upon the learners’ abilities to create structure and manage learning by

developing learning plans, finding resources that support learning and employing self-

evaluation techniques (Moore, 1972).

The implications of learner autonomy in online environments were examined by

Howland and Moore (2002). A qualitative research methodology, utilizing 12 open-ended

questions, was employed to understand the students’ experiences and perceptions in

online course environments. The researchers concluded that students who were more

proactive and independent learners had more positive experiences in online courses. The

findings revealed participants’ emphasis on time and task management and information

organization was conducive to experiences in online courses. Further, components of

29
learner autonomy, including self-management, self-reliance and self-motivation as well

as accurate expectations of learners’ responsibilities, were important factors in successful

online learning experiences. The findings showed that students who exhibited the

attributes of constructivist learners, including self-regulation and self-direction, reported

positive experiences in their online courses.

The research by Armstrong (2011), also analyzed student-preferred level of

autonomy. The researcher posited that although independence and self-regulation were

the primary reason students enrolled in online courses, students indicated the need for

direction on course assignments, assessments and access, and expressed concerns with

self-directed learning. The findings further revealed that faculty communication and

participation were important for higher level learning in an environment characterized by

autonomy.

Hixon et al. (2016) also researched the differences in the perceptions of course

quality based on students’ levels of online course experience. The researchers examined

whether students, based on the extent of previous experience in online courses, perceived

the quality of online courses differently. The theoretical underpinning of the research was

self-efficacy theory, which suggests that self-efficacy is a strong predicator of student

success. The participants were 3160 students, previously or currently enrolled in on-line,

for-credit courses at 31 universities in the United States. The study employed a

quantitative methodology to explore factors that impacted students’ perceptions by

analyzing data collected from three levels of online course experience – experienced

online students (enrolled in seven or more online courses), intermediate online students

(enrolled in three to six online course) and novice online students (enrolled in three or

30
fewer online courses). The findings suggested that there were variances in students’

expectations of course components and perceptions of course quality based on online

experience levels. Further, the research highlighted several survey elements where the

perceptions of the quality of the online course and the importance of assessments and

instructional materials differed based the students’ previous online course experiences.

The study implied that the student’s level of previous course experience influenced

learner autonomy and perceptions of course quality.

The importance of learner autonomy as a factor in the online learning was also

highlighted by Fotiadou et al. (2017). In a quantitative study, guided by Moore’s theory

of transactional distance, the researchers examined the relationship between learner

autonomy and aspects of the online learning process. The participants were 100

postgraduate students enrolled in online courses the Hellenic Open University, the first

and only open distance education university in Greece. The findings showed a positive

correlation between learner autonomy and both student-student and student-instructor

interaction. This implied that learner autonomy was a significant requirement for distance

learning but that learner autonomy was dependent on the learning environment and as a

result, innovative, learner-centered methods should be employed to support learner

autonomy.

Landrum (2020) also reviewed learner autonomy in online course and examined

students’ self-efficacy and self-regulation skills in online courses. Self-regulation refers

to the student’s ability to manage and implement processes conducive to learning

(Bandura, 1977). Using a quantitative research methodology, the researcher used a

Pearson correlation and regression analyses to investigate how the measures of self-

31
efficacy and self-regulation correlated to student satisfaction. The researchers

conceptualized that the only significant predictors for perceived satisfaction with the

online platform were self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy. The correlation

analysis revealed positive and significant correlations between LMS self-efficacy,

learning self-efficacy, self-regulation, and time management with perceived satisfaction

and usefulness. This implied that students, who have greater confidence to learn online

and adopt online learning strategies, had higher satisfaction with the online platform.

In summary, learner autonomy, specifically students’ attitudes, proactive

approaches, self-management and self-regulation skills, as well as the tools required to

support autonomous learning, have implications for learning experiences in online

environments.

Conclusion

The increasing significance of and reliance on the online learning methods have

underscored the importance of researching students’ experiences in online courses.

Chapter two validated constructivism as a theoretical framework for analyzing students’

experiences in online learning. The review of the related literature revealed the role of

engagement, online course structure, technology use in online instruction and learner

autonomy in understanding online course practices that enhance instructor effectiveness,

increase student learning and promote student satisfaction and success. Chapter three will

focus on the heuristic methods and procedures and the data analysis required to capture

and explain the combined students’ perceptions of their online courses and the factors

that shape their experiences.

32
 CHAPTER 3

Introduction

The purpose this study was to research the experiences of students enrolled in

online learning courses at a private, urban university in the Northeast United States. The

study explored students’ perceptions of their online courses and the factors that shaped

their experiences. The research sought to inform the practice of online course

development and to assist faculty and instructional course designers in understanding the

factors that contributes to students’ experiences. The use of online learning as an alternate

learning modality has increased over the last three decades but the research of online

learning has focused primarily on comparisons with the traditional face-to-face course

format and the existing research literature has mainly highlighted quantitative studies that

examined student outcomes in online courses. Factors that create the optimal conditions

for learning as perceived by students need further research.

Chapter two analyzed the constructivist theoretical framework guiding the study,

reviewed existing studies and identified the emerging categories in the related literature.

Chapter three focuses on the research methodology for the data collection and data

analysis necessary for examination of students’ collective experiences in online

environments.

Methods and Procedures

The study was a qualitative descriptive case study research methodology that

examined the commonality of the experiences of students enrolled in undergraduate

online courses. A qualitative research of a single case was used to describe students’

lived experiences and their own voices were used to highlight these experiences and

33
reflections throughout the findings. The unit of analysis for this research study was the

experiences of a heterogeneous group of students enrolled in an asynchronous online,

introductory computer science course in the professional studies college at a private,

urban higher education institution.

A qualitative research methodology was appropriate for this study because the

research focused on students’ perspectives and developed a composite description of the

experiences of students within a specific context (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In effect,

students’ perceptions of their experiences and the processes that facilitated the quality of

student learning cannot be captured quantitatively. Further, as a research methodology,

case study qualitative research explores a contemporary phenomenon within a specific

context, bounded by time and activity. The primary goal of a case analysis is to

understand and describe the phenomenon in a single, bounded context (Yin, 2014). The

case study research was appropriate, since this study focused on the exploration of a real-

life phenomenon bounded by time and place. The study examined the experiences of a

group of students enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory computer science

courses in the professional studies college at a private, urban higher education institution.

Research Questions

The study examined the experiences of students enrolled in online courses and

explored the factors that affect students’ perceptions of their online environments. The

study was guided by the following research questions:

1) How do undergraduate students enrolled in the professional studies college at a

private, urban higher education institution describe their experiences in online

courses?

34
 2) What factors shape the experiences of undergraduate students enrolled in online

courses in the professional studies college at a private, urban higher education

institution?

Setting

The field setting for the study was the professional studies college at a private,

urban university in the Northeast United States. The university is a metropolitan and

global university, has campuses located in a major metropolitan area in the United States

and spans its reach globally, through collaboration with other higher education

institutions and study abroad opportunities. The university has a total undergraduate

enrollment of 17,088 across six colleges. Undergraduate students are primarily enrolled

in face-to-face programs but the university course offerings also include an online

curriculum of synchronous, asynchronous and rotating hybrid online courses. The college

included in this case study focuses on career-driven, professional studies educational

programs.

The case study included students enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory

computer science course in one department of the college. Access to site and participants

was granted and guided by the university’s Institutional Review Board and permission to

the students and instructor was approved by the department chair. The research was

conducted at a university I was affiliated with so, to minimize the inherent power

imbalance in the researcher-student relationship none of the students currently enrolled in

my course were recruited to participate in the study.

Participants

The participants in the study were selected from students matriculated in

35
undergraduate programs and enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory computer

science course in the fall 2021 semester at the university. The participants were selected

through purposeful, convenience and snowball sampling. First, purposeful sampling was

used to identify a specific asynchronous online course, deliberately selected to adequately

capture the heterogeneity in the population of online students (Maxwell, 2013). A

purposeful sampling strategy allowed for the selection of specific student participants that

could provide information relevant to the research questions (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Once access to the course was secured, a convenience sample was employed to interview

students who were accessible to the researcher based on the responses to the requests for

interviews. To further facilitate the data collection, snowball sampling was employed to

recruit additional participants. Initial student interview participants recommended and

helped to identify additional study participants who were enrolled in the course and fitted

the research criteria.

The study focused on the experiences of 10 students enrolled in an

asynchronous online, introductory, computer science course with a single professor in

the professional studies college at a private, urban university in the Northeast United

States. There were three male and seven female students with majors in Administrative

Studies, Business, Criminal Justice, Homeland Security, and Legal Studies. One

student was an undecided major. Since this introductory computer science course is a

perquisite required for the majors, the students enrolled in this course are primarily

freshmen and sophomore students. The senior students interviewed in the study were

enrolled in the course as an elective. The participants own voices were used to

highlight their experiences.

36
 To protect the identity of the participants, all data collected and any references

to identifiable course information as well as references to the instructor and the

department were anonymized. Further the names of interview participants were

redacted using an algorithm that allowed the researcher to protect participants’

identities but still be able to reference the data collected to maintain the integrity of the

study. Participants’ demographics are captured in Table 2.

Table 2

Participants Demographics

Pseudonym Gender Academic Year Major

Chad Male Freshman Business

Chloe Female Sophomore Undecided

Finn Male Freshman Undecided

Gia Female Senior Legal Studies

Jade Female Freshman Administrative Studies

Olivia Female Sophomore Homeland Security

Pio Male Freshman Business

Rose Female Freshman Legal Studies

Violet Female Senior Criminal Justice

Wynn Female Senior Legal Studies

Data Collection Procedures

Yin (2014) recommended setting up a detailed case study protocol and

database to track the data collection. In this study, the data collection instruments were

document analyses, interviews, asynchronous online course observations and field

notes. The document analysis, interview and observation protocols were designed by

37
the researcher and were guided by the research questions, related literature and the

constructivist paradigm. The interview questions explored the learner-centered,

collaborative approach of the constructivist framework on knowledge construction and

examined the roles of the student, instructor, course structure, educational technology

and learner autonomy in the online environment. All data collected was organized in a

data collection matrix to facilitate the identification and systematic analysis of the data

(Miles et al., 2014).

Document Analysis

Document analysis (see Appendix C), the first data collection instrument,

captured data generated from the review of course documents such the course syllabus,

modules, materials, assignments and rubrics as well as the digital learning platform

and learning management system (LMS). Access to course documents was granted by

the faculty teaching the course. Document analysis, as the first data collection point,

gave the researcher an opportunity to gain perspective into the course content, design

and terminology and to attain valuable sources of data that were not available from the

other data sources to answer the research questions. Further, this allowed the students

additional time for interactions in the course before the interviews and observations

were conducted. Document analysis, as a component of this case study research was

used to triangulate findings gathered from the interview and observation data sources.

