Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Satisfaction with online learning: A

comparative descriptive study
Linda Lemasters

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he main component s of sat isfact ion wit h e-learning

Francisco González-Gómez

43. Vernadakis, N., Giannousi, M., Tsit skari, E., Ant oniou, P. & Kioumourt zoglou, E. (2012). A Comparison …
Nikolaos Vernadakis

A COMPARISON of st udent sat isfact ion bet ween t radit ional and blended t echnology course offerings…
Nikolaos Vernadakis
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 2006
www.ncolr.org/jiol ISSN: 1541-4914

Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Comparative Descriptive Study

Virginia Roach and Linda Lemasters

The George Washington University

Abstract

A 3rd party provider approached university faculty and administration to develop an on-line
program for the Master’s degree in educational administration and leadership. While the
monetary benefits of an online delivery were attractive, the institution rested its final decision on
the instructional merits of the plan. The faculty used a 3rd party provider for technical expertise,
design, and student support for the program. A descriptive study was conducted to determine to
what degree students were satisfied with the online program and their degree of satisfaction in
comparison to on-ground courses. Results indicated that students in the online program were
satisfied with the courses; however, they noted valuable concerns to be addressed. Implications
of these findings are discussed.

Introduction

Institutions of higher education are creating courses and programs online to serve a
student population that is more dispersed geographically: one that is older and less likely to be
able to attend school full time and accustomed to on-demand interactions in other facets of their
lives (Nicholson & Sarker, 2002). Fourteen accredited educational administration programs are
listed by e-Learners.com accredited and fully online, serving hundreds, if not thousands of
students (2005, ¶ 1), but many more programs have put part or all of their courses online. While
the number of institutions online is growing, there is still a scarcity of empirical data on e-
learning (Sheard & Markham, 2005).
Carlson (2005) stated that a new generation of college students has arrived. To meet the
needs of these students, colleges must rethink how they operate; professors need to retool the
way they hold their classes. Whether the issues include lectures on iPods (Tyre, 2005),
classrooms that incorporate videos and video games, classes that meet virtually, students who
choose to learn from each other rather than the professors, search engines that may or may not be
reliable, or animated library databases, a new kind of student has arrived and pedagogy is
changing.
Online learning opportunities are rapidly expanding in higher education. After the
Associate’s degree, the Master’s degree is the second most prevalent type of program offered
online (Allen & Seaman, 2004). Educational leadership programs face increased competition
because of students’ access to online programs regardless of their geographic constraints.
Already dealing with criticism on the quality of preparation programs for school leaders (The
Broad Foundation, 2005; Hess & Kelly, 2005; Levine, 2005), universities must ensure both high
levels of student satisfaction and quality to attract and maintain student enrollment. This study
presents a framework for considering student satisfaction, based on both on-ground and online
courses, and evaluates changes in student satisfaction over time.
In 2005, the educational administration program of a private United States university
began offering a Master’s in Educational Administration and Leadership online in conjunction
with a third-party, independent internet course delivery provider. The program courses were
developed and taught by university faculty, who were assisted by course facilitators acting in the
role of the traditional teaching assistant. All technical delivery matters were handled by the third-

317
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

party providers. This included videotaping introductory clips for every class session, loading
course content, and ensuring that students knew how to navigate through the course material,
post assignments, and participate in asynchronous discussions.
The purpose of this study was to determine the level of satisfaction with online learning,
and to compare the perceived quality of the program to that of the on-ground delivery of the
same program. The specific research questions were:

1. To what degree are students satisfied with the delivery and content of an online
Master’s program in educational administration and leadership?
a. What factors are related to satisfaction?
b. How do the course evaluations of the third course compare to the course
evaluations of the seventh course offered in the online Master’s program?
2. How does the level of satisfaction for two courses differ between online and
face-to-face delivery?