When used in triangulation, document analysis can clarify and expand on findings and

help to minimize bias (Frey, 2018). The timeframe for the data collection via

document analysis was the fall 2021 semester.

38
Interviews

The interviews, also primary data collection instruments, were conducted after

the initial document analysis and concurrent with any subsequent document analysis.

The interview protocol was best suited for this study because interviews allow for

further exploration and understanding of research participants’ experiences in the

phenomena being studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The interviews provided detailed

insights into students’ perspectives of the student-instructor-content engagement,

course design structure, use of educational technology and learner autonomy. Seidman

(2006) also purported that in-depth interviewing provides researchers with access to

the context of students’ lived experiences and a way to understand the meaning of

students’ behaviors. Interviewing provided an optimal avenue of inquiry to examine

students’ subjective understanding of their experiences in the classroom, as well as the

meaning they made of the experiences (Seidman, 2006). Interviewing, when used in

triangulation helped with understanding students’ online education experiences. The

interviews established the context of the participants’ experiences, explored the details

of the students’ experiences and provided an opportunity for students to reflect on

these experiences (Seidman, 2006).

The interview protocol included 12 semi-structured, open-ended questions (see

Appendix D). Questions one through four focused on students’ perceptions of their

experiences in the online course. The interview questions focused on the individual

experiences of students with the instructor, other students, course structure and

educational technology. In responding to question five through 12, students were

asked to think about the factors influenced their experiences in online courses. The

39
semi-structured, open-ended nature of the interview questions provided participants

with the flexibility in sharing and expanding on their experiences. The questions were

useful for collecting in-depth participant perceptions of their online course experiences

and provided additional perspectives enabled by the interaction and exchange of a

facilitated discussion.

The interview instrument was field-tested by a small group of peers, with

knowledge of online learning, to authenticate word choice, confirm the

appropriateness of the questions and determine any issues that the student participants

may experience when responding to the questions. To further establish that the

interview protocol met the research requirements, the field-testing focused on

reviewing the questions to maintain authenticity and resolve any biases, repetitions and

ambiguity.

Interviews were conducted using a secure audio-conferencing platform, were

approximately 45 – 60 minutes each and were recorded for later transcription and

coding. During the data collection, participants were provided with follow-up

questions for clarification on the recorded data and were included in the data

validation to reflect on the accuracy of the accounts. After the data collection, the

preliminary analysis with themes, attached to the transcript data, were taken back to a

subset of the interview participants to validate how well their experiences were

represented in the data analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The timeframe for the data

collection via interviews was the fall 2021 semester.

Asynchronous Online Observations

Asynchronous online observations were another key data collection instrument,

40
which occurred concurrently with the participant interviews and conducted after the first

half of the course to document student participation over an extended period. The

observations examined the course design and interaction components, including learner

engagement and instructor presence, used to promote asynchronous teaching and

learning. The data collected from the asynchronous online observations were used to

support or challenge insights obtained from the document analysis and interviews and

provided additional perspectives on student-instructor-content engagement, course design

structure, educational technology and learner autonomy.

Observations are one of the multiple forms of data collection recommended by

Yin (2014) in case study data collection to capture interactions and events in the physical

research setting, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of students’ dynamics

in the course and to understand the 'why' of the phenomenon. In effect, the asynchronous

online observations were valuable data collection tools that provided a deeper

understanding of student participation in the online setting. Data generated through

observations supported data triangulation as the case study findings were supported by

multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2014).

The timeframe for the data collection via observations was the fall 2021 semester.

To observe the asynchronous online course site, permission for access to the Canvas

course was granted by the department chair and the faculty teaching the course. The

permission request outlined the duration of the observation, the courses to be observed

and the process of the observation. As the asynchronous course was examined, the

observation protocol was used to determine which indicators were included in the course.

Since all observations were conducted in an asynchronous online environment, the

41
researcher was a complete observer, was not an active participant and was not seen by the

student participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This provided an opportunity to fully

observe participants in the online setting, as well as limit the ethical consideration

associated with student behavior when students are aware that they are being observed.

The observation protocol (see Appendix F) was guided by the research questions

and the categories identified in the literature review. Observations were based on an

interactive coding system that recorded student engagement via discussion posts and

course activity during a specific time interval - the duration of the course in the fall 2021

semester. Observations focused on students’ engagement from the instructor view,

including interaction with instructor, other students and instructional technology as well

as access to the course content and instructional methods from the student view. Field

notes guided by the observation protocol were used to document the findings, from the

review of the LMS site and the online learning platform, and were later transcribed and

coded for analysis.

To mitigate many of the challenges associated with document analyses,

interviews, observations, access to course structure and materials were negotiated prior to

data collection, inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and adequate timeframes for

review and synthesis were allocated (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Application for approval

from the university’s Institutional Research Board (IRB) was submitted and certified in

September 2021 and approval was granted at the end of October 2021. Once IRB

approval was secured, preliminary access to the research site and data collection as well

as the iterative analysis commenced in November 2021 and continued until the end of

December 2021. Initial drafts as well as subsequent and final revision of the narrative

42
continued in January 2022 with a target completion date of February 2022.

Trustworthiness of the Design

Checking the accuracy of a qualitative account is one of the many roles of the

researcher. Validation strategies, such as triangulation of multiple data sources can assist

the researcher in validating the trustworthiness of the qualitative account (Creswell &

Poth, 2018). Miles et al. (2014) caution against analytic bias that can invalidate findings

and recommend triangulation of different data types, data sources and methods as tactics

for ensuring the quality of the data and for checking findings. Triangulation by multiple

methods of data collection, including interviews, observations, document analyses and

field notes, was one of the strategies that was employed for ensuring the trustworthiness

of this qualitative study. This allowed for corroboration from distinct sources, which

enhanced the trustworthiness of the analysis (Miles et al., 2014).

In qualitative research, researcher subjectivity or bias has been identified as a

specific threat to trustworthiness. Maxwell (2013) suggests that understanding how the

researcher’s values influence how the study is conducted and how researchers’

expectations affect the conclusions of the study are important to minimizing researcher

bias. Creswell and Poth (2018) recommend engaging in reflexivity as a strategy for

validation in qualitative research. Miles et al. (2014) recommend checking for researcher

effect on the case to assess data quality. To minimize the effect of the researcher, the

intentions of the study were outlined in the consent form and at the beginning of each

interview. The researcher engaged in ongoing researcher reflexivity to ensure that

findings were based on participants’ responses. The researcher was conscious of

interactions such as affirmations with the participants, restated any participant responses

43
that need further clarification and referred back to the research questions during the data

collection process. The researcher also maintained an audit of the data analysis, which

helped to evaluate whether researcher bias influenced the study.

Miles et al. (2014) posit that qualitative researchers are solely responsible for all

aspects of their research and propose that confidence in the results of a qualitative study

is questioned particularly because researchers focus on findings and description much

more than the procedural account of the analysis. “One of the most logical sources of

corroboration is the people you have talked with and watched” (Miles et al., 2014, 270).

Member checking or seeking participant feedback was also outlined by Creswell and

Poth (2018) as a validation strategy - “This approach, writ large in most qualitative

studies, involves taking data, analyses, interpretations and conclusions back to the

participants so that they can judge the accuracy and credibility of the account” (Creswell

& Poth, 2018, 340). Participant feedback was encouraged during data collection and

preliminary analysis. During the data collection, interview participants were also

contacted with follow-up questions for clarification on the recorded data and for

reflection on the accuracy of the account. After the data collection, feedback was

solicited from the available interview participants by sharing preliminary analysis with

themes, attached to the transcript data, to validate how well their experiences were

represented in the data analysis. Having the participants validate the interpretations and

the authenticity of the findings was important to the trustworthiness of this study.

Research Ethics

The protection of the participants in the study and informed consent were

prioritized (Miles et al., 2014). A letter of consent was provided to each participant

44
outlining the purpose of the study and their role as participants (see Appendix B).

Participants were informed that all participation was voluntary and there were no risks

associated with the study. To ensure a balance of the power relationships, none of my

current students were included in the study. Individual names used to reference

interview participants were changed to protect the students’ identities and the raw data,

the transcriptions and the data analysis were stored on a password-protected computer

with multi-factor authentication accessible only by the researcher.

Data Analysis Approach

After data collection, audio recordings were transcribed and transcriptions were

reviewed, compared to field notes and memos and edited for accuracy (Miles et al.,

2014). Yin (2014) suggested that qualitative researchers document as many of the steps

of the case study procedures as possible. To this end, the data was imported into a

computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) for tracking data

collection and for coding to construct meaning of participants’ experiences and

perceptions.

The study first used descriptive coding as the foundation approach for the first

cycle coding (Miles et al., 2014). This approach began with a start list of researcher-

generated, deductive codes based on the research questions, theoretical and conceptual

frameworks and literature review of online learning (Miles et al., 2014). These

provisional codes were stored in the CAQDAS program prior to data collection and

were used to categorize the related data, from the interviews, observations and data

analyses, to detect recurring patterns. Based on the nature of the research, in vivo

coding was also used to prioritize the participants’ voices and capture words and

45
phrases from the participant’s own language.

Miles et al. (2014) posit that codes, which progressively emerge during data

collection, are more empirically based. The review of these emergent codes

demonstrates that the researcher is open to adjusting an a priori coding system that does

not fit the research data. Hence, the researchers also used inductive coding to capture

codes that emerge during the data collection. To ensure that all data collected were

coded, the researcher revisited the data collection matrix, field notes and memos and

checked the transcripts to minimize mistakes during transcription. Codes were revised

as the data collection continued. Any additional codes that emerged were analyzed and

any researcher codes that were not supported by the data were removed.

Miles et al. (2014) present second cycle of coding as a way of grouping the

summarized segments of data from the first cycle coding into a smaller number of

categories or themes. Pattern or explanatory codes were used to identify emergent

themes patterns in the data (Miles et al., 2014). In addition, the definition of codes

captured in the CAQDAS were revisited and compared with the data to ensure that

there were no deviations in the meanings of the codes during the coding process. The

researcher engaged in continued qualitative data collection and iterative coding cycles

until saturation, when no new information emerged during coding.

Delimitations

This research study was delimited by the inclusion of a sample size of 10

students enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory computer science course in a

specific college at a single higher education institution. A smaller sample size was

purposefully selected to allow for a more in-depth examination of the participants’

46
experiences in the course. The results generated by delimiting to this group of

participants provided finer details and allowed for a more specific, in-depth look in the

context of this research of students’ experiences in online courses. A larger sample of

students enrolled in different courses would extend the scope of the study.

The subject matter of an introductory computer science course, in which the

study participants were examined, lent itself to a different type of interaction in online

engagement and may not be replicable in another course. The results generated by

delimiting to participants in this one area allowed the researcher to look at the context

and the experiences of the students in very specific ways. These participants were

intentionally chosen to research online courses where faculty may have more

experience with design and technology of online courses. Although not necessarily

better at teaching, computer science professors may be better at designing and using an

online course system and can provide a baseline to researchers for learning from

students in the earliest possible online classes where a complete course module is setup

in an LMS. Learning from students in an introductory, asynchronous online course is

the beginning of the conversation in understanding student interaction in online courses.

Finally, students’ experiences prior to enrolling in this course were not included

in this study. Students’ experiences with online learning as well as with the LMS or the

online learning platform were not considered. Focusing on experiences in the current

course will mitigate the effect of other factors related to student transition to college or

online course experience. So, the exclusion of prior experience in online courses limits

the scope in that there is no way as a researcher to attend to all these factors. Therefore,

the scope was on a very tight sample, bounded by time, space and place and focused on

47
gathering in-depth information, with the realization that some factors cannot be captured

in the scope of this study.

Researcher Role

The researcher was the primary research instrument in qualitative research.

Researchers position themselves in a qualitative research study and communicate how

their lived experiences inform the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The researcher in this

study has a technology background, has experience as a subject matter resource in

online course design and development, is a faculty in this discipline and is a researcher

in education leadership. To minimize assumptions and ensure separation of researcher

as a practitioner and researcher as the instrument, the researcher intentionally reviewed

the course material in a systematic way and made notes during document analyses,

interviews and observations. This approach helped to mitigate researcher bias and

ensured a focus on the research of the subject matter, as opposed to being an evaluation

as a practitioner with expertise in this area.

The interpretive nature of qualitative research means that researcher’s

positionality can interfere with the analysis of the data. Creswell and Poth (2018) posit

that qualitative researchers need to identify their positionality in relation to the context

and setting of the research. The researchers should explore their experiences with the

phenomenon being researched and the effect of these experiences in shaping the

researchers’ interpretations of the phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To minimize

researcher effect, the researcher engaged in reflexivity or self-understanding about biases,

values, and experiences that could have influenced the interpretation of the study. The

researcher was authentic on the stance regarding online learning and took steps to

48
minimize researcher bias through full disclosure of and acknowledgment that the

researcher’s technology background and online experience could possibly influence the

interpretation of the data collected. All interviews were recorded. Notes on researcher’s

perceptions and observations during the process were taken and were used to reflect on

how the researcher’s academic discipline and experiences could potentially influence the

approach to the study and interpretation of the results. In addition, clarification from

participants was also requested when there seemed to be a connection with researcher’s

perspectives and experiences. Restating participants’ responses, confirming the accuracy

of participants’ responses and providing participants an opportunity to review the

transcribed interviews were also used for researcher reflexivity.

Banks (1998) also discusses positionality and the concept of insider/outsider in

the context of race and ethnicity and posits that the typology can be applied in different

situations and was essentially a conceptualization of authentic knowledge and

positionality in relation to the research. In this study, the researcher role was essentially

an indigenous insider (Banks, 1998) based on experiences in online learning and teaching

and on expertise in online course design, development, implementation and support. The

participants in the study were more open to discussion as they perceived the researcher in

this study to be a legitimate researcher with the ability to inform the study of online

course design.

Validating the accuracy of the qualitative account was also an important

researcher role. Creswell and Poth (2018) suggest validation strategies, such as

triangulation of multiple data sources, to validate the qualitative accounts of the research

participants. To capture different dimensions of the experiences of study participants, this

49
study employed document analyses, interviews and observations as the data collection

methods.

Managing the power balance was yet another important researcher role. None of

the research participants were current students or were students previously enrolled in

classes taught by the researcher. Creswell and Poth (2018) suggest that researchers and

participants are co-constructors of knowledge so managing the inherent power imbalance

between researcher and participants in this study, by reflecting on researcher’s stance,

expressing a genuine interest in participants’ contributions and encouraging participant

dialog were all important to the researcher role.

Conclusion

The proposed research used a qualitative case study methodology, using

document analyses, interviews and observations to explore the experiences of students

enrolled in online courses at the professional studies college of a private, urban university

in the Northeast United States. The data was coded and analyzed to identify common

themes that captured the combined students’ perceptions of their experiences and factors

that shaped these experiences.

50
 CHAPTER 4

Introduction

The purpose this study was to explore the experiences of students enrolled in

online courses and the factors that shaped their experiences. The research study sought to

understand students’ experiences in online courses, to inform the practice of online

course development and to provide additional data, to faculty and instructional course

designers, about the factors that contribute to students’ experiences. Understanding the

perspectives of student enrolled in online courses is key to understanding students’

experiences, is integral to student satisfaction and is important to implementing online

practices that enhance students’ experiences and promote learning.

To address this, the researcher chose a qualitative descriptive case study research

methodology. Using a sample of students in an asynchronous online, introductory

computer science course with a single professor in professional studies college of a

private, urban, university in the Northeast United States, the researcher examined

students’ perceptions of their experiences in online courses and the factors that shaped

their experiences. Chapter one outlined the purpose of the study. Chapter two provided a

review of related literature on students’ experiences in online courses. Chapter three

described the heuristic research method and procedural analysis of data, which was

collected via document analyses, individual semi-structured interviews and online course

observations. This chapter starts with a description of the case which outlined the key

features of the asynchronous online, introductory computer science course. A summary

of the findings and themes that emerged from the data collection and analyses were also

highlighted in Chapter 4. The findings were guided by the research questions:

51
 1) How do undergraduate students enrolled in the professional studies college at a

private, urban higher education institution describe their experiences in online

courses?

2) What factors shape the experiences of undergraduate students enrolled in online

courses in the professional studies college at a private, urban higher education

institution?

Description of Case

The study focused on the experiences of undergraduate students enrolled in an

asynchronous online, introductory computer science course in the professional studies

college at a private, urban university in the Northeast United States. All participants of

the study were matriculated in undergraduate degree programs and were enrolled in this

one specific asynchronous online, introductory computer science course in the fall 2021

semester.

The asynchronous online, introductory computer science is a course requirement

for students pursuing bachelor’s degrees in Administrative Studies, Cyber Security,

Homeland Security and Legal Studies and is a prerequisite for more advanced courses in

these programs. The course is also an elective for student majoring in other academic

programs in the professional studies college at the university. The course focused on

using computer software applications for coursework, professional collaborations and

personal use. Elements of the course include instructional and practical application of

word processing, electronic spreadsheet, presentation graphics applications and database

management software.

The course was organized by weekly modules in the Canvas Learning

52
Management System (LMS) and included an online lecture component with

presentations, readings, assignments and video tutorials. The course also included a lab

component with links, from an online textbook, that provided seamless access to an

external digital learning platform integrated into the LMS. The links included interactive

instructional materials, student access modules, assessments and study tools, available

with a six-month computing access as part of the online textbook. The course was a 16-

week semester long course with a total of 23 students enrolled in the course. The course

was in an asynchronous online format. All modules, discussion posts, assignments and

projects were open and available to students from the first day of classes on September 1,

2021 until the end of the final examination week on December 18, 2021. Students were

required to interact with the course content, via weekly assignments and projects, and

with peers, via weekly online discussion posts. All assignments, projects and discussions

were due weekly.

Student interviews were the primary source of the data but were supported by data

from the asynchronous online observations and the analysis of the course artifacts.

Student interviews were conducted one-on-one via an audio-conferencing platform and

focused on the experiences of the students enrolled in the asynchronous online,

introductory computer science course as well as the factors that influenced their

experiences. The document analyses examined the course artifacts and structure

including course syllabus, materials, modules, assignments and rubrics. The online course

observation captured students’ and the instructor’s activity in the LMS and in the

supporting learning platform and were captured as LMS and Online Learning Platform

activity analytics.

53
LMS Activity Analytics

Based on the total activity and last activity analytics in the LMS, all students

accessed the course weekly. Students’ total activity in the course LMS ranged from 10

hours to 32 hours. This interaction did not include the time spent on the external learning

platform or account for time students worked on the course content, modules and

assignments independent of the LMS. Interaction with the course content and the

discussion posts were included in this interaction activity.

Online Learning Platform Activity Analytics

Students were required to complete assignments and projects in the online

learning platform. Students also had the opportunity to review course materials as well as

perform practice exercises via links to the external learning platform. There was a

learning path to view student progress but, although students completed the assignments

and projects in the online learning platform, all assignments and projects were submitted

to a OneDrive for grading in the LMS. Analytics in the Progress App could also be used

to track student engagement where students were assigned low, medium or high

engagement. The analytics tracked student engagement with an algorithm that included

the amount of time spent in online learning platform, the number of activities accessed

and the number of times students log into platform. The analytics from the online

learning platform was not specifically used in this course as validation of student

engagement. However, the students credited engagement in the online learning platform

for timely completion of assignments and for grade satisfaction.

54
Findings

During the research synthesis, four main themes emerged regarding students’

experiences and the factors that shaped their experiences in the asynchronous online

course. The emerging themes highlighted student factors as well as faculty and content

factors that influenced students’ experiences. After multiple cycles of coding, the

emergent themes were: Student Independent Learning, Instructor Engagement, Online

Course Design and Instructional Technology. Student-Content Interaction, Time-

Management and Self-Regulation emerged as subthemes under Student Independent

Learning. The subthemes, Instructor Accessibility and Instructor Modeling and Feedback

emerged as specific elements under the Instructor Engagement. Course Organization and

Course Layout were subthemes under Online Course Design. Navigability and Usability

of the Online Learning Platform emerged as subthemes under Instructional Technology.

A summary of the thematic findings and data sources are outlines in Table 3.

55
Table 3

Interpretative Themes

Theme Subthemes Data Source Trustworthiness

Student Student-Content Document Triangulation of
Independent Interaction Analysis Data Source
Learning Time-Management Observations Member Checking
Self-Regulation Interviews

Instructor Instructor Observations Member Checking

Engagement Accessibility Interviews
Instructor Modeling
and Feedback

Online Course Course Organization Document Triangulation of

Design Course Layout Analysis Data Source
Observations Member Checking
Interviews

Instructional Navigability Observations Triangulation of

Technology Usability of Online Interviews Data Source
Learning Platform Member Checking

Theme 1: Student Independent Learning

The experiences of students enrolled in asynchronous online courses were shaped

by their abilities to engage in independent learning. Independent learning is the students’

ability to initiate structure in the course to support their learning including initiating plans

for interaction with the course content, developing methods for time-management and

establishing techniques for self-regulation.

Asynchronous online courses offer unparalleled opportunities for students to

participate in a learning environment, when schedule and distance and more recently the

Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and vaccination requirements make participating in the

traditional courses difficult. The continuous access to the course was viewed by study

participants as advantageous to independent learning in an online environment. However,

56
this unrestricted access to the course was also regarded critically by the study participants

who recognized this level of autonomy was a potential barrier to learning progress if not

managed appropriately. The very integral aspect of the asynchronous online learning

environment perceived by study participants as important to managing assignments and

time in an asynchronous online course was viewed as a challenge to learning progress in

the course.