Conceptual Framework: There has been a plethora of research on how to design the best
learning experiences for students. According to Vonderwell and Turner (2005), with the
convergence of technological, instructional, and pedagogical developments, a new paradigm of
teaching and learning is emerging—one that has the potential to redefine education.
The number of online learning courses and programs has significantly increased over the
past several years at both the K-12 and higher education levels. Nicholson and Sarker (2002)
estimated that the worldwide market for e-learning would be approximately $18.5 billion in
2005. Allen and Seaman (2004) surveyed 3,068 degree granting institutions of higher education
with a 38.1% response rate. Results indicated that “over 1.9 million students were learning
online in 2003” (Allen & Seaman, 2004, p. 1) with estimates of almost 25% growth in online
learners in 2004. In higher education, online courses are offered at the undergraduate, master’s,
and doctoral levels (Allen & Seaman, 2004; e-Learning.com, 2005). Yet, despite the growth in
online learning there is “a scarcity of systematic evaluative studies of web-based learning
environments” (Sheard & Markham, 2005, p. 353).
There are over 600 graduate programs available in the United States offering studies in
educational administration (Levine, 2005). These programs, with their online offerings, have
erased almost all geographic barriers to accessing a graduate educational leadership program.
The proliferation of online educational leadership programs has created new choices for students
and thus has enhanced competition among programs. In this new environment, attention to
student satisfaction is more important than ever (Allen & Seaman, 2004).
The majority of students taking at least one online course are at associate degree-granting
institutions. The second most prevalent group of online students is composed of students in
Master’s programs (Allen & Seaman, 2004). Many surveys of student satisfaction with online
programs do not differentiate between undergraduate and graduate students. Nevertheless,
several researchers noted the benefits of online instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2004; Choy,
McNickle, & Clayton, 2002; Quitadamo & Brown, 2001; Saunders, 2001). Benefits of online
programs include: on demand learning, removal of geographic limitations to access, reduced cost
of transportation for participation, and reduced building and/or maintenance fees for classroom
space (Bataineh, 2001, as cited in Fuller & McBride, 2001). Bataineh further defined the typical
online or distance learner as “non-traditional, a full time worker, a parent, living in a rural area,
female with children, [or] a person with a disability” (2001, p. 17). While these findings are
consistent across the online learning literature, they are not specific to graduate or professional
programs.

318
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Universities offering educational administration programs must attend to both

programming quality as well as student satisfaction in order to be viable. Interestingly, there are
few published studies on student satisfaction with graduate education. Smart (1987) found that
students who pursued a graduate program similar to the major field of study of their
undergraduate program were more likely to be satisfied with faculty-student and peer relations.
The majority of the educational administration students in leadership preparation programs are
teachers preparing to be building or district-level leaders (Levine, 2005); thus, they are in the
same field of study and presumably more likely to be satisfied with faculty-student and peer
relations. Indeed, Powers and Rossman (1985) discovered that graduate students’ sense of
satisfaction was related to professor-student interactions. In their survey of 107 students using
the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire, Powers and Rossman found students’ satisfaction with
graduate education also was related to their sense of intellectual stimulation, freedom to
influence school policies and procedures, intellectual stimulation of their peers, and the quality
of the facilities.
While one can argue the survey used by these researchers was based on a face-to-face
model of graduate study, the same instructional paradigm typically was experienced by the
majority of students in the current online graduate programs throughout their learning career.
Also, four of the five student satisfaction parameters may be translated to the online
environment. The current literature in online instruction supports Powers and Rossman’s (1985)
findings with respect to professor-student interactions, intellectual stimulation, and peer
interaction. Issues related to course design and delivery, such as data security and response time
from the professor, also appeared to influence student satisfaction with online courses.
Literature Review: Course structure and design appear to be key elements related to
student satisfaction with online learning. In a survey distributed by instructors in 28 institutions,
Choy, McNickle, and Clayton (2002) found that of 201 responses, the following 10 services
were most expected by students: (a) detailed information about what is required to complete the
module/course; (b) detailed information about the courses; (c) security of personal details on the
institute’s database; (d) clear statements of what they are expected to learn; (e) helpful feedback
from teachers; (f) requirements for assessment; (g) communication with teachers using a variety
of methods, for example, email, online chat, face to face; (h) timely feedback from teachers; (i)
instructions on whom to approach for help; and, (j) information on how to enroll (p. 5). In
follow-up interviews, the researchers found “three key areas that students perceived as being
essential . . . [including,] regular contact with teachers, quick response from teachers and regular
support for learning” (Choy, McNickle, & Clayton, 2002, p. 5). Students in this study noted a
need to improve teacher facilitation and technical systems.
In 1999, Hara and Kling conducted a qualitative study of an online graduate course
enrolling six Master’s students. Consistent with Choy, McNickle, and Clayton (2002) findings,
Hara and Kling found student frustration and dissatisfaction is bred through lack of prompt
feedback, technical difficulties, and ambiguous course instructions.
Samarawickrema (2005) studied whether students were ready for flexible, independent
learning. Using an exploratory design with a questionnaire and focus group interviews, the
researcher explored common problems, similarities, and differences among learners from South
East Asia, local students from Australia, and other international students from Israel, Mauritius,
Norway, Sri Lanka, and the United States. All subjects were in their first semester of their first
year in undergraduate education and were given the option to be independent learners—not
attending class. While learners in this study used only print resources, the findings were
instructive for online teaching. The researcher found that independent learners experienced
problems in managing time and looked to the teacher and the structure provided by the