That participants thought that continuous access to the course was beneficial to

independent learning but underscored the challenges of self-regulation. The findings

showed that students felt that if they did not manage access according to a schedule or did

not control time spent on the course, this unlimited access could be a barrier to their

learning. In a transition period where Covid-19 restrictions have been lifted and students

are no longer strictly at home but have to attend to other responsibilities, the stress of

managing time differently resulted in procrastination in attending to and difficulty coping

with the requirements of asynchronous instructions. The course observations and

participant interviews underscored the benefits of purposeful student-content interaction,

effective time management and intentional behavioral regulation to managing the learner

independence that was necessary to manage unrestrained access to the course content.

Subtheme 1: Student-Content Interaction. Student-content interaction refers to

the students’ engagement with and use of the course content to advance learning in the

asynchronous online environment. The findings of the asynchronous online course

observations, confirmed by the interviews with the study participants, showed the

importance of student-content interactions in the asynchronous online course which

consisted of modules organized in an LMS and links to a digital learning platform. Since

57
the content was the primary avenue for course interaction, the instructor’s ability to create

organized and engaging content impacted study participants’ experiences in the course.

The findings further revealed that the level of student interaction in the course was an

important factor in student progress and that course participation impacted students’

experiences. Students’ interactions with the course content such as engagement with

course presentations, demos and practice exercises were important components

particularly for more advanced course concepts.

The study participants perceived that the resource- and content-intensive nature of

the asynchronous online course can provide the information necessary to facilitate

learning but can also impede learning progress as result of students delaying access to the

course, procrastinating on due assignments and postponing decisions to seek necessary

assistance. The findings showed that consistent and timely interaction with the course

needed to be prioritized and that student-content interaction was considered the most

important engagement component for a course in this specific format. The participants

felt that because this was an asynchronous online course, consistent and timely

engagement with the course contributed to positive student experiences.

Pio* a Business major, freshman enrolled in the course as an elective highlighted

the importance of interacting with the course content to manage the course load.

“It was important for me to log in a few times a week, to see when my classmates

were commenting, to work on my assignments and to look for feedback from the

professor, who gave feedback every week.”

Olivia*, a sophomore majoring in Homeland Security, enrolled in the course as a

computer science requirement emphasized the importance of engagement with the LMS

58
and the online learning platform.

“And I did use LMS and the online learning platform for all the assignments and I

did find it fairly easy. It was broken down into separate sections. There was a

learning segment and an applying segment and then a study segment. So going

through the segments definitely made sure that I had 100% grasp on what I was

doing. So when it came time for tests, I knew what I was doing, and I was able to

ace the tests and fly through without any hesitation”

The findings underscored the importance of student-content interaction to

managing the course load and showed that this interaction positively enhanced students’

experiences in the asynchronous online course especially in a technology-driven course

facilitated by an LMS and an online learning platform. The study participants highlighted

that the continuous access to the content for the entire semester precipitated the need for

time-management in the course to construct knowledge and complete assignments.

Subtheme 2: Time-Management. The participants in the study underscored the

importance of time-management to manage independent learning, the basis of

asynchronous online courses. The participant interviews revealed that the autonomy that

is so appealing in asynchronous online courses can hinder the accomplishment of course

requirements and assignments. Interview participants highlighted the importance of the

syllabus page in the LMS to track due dates and the merit of creating a schedule for

managing course requirements. The study participants revealed that the intensity of the

content in the asynchronous online course underscored the importance of interspersing

tasks throughout the week before the submission deadline. Further, the instructor

providing access to all modules and assignments at the beginning of the course allowed

59
for time and schedule management.

When asked about the course load and the time allocated to learning the content

and completing assignments, Gia*, a Legal Studies major for whom this was a program

elective, expressed the importance of a creating and maintaining a course management

and tracking schedule to assist with management of the online course assignments.

“At first, it was a little much because they were about seven assignments to begin

with. And I really hadn't set myself a schedule. It was a little overwhelming. I

definitely had to spend a lot of time trying to get all the work done on time. But as

the semester went on, the assignments got more manageable. The workload was a

bit more manageable with a schedule.”

The finding showed that students who identified the importance of creating a

time-management schedule early in the course had more positive experiences. This was

highlighted by Jade* a freshman majoring in Administrative Studies who was able to get

back on track and have a positive experience in the course after creating a schedule.

“The first two weeks, I didn't really know how to manage my time. I was still

trying to get the hang of the course. And it was a lot. But after that, I just started

scheduling and doing assignments earlier. I would do an assignment in the

previous week. I would do an assignment each day for the next week. All the

assignments were due on Tuesdays of each week. I would start doing the

assignments ahead of time each day, then on the Tuesday, I would only have

about two assignments that I had left to complete. Doing it that way, I was able to

balance my time instead of trying to complete everything on one day. This way it

was much easier to manage.”

60
 Allocating time to learn the course content and complete the assignments were

key findings that highlighted the requisite student time-management required for learning

progress in an asynchronous online course. The study participants highlighted that to be

effective at time-management in an environment characterized by autonomy, students

needed to employ different self-regulation techniques to stay on schedule in the course.

Subtheme 3: Self-Regulation. The interview participants emphasized the

importance self-regulation in the asynchronous online course and how self-monitoring,

self-instruction and self-reinforcement, all components of self-regulation, impacted their

experiences in online courses. The study participants underscored the importance of goal-

setting and organization to managing the course load and ultimately, learning with

minimal intervention in an asynchronous online environment characterized by self-

instruction. Participants revealed that their experiences with the extensive course load,

characteristic of online course and very evident in the asynchronous online, introductory

computer science course in the study, can not only be overwhelming but can impede

learning in an asynchronous online environment. The participants highlighted the

importance of the goal setting, information transformation and assignments analysis to

maintaining focus in the course. The findings showed that factors such as a syllabus page

with assignments and due dates and a rubric that outlined the expectation for each

assignment facilitated self-regulation. Violet*, a senior student emphasized the

importance of self-regulation to maintain a positive experience in online course.

“In the beginning, I was able to manage my time but it became very challenging

to maintain focus in the course as the topics got harder. Finding time to complete

the practice drills was harder and turning in the assignments on time was more

61
 challenging. I was definitely distracted by other things at work and at home and

needed to work on staying focused.”

The findings highlighted the importance of self-regulation to maintaining

engagement in the course. Further, Chloe* and undecided major who enrolled in this

course as an elective suggested that assignment submissions could have been better

managed through early and consistent assessment of weekly progress relative to required

weekly course requirements.

“I sometimes felt like I needed additional time, if I waited until the last minute

and if there were a lot of assignments that week. For some of the assignments, I

would submit after the due date. The professor accepted late assignments, but

there were a few points taken off for late assignments that I should have been able

to do on time.”

Further, whether it was completing an assignment on time, participating in a

discussion or securing the required grade on an assignment, the study participants

indicated that self-regulation allowed them to review their learning goals, organize

information, evaluate their learning progress and make the requisite adjustment required

for the attainment of their learning goals.

The study was intentional on focusing solely on the experiences of student but in

addition to the student-controlled factors that supported the independent learning,

including student-course interaction, time-management and techniques for self-

regulation, the findings also identified instructor-controlled factors that impacted

students’ experiences. The study participants highlighted the importance of instructor

engagement specifically, instructor accessibility, modeling and feedback as key

62
components that impacted how student interacted with the course content and how they

were supported in the online environment.

Theme 2: Instructor Engagement

Instructor engagement refers to the instructor’s ability to enable and model

interaction in the online environment. The findings showed that this was particularly

important to the students in an asynchronous online course since there were no regularly

scheduled lectures or interactions with the instructor. The study participants all felt that

the level and type of instructor’s engagement shaped their experiences in the online

course. The interview participants underscored the importance of instructor engagement

to defining course requirements and to reducing ambiguity of course assignments.

Instructor presence in the discussion was also highlighted in the findings.

Subtheme 1: Instructor Accessibility. The online course observations showed

some student-student interaction in the course but although students valued the

community of inquiry established by peers in the discussion posts, the interview

participants assigned greater emphasis on instructor presence and accessibility during the

semester. Instructor presence in the course resulted in increased communication

regarding weekly assignment requirements and kept students on track. Instructor’s

identification of instances where students deviated from the requirements, clarification of

the grading rubric and affirmation to students meeting or exceeding course requirements

contributed to positive student experiences and kept students engaged in the course.

Further, instructor availability to communicate with student, to respond to questions and

to assist in the resolution of issues were important factors to the course experience in an

asynchronous online course. Pio* emphasized the importance of the instructor

63
accessibility to assist with the resolution of technical issues in a course enabled by

technology.

“The instructor was very available for assistance or to answer questions or to

direct you to the right support. There were a few times I was having issues with

my online connection to the software. He connected me to the support team. I

called them and they answered right away and helped me. Using a secure remote

support software to establish a remote connection into my computer, they were

able to fix it. This ability to have a remote connection to solve technical issues

was very important since this was an online course. This happened at least two

times this semester. It is helpful that when you email the professor, you got an

almost immediate response.”

The findings showed that an instructor who was available via, online discussion

or via email in the LMS, to provide assistance to students or to respond to questions

enhanced students’ experiences in an online course enabled by technology. Further, the

participants highlighted that instructor accessibility also impacted instructor engagement

particularly instructor modeling and feedback in a course facilitated by technology. It was

important to the experiences of students that they were able to see how the instructor

interacted with the online content and that the instructor provided information on student

progress against the requirements of the course.

Subtheme 2: Instructor Modeling and Feedback. Instructor modeling emerged

as an important factor to students’ effectiveness at managing assignments, gauging

learning and tracking progress in the course. The study participants discussed the

importance of instructor’s presence and felt that the ability of the instructor to enable and

64
model engagement through participation, feedback and grading was important to their

experiences in the online course. The interview participants noted that increased level of

instructor modeling and feedback were integral to their ability to manage assignments

and track progress in the course. Rose*, a legal studies major taking this course as an

elective, underscored the importance of instructor’s presence and feedback.

“The professor notice that on one assignment, I misunderstood the instructions

and immediately reached out. Instead of sending the actual project, I sent the

summary report from the online learning platform. The professor was

understanding and fair, there was no hesitation with communication. This made it

a lot better, especially since I didn't even need to notify the professor. The

professor noticed that my work was missing and contacted me.”

Although students felt that the student-student interaction made the experiences in

the course more relatable, the findings showed that students valued the student-instructor

interaction. The subject matter of this introductory computer science course as well as the

intensity and load of the asynchronous online course was not conducive to establishing

the community of learning with other students. The study participants acknowledged that

the interaction between students created a community of inquiry where students were

able to share their experiences and relate to other students with similar challenges or

successes. However, although the participants recognized that student-student interaction

was helpful in alleviating the isolation that can be experienced as part of an online course,

they confirmed that student-student interaction was limited to a very specific and small

part of the course, the discussion posts, and was not perceived as valuable as the student-

instructor interaction. Wynn* a Legal Studies major enrolled in the course as an elective,

65
emphasized the significance on instructor modeling over student interaction.

“Our interactions with other are basically through discussions. And we just

basically answer each other's discussion posts. We just say what we think after

reading the other person’s discussion and I think it's not that helpful. It's just okay.

I think that it would have been more helpful if we could ask, the instructor or

other students, questions and the instructor or other students responded to peer

questions. So, in the discussion posts, provide an opportunity to ask questions

which would have been more interactive.”

This findings regarding the value of instructor modeling over student interaction

was also supported by the course observation of the discussion posts. The study findings

showed that it was important to establish a community of inquiry centered on the course

instructor. Students also felt that the emphasis on student-instructor interaction during

discussion posts and projects contributed to positive experiences with the course.

Instructor modeling extended the community of inquiry and provided an avenue for

students to comprehend the course requirements, understand when they deviated for an

assignment and recognize when they were on track with course objectives.

The implications of instructor engagement highlighted in the study, also showed

how instructor accessibility, modeling and feedback were enabled by online course

design. The findings demonstrated that online course design can be leveraged to enable

student-instructor engagement in an asynchronous online environment.

Theme 3: Online Course Design

Study participants underscored how the perceptions of navigability and ease of

use of the course affected their experiences in online courses. Students reported that

66
highlighting student training modules for the LMS in the initial course announcement and

providing user guides for the supporting learning technology in the course home page

increased their perception of navigability and ease of use. Further, the design of the

online course, including the organization of the pages and the layout of the modules,

affected the navigability and ease of use and impacted students’ interaction in online

courses. A well-designed course with structured modules and pages in the LMS as well

as effective and functional links to the supporting instructional technology contributed to

navigability and ease of use in the course.

Subtheme 1: Course Organization. The document analyses and the course

observations provided an opportunity to navigate through the course, from the

instructor’s perspective and from the student’s view, to review the way the course

modules, pages, discussions and assignments were organized. The study participants

emphasized the need for navigable course organization and an intuitive, easy-to-use LMS

and technology platform in supporting a course format that allowed access by the

students at different times based on their specific schedules. The students also highlighted

the relevance of organizing the course in the LMS so that the instructions and the labs,

necessary for this specific online, introductory computer science course, were integrated

with the online learning platform. This integration supported a seamless transition from

the LMS to the online learning platform and was critical factor that impacted how

students managed learning in the online environment.

Gia* a legal studies major, who enrolled in this course as an elective, expressed

that since this was a more technical course that included an online textbook and links to

an online learning platform, it would have been a lot harder to learn online if the course

67
was not well-designed and organized.

“Course design is very important, because it definitely helped when I'm trying to

see what's due. It helped me keep on track, so I'm not missing any assignments.

The organization of this particular course was very good because everything was

posted with due dates on the calendar. I could always check that to see if I was

missing anything or to see what I needed to do.”

One of the study participants, Chloe* articulated how course organization helped her to

manage the assignments.

“Having the assignments laid out was really helpful, because if I had a lot of work

for my other classes for the following week, I could see how many assignments

were due for this class, kind of plan it out and decide if I needed to address the

assignments in this class earlier.”

The findings showed that participants credited course organization for being able

to easily find and manage course information in the LMS and the online learning

platform. In addition, an organized course in conjunction with a modular course layout

facilitated navigation in the course.

Subtheme 2: Course Layout. The findings showed the layout of the modules in

the LMS supported the autonomy necessary for participation and learning progress in an

asynchronous online course and was even more relevant in a course that was technology-

intensive. The course primarily reviewed four different application software and the

findings showed that students valued that the course included well-defined objectives that

mapped to distinct modules for each application software. The findings showed that the

modular course layout advanced student autonomy and self-instruction and was

68
associated with the students’ abilities stay on schedule, to revisit past components or to

advance to upcoming components. Finn*, a freshman with an undecided major outlined

the importance of course layout to completing the assignments in the course and

highlighted course layout as an important factor the influenced experiences in the

asynchronous online course.

“I always thought that the discussions were pretty straightforward because they

were labeled differently in the LMS. If something was an assignment that I had to

use via the online learning platform, it was labeled differently. I was able to figure

out what were the discussions and what were links to the online learning platform.

And even on the page itself, there were separate tabs for the modules. It definitely

did make it easier for me to find everything.”

The study participants also attributed a modular course layout to balancing the

load of this course with other commitments. Olivia* attributed the course layout for

finding information on the weekly modules and for understanding the weekly

requirements.

“It did make school a little bit easier since I am working fulltime. It helped relieve

the stress of having to do homework knowing that I had everything there laid out

for me. I just had to log in and do the assignments.”

Gia* also emphasized the importance of the layout of distinct components of the course

to track progress against the course requirements.

“The organization of the syllabus page with dues dates was quite helpful. I did not

have to keep referring back to the syllabus file to see where I was with the course

assignments. The syllabus page in the LMS broke it down for you, so I could see

69
 the due dates for each assignment.”

The findings showed that accessibility and ease of navigability of the course were

attributed to the course organization and the module layout. Course design was

significant to implementing and supporting the instructional technology by ensuring the

effective integration of the LMS with the online learning platform.

Theme 4: Instructional Technology

Using an LMS and an online integrated learning platform emphasized the

importance of instructional technology in the asynchronous online course. The

observation, document analysis and participant interviews highlighted the roles of the

LMS and the instructional technology in supporting this specific introductory computer

science course in an asynchronous online format. The findings from the different data

collection methods highlighted the intentional use of the instructional software in

enabling the online instruction and in supporting student learning. The use of

instructional technology, specifically the LMS and online learning platforms, was a

significant factor in the implementation of the constructivist approach in the online

environment and transformed how students interacted with the course content and

subsequently, impacted how students constructed knowledge.

Subtheme 1: Navigability. The findings showed that the effective use of

technology affected the navigability and ease of use and affected students’ experiences in

online courses. An LMS that was easy to access and links that were functional provided

for a more positive student experience. Navigable course content with operative and

effective links provided an online platform that allowed students to meet their learning

goals. The findings also showed that implementing supporting technology with practical

70
links enabled the instructor to facilitate understanding of more complex concepts and

supported students’ learning effectiveness. The ability to navigate the instructional

technology, the LMS and online learning platform, with minimal hindrances enabled the

constructivist approach to learning that is so important to the learner autonomy in

asynchronous online courses. Pio* a freshman highlighted the importance of ease of

navigability in a course enabled by technology.

“It was really easy. If you just went to the online textbook, everything was right

there. It was very easy to access. Once you clicked the link, you were able to

navigate to the module for the week which had the step by step instructions that

we needed to do for that week. That was very helpful.”

The findings demonstrated that intuitive technology supported ease of navigation

and increased student’s confidence in accessing and using the online learning platform to

facilitate the completion of the instructional and assessment components of the course.

Subtheme 2: Usability of Online Learning Platform. The findings from the

different data collection methods highlighted the intentional use of the learning software

in enabling online instruction. The finding showed that the instructional technology

facilitated student engagement in the online environment and supported the level of

learner autonomy required in the online course. The online learning platform allowed the

instructor to include engaging assignments that advanced student learning progress. The

study participants all highlighted the use of the online learning platform as integral to

practicing technical skills and reported that the practice modules in the online learning

platform contributed to positive experiences and to learning. The study participants

confirmed that the usability of the learning platform was a significant factor that

71
contributed to their experiences. The usability of the learning platform allowed for

construction of knowledge by providing by access to the practice modules and

assignments which in turn enabled students to engage in more independent learning,

complete assignments more effectively and get better grades.

The findings highlighted that the unique use of the instructional technology

employed in this course was particularly useful. Rose*, a legal studies major who

enrolled in this course as an elective, confirmed the implementation and usability of the

learning platform as a significant factor that contributed to positive experiences in the

course.

“The online learning platform was very easy to navigate, especially when the

professor notifies you of what you're specifically doing and everything is broken

down. I really preferred using the online learning platform over the LMS to go

through the assignments. I think it worked better especially since this was a

computer science course. Of course, for a different course like philosophy it may

not be, but it was really beneficial when learning computer science.”

The findings also emphasized that the practicality of the online learning platform,

including clear instructions for use, was valuable in an introductory technology course

like this asynchronous online, computer science course. Chad*, a freshman who initially

had difficulty finding the assignments emphasized how the instructions on how to use the

link to the online learning platform facilitated access and instruction.

“At first, I thought it was a little difficult to find the projects. But then, as I got

used to it, I started to find them quicker and easier. I actually read the modules on

the learning platform and it really helped me to get through the assignments,

72
 which were not that easy. Once I got used to using the software, it was easier and

easier each week.”

The findings highlighted that the instructional technology employed in this

course, although operational in different academic courses, was particularly functional as

employed in this course. Jade* indicated that understanding how to use the instructional

technology enhanced her learning experience in the course.

“I feel like the instructional technology was more hands on than the discussion

posts, which had mostly articles and videos. Actually, in the online learning platform, it

was like putting what you watched and read in the discussion posts into action. I felt it

actually was where the learning was, where I would say I was able to learn.”

The findings highlighted constructivism in asynchronous online learning and the

role of independent student learning for knowledge construction an environment

facilitated by technology. The finding also highlighted the role of the constructivist

instructor enabled by instructor’s accessibility, modeling and feedback. The findings

further highlighted the faciliatory role of the instructor in designing a course that was

organized with a modular layout and facilitated understanding of the course instructions

and assignments. Finally, the study highlighted how the intentional use of instructional

technology can extend classroom boundaries, provide access to diverse students and

allow remote learners to engage in knowledge creation.

Conclusion

The students’ experiences in the asynchronous online course depended primarily

on independent student learning, interactions with the instructor, effectiveness of the

course design and navigability of the supporting instructional technology.

73
 The findings supported the literature which showed that in online learning

courses, specifically in asynchronous online learning courses, students experience

learning in ways that are more abstract and require a certain level of accessibility to

support their independent learning. The findings highlighted that while learning goals are

achievable in an asynchronous online environment, independent learning and self-

regulation are necessary for making the learning connections and tracking learning

progress. Student engagement was driven by the ability to connect with the instructor, via

communication tools such as email and discussion posts. Further, the ability to interact

with the course highlighted the importance of the course design in creating an accessible

and navigable online environment. Finally, access to the supporting technology in online

learning, specifically in asynchronous online courses, may be more difficult to navigate

and it is important that instructors create an online environment that is supportive of

students as they develop new skills.