319
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

classroom to discipline, regulate, and guide them through their work. Samarawickrema’s
findings, though not directly addressing the virtual classroom, were consistent with Choy,
McNickle and Clayton (2002), in that course design needs to encourage a student’s discipline
and consistent approach to work.
The themes of student discipline and time management were reinforced by Vonderwell
and Turner’s (2005) case study at a large Midwestern university. One section of a technology
applications course was offered online using the BlackBoard® online learning tool (Bb).
Twenty-four students were enrolled; 22 of the students successfully completed the course. The
syllabus, tutorials, and course exercises were all designed to encourage the students to be self-
learners and evaluators of the quality and integrity of online content. The students, who were
undergraduate pre-service teachers, were provided learning team activities that encouraged them
to explore areas beyond what the course contained and to develop new ways to use computer
instructions as a classroom tool.
Multiple sources of information were used to collect data: student interviews, e-mail,
group discussion transcripts, journals, and course documents. All participants indicated that the
online learning environment fostered their responsibility and initiative toward learning.
Participants reported that they were more self-disciplined, had learned to manage their time, and
were better able to use resources effectively. The students assigned words to their experience
such as independent learning, free, open, and individualized.
Students reported that not being able to rely on an instructor’s face-to-face classroom
instruction forced them to use multiple resources to learn the content and become their own
investigators in their learning. Perhaps the most important finding was that online instruction
enabled students to reflect on their learning and to learn about themselves. Course design was a
key element of course success in this study. Consistent with the finding of Powers and Rossman
(1985) with respect to graduate study, peer interaction was also a key contributor to student
satisfaction.
In a study comparing two sections of a graduate student course, one face-to-face and one
online, Blocher and Tucker (as cited in Fuller & McBride, 2001) reported that more students
taking the online course found the course to be better than expected than those who found the
course to be what they expected or less than they expected. Students raised concerns with
difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by their peers.
While course design and structure impacted student satisfaction with online courses,
Rosenfeld’s study (2005) comparing online to face-to-face courses suggested that subject matter
influenced student completion rates. Rosenfeld investigated and compared the achievement and
completion rates of students in traditional on-ground classes to that of students in the same
courses taught by the same instructors online. The mediating effect of the subject matter, student
age, race, gender, and previous college or university experience also was examined. A sample of
796 students enrolled in general education courses offered on-ground and in the online format
was studied. Approximately half of the students participated in each group. The researcher
determined student achievement by final course grades and tested the data using an independent
two-sample t-test. Completion rates were calculated using a two-sample z-test. Two-way
ANOVAs were used to observe the impact of subject matter, age, race, gender, and previous
college experience on student achievement and completion rates in both venues. A post-hoc
analysis using the Tukey HSD procedure was conducted on any variables that tested to have a
statistically significant effect on the academic achievement or completion rate.
Rosenfeld (2005) found that there was no difference in student achievement as measured
by final course grades with either delivery form. She did find, however, that there was a
statistically significant difference between completion rates of students enrolled in traditional