The findings showed that instructors have to be intentional about the use of

instructional technology in course design and in modeling engagement in an

environment, enabled by technology with no physical co-presence. Although students

were responsible for their learning management and self-regulation in an asynchronous

online environment, they experienced learning when the instructor designed a course that

facilitated learning and implemented technology infrastructure that enabled interaction.

74
 CHAPTER 5

Introduction

The study was a qualitative descriptive case study that examined the commonality

of the experiences of students enrolled in an asynchronous online, introductory computer

science course. The study also explored the factors that impacted students’ perceptions of

their experiences in the online environments. A qualitative research of a single case was

used to describe students’ lived experiences and their own voices were used to highlight

the experiences and reflections throughout the findings. The unit of analysis for this

research study was the experiences of a heterogeneous group of students enrolled in an

asynchronous online, introductory computer science courses in the professional studies

college at a private, urban higher education institution.

Guided by the rationale for the study from chapter one and the theoretical

framework and the literature review outlined in chapter two, chapter three outlined the

research methodology, the description of the participants and the data collection

procedures of the study. The description of the case as well as the findings which

highlighted four emergent themes from the data analysis – Student Independent Learning,

Instructor Engagement, Online Course Design and Instructional Technology – were

outlined in chapter four.

The study addressed two research questions. The first research questions explored

how undergraduate students, enrolled in the professional studies college at a private,

urban higher education institution describe their experiences in online courses. The

second research questions explored the factors that shaped the experiences of these

undergraduate students enrolled in online courses in the professional studies college at a

75
private, urban higher education institution. Chapter 5 presents the interpretation of the

findings, the relationship to the prior research, the limitations of the study and the

implications for the future practice and research.

Interpretations of Findings

Research Question 1

The first research question examined the experiences of students enrolled in

online course in the professional studies college at a private, urban higher education

institution in the Northeast United States. The data analysis showed that asynchronous

online learning environments can facilitate the constructivist approach to knowledge

creation. Constructivism posits that learners actively construct knowledge instead of

passively assimilating information presented in the learning environment and the

independent learning highlighted by the study participant was beneficial for active

involvement in knowledge construction and ultimately learning. In asynchronous online

courses, students who exhibit the characteristics of constructivist learners had more

positive experiences and advanced learning goals.

In an asynchronous online course, independent learning fundamentally changed

how student engaged, conceptually and intellectually, in the course in the absence of

physical co-presence. In this type of course format, students approached learning

conceptually and are focused on knowledge creation that would contribute to successfully

course completion. In asynchronous online environments, a more proactive approach to

learning characterized by purposeful student-content interaction, effective time

management and intentional behavioral regulation were important to the learner

independence, necessary for managing the unrestrained access to the course.

76
 Instructor engagement was also important to students’ experiences in online

courses. Students enrolled in online courses, especially asynchronous online courses,

required an engaging learning experience that provided structured opportunities for

interacting with the course content. The ability of the instructor to model behavior and to

create an online environment where students actively participated in their own learning

impacted the experiences of students enrolled in online courses. In an environment

characterized by autonomy, instructor accessibility, modeling and feedback addressed

some of the challenges related to self-regulation and time management. It was important

to students in the online environment, that the instructor was engaged and focused on

creating student-centered content that facilitated knowledge construction.

Instructional technology, used as a tool in the learning process, advanced the

constructivist approach and gave students the latitude to determine which information

was required to complete assignments. The intentional use of instructional technology to

design an online environment that was less nebulous and more focused on the

construction of knowledge where students can actively manage and participate in their

own learning, allowed students to experience learning in a more defined and structured

way. However, although the instructional technology used in asynchronous online

courses can extend the boundaries of the course and increase accessibility, it can also

amplify the breadth of learner diversity. Therefore, it was important to the experiences of

students in the asynchronous online course that the courses were well designed and

provided adequate opportunities for engagement despite learner skill level.

Independent learning, instructor accessibility, navigable course design and the

intentional use of instructional technology provided students with the ability to surmount

77
the challenges associated with unlimited access, time constraints and flexibility. These

factors influenced how students gauged progress in the course, how they initiated the

appropriate self-regulation strategies to stay on track and ultimately how they

experienced learning.

Research Question 2

The second research question focused on the factors that shaped the experiences

in the online course. Components of the online course that enhanced presence in the

course and provided a comparable experience to being physically present at a particular

day and time, as in synchronous courses or at a set location as in the traditional course

format, were important factors that influenced students’ experiences.

One of the main factors that affected the experiences of students in the online

environment was early and continuous access to the course materials. The asynchronous

online courses offered unparalleled opportunities for students to participate in a learning

environment, anytime and anywhere. Having 24-hour access to the course for the entire

semester supported independent learning and promoted participation and engagement.

However, the unlimited access that students valued in asynchronous online courses, was

also a factor that had to be managed to keep students focused and on track in a semester

bounded by time. Although positively evaluated, the continuous access was also a crucial

factor that was not conducive to learning in the absence of self-regulation factors such as

self-instruction and self-monitoring. Unlimited access and learner autonomy, significant

factors of the independent learning associated with asynchronous online learning, were

potential barriers to learning progress, if not managed appropriately. Further, the

perceived lack of time constraints and the associated lack of urgency exacerbated the

78
need for a structured schedule that supported the constructivist learning, characteristic of

learners in online environments.

Other factors such as instructor’s communication and interaction also created

supportive experiences for the students in the course. The instructor’s constructive

feedback, timely grading and availability to support students were viewed positively by

the students. Students had positive learning experiences when they were advised on

their progress in the course and were able to find assistance when necessary. In

addition, the availability of the instructor to provide access or to direct students to

informational technology support for the LMS and software support for the online

learning program positively contributed to students’ experiences.

Factors associated with course design such navigable links, defined modules and

instructional support reinforced learning progress and limited the access challenges

attributable to poor course design. A learning management system that supported

efficient and modular course design was one of the main factors that enhanced learning

progress. The inclusion and accessibility of comprehendible user guides and introductory

tutorials in the LMS were key factors that impacted the effective use of instructional

technology in an online course.

Factors associated with the supporting instructional technology also emerged as

valuable to the learning experiences of students in online environments. The use of an

online learning software was deemed beneficial in this technology-driven and skilled-

based online course. The productive use of an online learning platform to support

instruction in an asynchronous online course was not only the practical use of the

platform’s software and the relevance to the subject matter of the course but the

79
intuitiveness and navigability of the online learning platform. The usability of the

learning platform was a significant factor that contributed to students’ experiences

because it allowed students to practice technical skills prior to completing assignments.

An online learning software designed to create engaging experiences with online

textbooks, practice tools and study software highlighted the importance of interactive

education technology in supporting independent learning.

Implication for Theoretical Framework

The study was guided by the Constructivist Learning Theory. As presented in the

review of the conceptual and theoretical framework in Chapter 2, the design of online

learning has historically been technology-driven as opposed to student-centered.

However, the advancement of instructional technology has made it much easier to

implement instructional technology in support of online learning to extend classroom

boundaries and provide access to diverse learners.

The study provided an additional opportunity to further explore the constructivist

framework and extended the research on constructivism, in the context of online learning,

on how learners actively construct knowledge in environments characterized by the

absence of physical presence.

The findings highlighted the learner-centered approach of constructivism where

learners have ownership of knowledge creation and learning, and instructors create a

communicative and collaborative environment conducive to this knowledge creation. The

findings suggested that the constructivist model does provide a theoretical basis for

understanding the role of students, instructors, course design and instructional technology

in online environments, particularly in asynchronous online environments where the

80
tenets of constructivism is significantly highlighted. The findings further showed that the

theoretical concepts of cognitive and social constructivism can explain the scaffolding

support required to construct knowledge in a technology-enabled environment. The

theoretical applications of co-constructions of knowledge, the role of the instructor in

enabling understanding and the use of technology in allowing for deeper reflection in the

construction of knowledge were present within the findings and aligned with the tenets of

cognitive constructivism. The findings also aligned with the theories of social

constructivism and highlighted the role of online interaction in allowing for deeper

understanding and facilitating more diverse perspectives. The study provided an example

of the faciliatory role of the constructivist instructor in enabling organization, social and

intellectual interactions.

Relationship to Prior Research

This research study supported the findings of the existing research reviewed in the

literature on learning in online environments. Similar to the prior research, the findings of

this study highlighted the importance of independent learning, instructor accessibility,

online course design and the intentional use of instructional technology in supporting

student knowledge creation in online environments.

Engagement in the Online Environment

The prior research on engagement in the online environment suggested that, in an

online course, the nature of the interaction is different due to the lack of presence in the

same physical space (Schrader, 2015). The engagement highlighted in the prior research

was supported in this study. Student-course engagement, highlighted in the findings on

independent learning, and student-instructor engagement, highlighted in the findings on

81
instructor accessibility, supported the research literature which underscored the

importance of engagement to students’ experiences in the online environment. Similar to

prior research (Blackmon and Major, 2012), this study showed that student engagement

enabled knowledge construction and instructors’ engagement established presence in the

course. However, contrary to prior research (Jaggars and Xu, 2016), although student-

student interaction made experiences more relatable, the avenues available for peer

interaction reviewed in this study did not create a learning community that was important

to students’ experiences.

Online Course Structure

The findings of this research study also highlighted the importance of modular

course design which was presented in the literature review of research on online course

structure (Yang & Cornelius, 2004). The study supported the finding of prior research

(Gray & DiLoreto, 2016) which showed that designing a course, with the level of

interaction and accessibility required for online courses, was important to the learning

experiences of students in online courses. In the absence of physical presence, the role of

the instructor was to facilitate an academic environment that reinforced students’

interaction with the course and supported students’ conceptualization of the course

content (Armstrong, 2011).

The Role of Technology in Online Instruction

The intentional use of instructional technology highlighted in this study,

supported the findings from previous research. This study validated the existing research

on the role of technology in the online environment (Rubin et al., 2013), which posited

that instructional technology altered the way in which the course content is delivered,

82
changed how students interact in the course and enhanced how students learnt. However,

the findings in this study further highlighted the use of instructional technology in

enabling the constructivist approach to learning. The instructional technology used in the

course, particularly the accessibility of the online learning platform in practicing drills

and completing assignments highlighted the scaffolding support necessary for actively

constructing knowledge in environments enabled by technology (Hmelo-Silver et al.,

2007).

Learner Autonomy

The student’s ability to create structure and to employ the self-regulation tools,

emphasized in the prior research on the role of learner autonomy in online learning

(Landrum, 2020), were also highlighted in this study. The consistent student-course

interaction, effective time-management approaches and effect self-regulations strategies

were important to students in an environment characterized by a high level of autonomy.

Further, the findings of this study on independent learning, in an environment with

continuous access to the course material, supported the findings of prior research

(Fotiadou et al., 2017), which showed that independent learning is reliant on learner-

centered approaches that are reinforced by the instructor.