320
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

face-to-face courses compared to those in distance learning courses. The traditional face-to-face
courses had higher completion rates compared to those in distance learning courses. The
variable with the greatest mediating effect on academic achievement and completion rates
between delivery methods was subject matter area.
According to Powers and Rossman (1985), professor-student interaction is a significant
determinant of graduate students’ sense of satisfaction. Diekelmann and Mendias (2005) looked
at student-faculty relationships online, as virtual courses may change a teacher’s customary way
of knowing and connecting with students. They also noted that relationships may be even more
complicated when group or team projects are assigned online. Using narrative pedagogy,
teachers shared and interpreted their experiences of supporting and attending to students’
knowing and connecting with each other in online courses. Online teachers used practices that
set limits and rules and reassured group members of fair treatment. Diekelmann and Mendias
reported that some faculty who taught online made a special effort to become a supportive
presence in student-to-student knowing and connecting by emphasizing students’ accountability
to their groups. This was accomplished by posting notes, sending e-mail, and participating in
discussion boards.
Diekelmann and Mendias (1985) further reported that for instructors, being a supportive
presence included attending to and facilitating students’ knowing and connecting with each
other. Supportive online instructors moderated student interactions to ensure a mutually
respectful environment in which students felt they were treated fairly and could ask questions
and test ideas freely. In essence, the teacher needed to foster ways for students to know each
other and connect in ways other than what might happen normally in face-to-face encounters.
Consistent with Powers and Rossman (1985), the professor–student interaction was critical
online as well.
Kraus (1998) studied administrator and faculty responses to distance education through a
case study involving the development of the distance learning initiative for the State University
of New York system (SUNY). Decision makers, proposal authors, and faculty participated in
unstructured interviews. The researcher then searched for emergent patterns that might indicate
similarities or dissimilarities in the responses between administrators, faculty, and institutions in
the SUNY system. Kraus noted that this growing form of postsecondary education may be
forcing a cultural change on higher education. This included changes in how teachers teach and
how students learn, as well as how teachers and students and students and students interact. The
researcher concluded that colleges and universities cannot deny this new, shifting, and expanding
marketplace, although distance education will not be a replacement for traditional delivery.
Whitman et al. (2005) addressed student teamwork online in their quantitative research
conducted at a Midwestern university. Forty-one students out of a class of 50 participated in the
study. Participants in each of the control and treatment groups were similar on several variables
(i.e., experience working in groups, knowledge of manufacturing principles before beginning the
project, and years speaking and writing in English). All students used the Bb course management
system to keep in contact and to meet with their team members. Project performance, selected
group processes, and satisfaction of students randomly assigned to face-to-face and computer-
mediated communication design teams were investigated. Student teams applied their problem
solving skills and critical thinking to a simulated factory situation. Members of the virtual teams
were told to meet with their fellow members only through the Bb system, not face-to-face, via
telephone, or via e-mail unless such interaction went through the Bb system. Student progress
working with teams during the course was monitored through questionnaires at
www.zoomerang.com. The teams were compared by final project grades, observable patterns in