Limitations of the Study

The subject matter of the introductory computer science course lends itself to

online engagement and students taking a computer science course may be more

comfortable in an online environment. Further, because the focus was on one specific

course and the experiences of the students in that course, the study may be difficult to

replicate. Faculty design their syllabi and modules based on varied factors, such as the

83
way they were trained, how they want to teach or the type of course they teach, which

may not be replicated by other instructors. Outside of syllabus language, comparing an

instructor’s intent or their perception of student engagement was outside the scope of

this particular study.

In addition, the instructional technology employed in this course, although

functional for different courses across academic disciplines, may be implemented

differently based on the academic course where it is used. Further, students enrolled in

the same course with a different supporting software or no support software may have

different experiences. Although this limited the scope in that data from participants

from other courses could generate additional findings, the findings from the study was

helpful in understanding the nuances of students’ experiences in similar situations.

While it may not be replicable, it can inform the study of other online courses or other

participants in online environments.

The smaller sample size was also a key limitation of the study since the research

studied the experiences within a specific population of students enrolled in an

asynchronous online, introductory computer science course. As is common in most

qualitative studies, the findings are not generalizable to a larger population, because of

the focus on one specific class. Data from additional participants may generate

additional themes and findings.

Finally, the inherent limitation of the online learning platform and the

technology can limit the findings. Although designed to accelerate student learning and

success by creating engaging experiences with online textbooks, practice software and

study tools, the features of an online line platform are course-specific and so the

84
findings on the role of independent learning, instructor accessibility, modular course

design and intuitive instructional technology observed in this asynchronous online,

introductory computer science course may not be replicable in other online courses.

Recommendations for Future Practice

The study explored the experiences of students enrolled in asynchronous online

courses and the factors that shaped these experiences. Based on the finding, the following

recommendations are appropriate.

Intentional Design of Online Courses

The study found that, no matter the reason for enrolling in online courses, student

approach the courses in one of two ways – intellectually or strategically. The students,

who approach the course intellectually have typically identified the value of the course to

their long-term career goals and are in pursuit of knowledge creation. These students are

looking to the instructor, course design, and instructional technology to support this

knowledge creation. The students who approach the course strategically have already

identified that the course is not necessarily related to career-goals and are primarily

looking to complete the course with minimal effort and time. It is important that faculty

and instructional course designer understand the relevance of the course to the different

types of students who characteristically enroll. Designing an online course that

understands the approaches of diverse students but geared towards knowledge creation

will ensure that both classifications of students engage and learn in the course.

Ultimately, this means designing online courses that use a modular layout in the LMS to

create structure and utilizing institutive instructional technology to enhance engagement

instead of developing courses that are derivatives of a traditional course format.

85
Collaboration between Faculty and Instructional Designers

Faculty are scholars in the academic discipline. Instructional designers are

specialists in developing engaging courses that support online learning. Collaborations

between faculty and instructional designers in the initial online course design and in the

subsequent reviews of existing online course designs will combine the subject matter of

the academic discipline with the foundational models of instructional design. This

collaboration can enhance the integration of course content and instructional software

platforms for the specific course type – asynchronous online, asynchronous, hybrid. This

collaboration can result in designing student-centered and user-friendly online course

content that is intuitive and navigable in the online platform that is meant to support the

course.

Focus on Faculty Development and Oversight in Online Courses

The strength of faculty is in their academic discipline. The preferences and

requirements of online learners have changed dramatically in recent years and it is

important that faculty understand how to navigate this evolution. Training that focuses on

online course design, allots time for product knowledge and designates sandboxes or

testing environments where faculty can hone their skills in online course design, in the

LMS and in the instructional technology can certainly advance how faculty approach and

successfully design online courses that enhance students’ experiences and support their

learning goals. Further, this specific training in conjunction with formal faculty structures

that provide oversight of instructional course quality can advance faculty’s understanding

of the nuances of the LMS, online learning platforms or instructional technology used in

their courses.

86
Recommendations for Future Research

This study focused on the students’ experiences enrolled in asynchronous online,

introductory computer science courses. The subject matter of an introductory computer

science course lent itself to specific engagement with the course content and the online

learning platform for successful outcomes in the course. As a result, there are many

opportunities for future research to build on the results from this case study.

The current study could be extended to include an additional case focused on the

experiences of faculty who teach the asynchronous online, introductory computer science

courses that was central to this case study. Understanding the role that the analytics from

the LMS and online learning platform plays in instructor engagement, communication

and modeling would be an important recommendation for future research. This would

provide additional insights to understanding how instructors use the metrics from the

LMS and online platform to understand student engagement and as justification for

student outreach. This may further provide insights into how instructors can support the

independent learning that is central to cognitive learners in asynchronous online

environments.

Further, extending the cases to other forms on online learning such as

synchronous online courses and hybrid courses would identify whether the factors

presented by the participants’ interviews and identified by the course observations are

applicable to other online formats. Research on different online formats would help in

identifying the singularity or generalizability of each learning format which would be

instrumental in designing online course that support independent learning.

Finally, extending the research to other courses that are not technology intensive

87
would provide insights into whether the themes and factors that emerged are similar in

studies of other online courses. Extending the research to non-technology based courses

would provide an understanding of how students experience learning in online courses

design by faculty from varied disciplines. The research of online course design and

engagement in online environments by faculty from different disciplines would provide

additional information on how online courses are designed, how instructional technology

is used and how faculty engage and communicate with students to support independent

learning. This would provide additional information to researchers on which approaches

from the different disciplines are perceived by student as advancing knowledge creation

in technology-enable environments with no physical co-presence.

Conclusion

The study showed that there is an inherent benefit of hearing from students’

experiences, particularly since universities are increasingly providing additional online

course offerings. The study suggested that student interaction and engagement are

different in an environment enabled by technology with no physical co-presence.

Although the accessibility of the online environment can allow students to construct

knowledge, students can also struggle with the self-direction and self-regulation

necessary for making learning connections. In addition, to advance learning communities

in an online environment, the instructor must be accessible to model interaction and

provide feedback. Further, designing a course that is effectively integrated with

instructional technology allows students to adequately access and process the information

necessary to complete course requirements. Positive experiences in the online

environment are dependent on independent student learning, purposeful interaction with

88
the course content, deliberate time management and conscious application of self-

regulation skills.

89
 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL

Federal Wide Assurance: FWA00009066

Oct 25, 2021 11:08:40 AM EDT

PI: Glenda Lugo

CO-PI: Ceceilia Parnther
Ed Admin & Instruc Leadership

Re: Expedited Review - Initial - IRB-FY2022-87 A Qualitative Case Study of Students’

Perceptions of Their Experiences in Undergraduate Online Courses

Dear Glenda Lugo:

The St John's University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below
for A Qualitative Case Study of Students’ Perceptions of Their Experiences in
Undergraduate Online Courses. The approval is effective from October 22, 2021 through
October 21, 2022.

Decision: Approved

PLEASE NOTE: If you have collected any data prior to this approval date, the data must
be discarded.

Selected Category: 7. Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior

(including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity,
language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research
employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human
factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies.

Sincerely,

Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, ABPP

Chair, Institutional Review Board
Professor of Psychology

Marie Nitopi, Ed.D.

IRB Coordinator

90
 APPENDIX B: LETTER OF CONSENT

You are invited to participate in a study on students’ experiences in online

learning. The purpose of the study is to examine the factors that shape the experiences of

students enrolled in online courses at the professional studies college of a private, urban

university in the Northeast United States. This study will be conducted by Glenda Lander

Lugo as part of her doctoral dissertation in The School of Education at St. John’s

University. Her faculty sponsor is Dr. Ceceilia Parnther, Assistant Professor, The School

of Education at St. John’s University.

As part of this study, I will be interviewing undergraduate students enrolled in an

asynchronous online, introductory computer science course with a professor in the

professional studies college. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to participate in

one interview, which consists of a series of open-ended questions regarding your

experiences in the asynchronous online course. You may also be asked to participate in

one additional follow-up interview for further verification of your responses. The

document analyses, interviews and asynchronous observations will be conducted in fall

2021. The interviews will be conducted remotely via audioconferencing and will last

approximately 45 - 60 minutes. The recordings and transcripts, enabled during the

interviews, will be encrypted and stored on a secure, password-protected OneDrive and

access, after the interview has ended, will be limited to the Principal Investigator.

The information acquired through this study seeks to inform the design of future

online courses. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may decline to answer any

question and/or discontinue your participation at any time. There are no personal benefits

91
to participating in this study and there are no perceived risks to participating in the study.

Nonparticipation or withdrawal will not affect your grades or academic standing.

Confidentiality of the research records will be strictly maintained. Your individual

identity in the audio recordings, transcriptions and publications will be kept anonymous

and separate from the consent form. The course information will be redacted to protect

the identity of the faculty and participants. The data will be retained until the completion

and/or publication of the study, will be encrypted and will be stored on a secure

password-protected computer available only to the Principal Investigator. You may

contact the Principal Investigator, if you are interested in securing a copy of the results.

If you have any questions regarding your participation or the study, you may

contact the principal investigator, Glenda Lander Lugo at 718-990-2065 or

[email protected] or the faculty sponsor, Dr. Ceceilia Parnther at 718-990-1305 or

[email protected]. For questions about your rights as a research participant, you may

contact the Institutional Review Board at St. John’s University, Dr. Raymond

DiGiuseppe at 718-990-1955, [email protected] or Dr. Marie Nitopi at (718)990

1440, [email protected].

Your signature acknowledges receipt of a copy of the consent form as well as

your willingness to participate.

I agree to be audio recorded

Printed Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

Glenda Lander Lugo

Ed.D. Candidate, Principal Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date

92
 APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

Date/Time of Document Analysis:

Documents Analyzed:
Course syllabus
Course materials
Course assignments
Course rubric

Scope of Data Analysis:

Course Syllabus:
Inclusion of lesson plans, goals, assignments and deadlines

Course Materials:
Inclusion of required materials
Access to course files, supporting technology and links

Course Assignments:
Inclusion of assignments requirements and timelines
Accessibility of gradebook, grading criteria and feedback

Course Rubric:
Inclusion of expectations and assessments
Performance criteria
Rating scale
Indicators

Summary of Document Analysis:

93
 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Date/Time of Interview:

Location of Interview:

Participants:

Thank you for participating in the study on students’ experiences and online

learning. The purpose of the study is to research student’s perception of their experiences

in online courses. The research seeks to inform the study of course design. In this

discussion, I will ask you questions related to your experiences in the asynchronous

online course, and the factors that shape these experiences.

Thank you for signing the electronic consent form that was emailed to you prior

to this meeting. As a reminder, participation in the interview is voluntary. You may

decline to answer any question and/or discontinue your participation at any time. All

participant information that is discussed and course data captured during this interview is

strictly confidential. By agreeing to participate in the study, you are agreeing to this

confidentiality.

Questions 1 – 4 will focus on your perceptions of your experiences in the online

course. In responding to question 5-12, think about what factors influenced your

experiences in online courses.

1. Why did you enroll in the online course? Expand on your experience with the

course format.

2. How closely was the course content, assignments and discussions aligned with the

course objectives?

3. How was your experience with the online course load? Were you able to manage

94
 your time in the course? Discuss whether you had enough time to learn course

content and complete assignments.

4. What was your experience with instructor and student-instructor communication?

How available was the instructor via email or online discussion?

5. What was your experience with instructor grading and feedback? Was it

constructive, timely, and helpful? Can you provide some examples?

6. What was your experience interacting with other students? Discuss an opportunity

you had interacting with another student. How did this influence your experience

in the course?

7. How was your experience with the online course design? Discuss the layout,

graphics, assignments, discussions, user friendliness, and ease of navigability.

8. What was your experience with the course structure? How closely was the course

content, assignments and discussions aligned with the course objectives?

9. Expand on your experience with the Learning Management System (LMS) used in

the course. How often did you login in and complete your assignments?

10. Was other technology used in the course? If so, how helpful was the other

technology in enhancing your experience in the course?

11. What was your experience with technical support during the times you accessed

the course? Was there any other support available?

12. What other factors determine the quality of your online course? What could you

do, as a student, to improve the quality of your online education?

Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. Is there any additional information

that you would like to share?

95
 APPENDIX E: CROSSWALK TABLE

Interview Question-Research Question-Related Literature-Theory

Interview Research Related Theoretical

Questions Question Literature Construct
1. Why did you How do Online Course Cognitive
enroll in the undergraduate Structure Constructivism -
online course? students enrolled in Knowledge is co-
Expand on your the professional constructed;
experience with studies college at a
the course private, urban
format. higher education
institution describe
their experiences in
online courses?
2. How closely How do Online Course Cognitive
was the course undergraduate Structure Constructivism -
content, students enrolled in Goal of
assignments and the professional Constructivism is
discussions studies college at a to create a
aligned with the private, urban meaningful,
course higher education communicative
objectives? institution describe and collaborative
their experiences in environment.
online courses?
3. How was your How do Learner Cognitive
experience with undergraduate Autonomy Constructivism -
the online course students enrolled in Learning is an
load? Were you the professional active process in
able to manage studies college at a which learners
your time in the private, urban create new
course? Discuss higher education concepts based on
whether you had institution describe prior knowledge
enough time to their experiences in
learn course online courses?
content and
complete
assignments.
4. What was How do Engagement in Social
your experience undergraduate the Online Constructivism -
with instructor students enrolled in Environment The role of the
and student- the professional constructivist
instructor studies college at a instructor as
communication? private, urban faciliatory in
How available higher education three distinct

96
Interview Research Related Theoretical
Questions Question Literature Construct
was the institution describe roles –
instructor via their experiences in organization,
email or online online courses? social and
discussion? intellectual
5. What was What factors shape Engagement in Social
your experience the experiences of the Online Constructivism -
with instructor undergraduate Environment The role of the
grading and students enrolled in online instructor
feedback? Was it online courses in is on the learning
constructive, the professional process and
timely, and studies college at a outcomes
helpful? Can you private, urban
provide some higher education
examples? institution?
6. What was What factors shape Engagement in Social
your experience the experiences of the Online Constructivism -
interacting with undergraduate Environment Online, peer and
other students? students enrolled in content
Discuss an online courses in interactions allow
opportunity you the professional for deeper
had interacting studies college at a understanding of
with another private, urban content and
student. How did higher education facilitates more
this influence institution? diverse
your experience perspectives and
in the course? interpretations
7. How was your What factors shape Online Course Cognitive
experience with the experiences of Structure Constructivism -
the online course undergraduate The intellectual
design? Discuss students enrolled in role is focused on
the layout, online courses in the process of
graphics, the professional understanding the
assignments, studies college at a course content
discussions, user private, urban through
friendliness, and higher education assignments,
ease of institution? questions and
navigability. other course
structures
8. What was What factors shape Online Course Cognitive
your experience the experiences of Structure Constructivism -
with the course undergraduate The intellectual
structure? How students enrolled in role is focused on
closely was the online courses in the process of
course content, the professional understanding the

97
Interview Research Related Theoretical
Questions Question Literature Construct
assignments and studies college at a course content
discussions private, urban through
aligned with the higher education assignments,
course institution? questions and
objectives? other course
structures
9. Expand on What factors shape Technology in Cognitive
your experience the experiences of Online Constructivism -
with the LMS. undergraduate Instruction/ New technologies
How often did students enrolled in Learner allow for deeper
you login in and online courses in Autonomy reflection in the
complete your the professional construction of
assignments? studies college at a knowledge
private, urban
higher education
institution?
10. Was other What factors shape Technology in Cognitive
technology used the experiences of Online Constructivism -
in the course? If undergraduate Instruction Media and
so, how helpful students enrolled in technology
was the other online courses in extend classroom
technology in the professional boundaries, create
enhancing your studies college at a new learning
experience in the private, urban communities and
course? higher education access diverse
institution? collaborators in
the learning
process
11. What was What factors shape Technology in Cognitive
your experience the experiences of Online Constructivism -
with technical undergraduate Instruction The constructivist
support during students enrolled in learning paradigm
the times you online courses in must evolve to
accessed the the professional promote learning
course? Was studies college at a using new media
there any other private, urban
support higher education
available? institution?
12. What other What factors shape All Social and
factors determine the experiences of cognitive
the quality of undergraduate constructivism
your online students enrolled in
course? What online courses in
could you do, as the professional

98
Interview Research Related Theoretical
Questions Question Literature Construct
a student, to studies college at a
improve the private, urban
quality of your higher education
online institution?
education?

99
 APPENDIX F: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Date/Time of Observation:
Participants Observed
_______________________________________________________________________
Scope of Observations/Indicators: (Observations will be conducted in the
Asynchronous Online Canvas Course)

Student engagement through asynchronous course facilitation (Armstrong, 2011;

Blackmon & Major, 2012; Hugg Blakey & Howell Major, 2019; Jaggars & Xu, 2016;
Zhang et al., 2020):
Instructor’s periodic announcements to course participants
Instructor’s promotion of interaction via discussions or collaborations
Instructor’s modeling of expected interaction and demonstration of online
dynamics
Student’s participation in community of inquiry including discussions and
collaborations
Instructor’s response to student’s communication in a reasonable timeframe

Course content viewed as student user (Armstrong, 2011; Eom & Ashill, 2016; Gray &
DiLoreto, 2016; Yang & Cornelius, 2004):
Access to course syllabus, resources and course materials in Canvas
Inclusion of clear objectives and support for online interaction
Presence of consistency in course layout, design and links
Prompt grading of activities and assessments

Technology use through Canvas course structure and activity metrics (Armstrong,
2011; Rubin et al., 2013; Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005):
Presence of consistency in Canvas accessibility and navigation
Integration of course content in Canvas including the use and presentation of
multimedia
Appropriate use of technology
Inclusion of instructions/resources for technical support

Learner autonomy through activity metrics and assignments (Armstrong, 2011;

Fotiadou et al., 2017; Hixon et al., 2016; Howland & Moore, 2002; Landrum, 2020):
Demonstration of active and consistent participation in the course
Opportunities for learning activities that support independent student-instructor-
content interaction
There were many opportunities for learning activities
Meaningful feedback on assignments and course activities

Summary of Observations:

100
 REFERENCES

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of

blended education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA.

Armstrong, D. (2011). Students’ perceptions of online learning and instructional tools: A

qualitative study of undergraduate students’ use of online tools. In E-Learn:

World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and

Higher Education (pp. 1034-1039). Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education.

Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before

technology. Teaching theology & religion, 5(1), 17-29.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9647.00114

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.84.2.191

Banks, J. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens

in a multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 4-17.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027007004

Blackmon, S. J., & Major, C. (2012). Student experiences in online courses: A qualitative

research synthesis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2).

Bruner, J. (1971). Toward a theory of instruction. Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press.

Briggs, A. (2015). Ten ways to overcome barriers to student engagement online. Online

Learning Consortium.

101
Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing

among five traditions. (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.

Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning

outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision

Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185-215.

https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097

Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the

learning process in distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and

E-learning, 20(1), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0006

Frey, B. B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and

evaluation. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139

Friedman, J., & Moody, J. (2020). How online classes work? 10 frequently asked

questions. Online Learning Consortium.

https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/news_item/how-online-classes-work-10-

frequently-asked-questions.

Gold, S. (2001). A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal

of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 35-57.

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i1.1886

Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student

satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International

Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), n1.

Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). The impact of

102
 previous online course experience on students' perceptions of quality. Online

Learning, 20(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i1.565

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement

in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and

Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in

internet-based courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183-195.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791022000009196

Hugg Blakey, C., & Howell Major, C. (2019). Student perceptions of engagement in

online courses: An exploratory study. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 22(4).

Jaggars, S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared

students? Assessment of Evidence Series. Community College Research Center.

Brief No. 52.

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How Do Online Course Design Features Influence

Student Performance? Computers and Education, 95, 270-284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014

Great Schools Partnership. (2014). Glossary of education reform.

https://www.edglossary.org

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for

technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299671

103
Keegan, D. (Ed.). (2005). Theoretical principles of distance education. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203983065

Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on

the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7

Landrum, B. (2020). Examining students' confidence to learn online, self-regulation skills

and perceptions of satisfaction and usefulness of online classes. Online Learning,

24(3) 128-146. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).

Sage Publications, Inc.

Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.

Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.

Moore, M. G., & Keegan, D. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical

Principles of Distance Education, 22-39.

NCES. (2020). Fast facts distance learning. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures.

Viking Press.

Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. (2013). The effects of technology on the

Community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and

104
 Higher Education, 17, 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006

Seaman, J., Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education

in the United States. Online Learning Consortium. Babson Survey Research

Group.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.

Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing

minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 2015(144), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20160

Top Hat. (2021). Glossary of higher education terms A-Z. https://tophat.com/glossary.

Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online

learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213-230.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782457

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard University Press.

Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students' perceptions towards the quality of online

education: A qualitative approach. Association for Educational Communications

and Technology, 27,861-877.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Zhang, J., Addae, H. M., Bakeman, M., Boyraz, M., Flaherty, P. T., Habich, M., Johnson,

A., Phillips, A., & Schreihans, C. (2020). Management students' perceptions of

online teaching quality. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of

Teaching, 14(2), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2020.21101abstract

105
 Vita

Name Glenda Lander Lugo

Baccalaureate Degree Bachelor of Science, City

University of New York, Brooklyn
College, New York
Major: Computer & Information Science

Date Graduated February, 1992

Other Degrees and Certificates Master of Business Administration,

New York University, Stern School
of Business, New York Major:
Computer Information Systems &
Management

Date Graduated May, 1996