321
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

group processes and member attitudes, and overall reported satisfaction with the team
experience.
The results showed that final project scores were comparable; however, there was
significantly more variability of scores in the computer mediated situation. This may have been
influenced by the fact that the students in the computer groups were new to the use of technology
as an exclusive means of communication and found the experience to be challenging. While the
quality of the groups’ projects was similar, the perceptions of effectiveness, satisfaction, and peer
performance were significantly higher for the face-to-face teams. This being said, it should also
be noted that in addition to both teams being able to complete the project successfully, they
reported an overall positive experience. Many of the computer mediated team members said that
this experience enhanced their communication skills, increased their awareness of technological
challenges facing computer-reliant teams, and provided valuable experience for future job
opportunities (Whitman et al., 2005). As educational institutions become more global, the use of
computer-mediated technology is likely to continue to supplement and may even replace more
traditional projects and teams.
Researchers have found that student satisfaction at the graduate level is related to faculty-
student interaction, peer interaction, and a sense of intellectual stimulation of both the student
and the student’s peers (Powers & Rossman, 1985). These characteristics of student satisfaction
were also found in studies of online courses at both the graduate and undergraduate level
(Diekelmann & Mendias, 2005; Rosenfeld, 2005). Researchers of online courses further pointed
to a number of issues that, if addressed, fostered student satisfaction. These issues included:
timely, helpful communication with the instructor; clear directions regarding course
expectations; student assignments and requirements; and, support for enrollment and data
security (Choy, McNickle & Clayton, 2002; Hara & Kling, 1999; Vonderwell & Turner, 2005).
These areas can be broken down into issues dealing with program content and delivery.
Although researchers have noted ways to assure student satisfaction with e-learning, the data
were not specific to online professional programs at the graduate level.
There continues to be a need to research student satisfaction with online programs both in
present time as well as on a longitudinal basis. In order to investigate student satisfaction with
online professional programs at the graduate level, the following questions were explored:

1. To what degree are students satisfied with the delivery and content of an online
Masters’ program in educational administration and leadership?
a. What factors are related to satisfaction?
b. How do the course evaluations of the third course compare to the course
evaluations of the seventh course offered in the online Master’s program?
2. How does the level of satisfaction for two courses differ between online and face-to-
face delivery?

Methodology

This descriptive study was a secondary analysis of end-of-course evaluations completed

by graduate students in the Educational Administration and Leadership Master’s program at a
large United States university. Seven online courses were evaluated, ranging in participation
from 9 to 41 students. At the same time that end-of-course surveys were conducted online,
corresponding course evaluations were completed by students in two of the courses offered in
face-to-face format in the same program.

322
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

The content questions of both the online and on-ground surveys were isolated in order to
compare the level of student satisfaction with the quality of the program with respect to course
goals, objectives, and faculty-student interaction. Similarly, questions related to course delivery
were evaluated.
Student satisfaction with the online courses was evaluated. Comparisons were made with
the level of satisfaction of the online students in their third and seventh course with respect to
content and delivery elements. Similarly data from the on-ground surveys were compared with
data from the same courses offered to the online group at both the third and seventh program
course to discern differences in satisfaction for both groups in comparison to each other.
Design and Procedure: Data for this study was gathered through end-of-course
evaluations. Each evaluation form provided a Likert scale for rating statements related to the
content and delivery of the course. This study relied on extant data. While utilizing the same
instructor pool in both the online and face-to-face delivery, the online courses were managed by
a third-party provider who handled student recruitment, registration, and formatting of the
courses for the online medium. In order to reduce data burden, the researchers relied on existing
end-of-course evaluations. One survey was developed by the third-party distance learning
provider and one was developed by the university. No attempt was made to align the evaluation
forms for the study, which would have disrupted longitudinal data collection in either medium.
The online evaluations also included a number of questions related to student services and
technical support. In addition to the Likert-scaled items, each survey provided the respondent an
opportunity to make additional comments. Using two different surveys is a limitation of this
study. Future researchers should design studies that utilize the same survey for all courses,
except for the items that are unique to the respective delivery modes.
There was no attempt to match instructors or students in the study design. While the same
course was compared across mediums, each course was taught by a different instructor. While
the online courses were sequenced third and seventh, because students can enroll in the program
at any eight-week interval, only those students enrolled in the third course were actually enrolled
in both online courses. Each of the corresponding face-to-face courses had mutually exclusive
student enrollments.
Participants: The sample for this study included all students who were enrolled in the
first seven courses of the online Master’s in Educational Administration program. There are 11
required courses in the program overall. For comparison, two corresponding classes of on-
ground delivery were also reviewed. The numbers in each class are noted in Table 1.

323
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Table 1: Number of Students Enrolled in Each Class

Online course number Number of students

248 9

278 20

246 26

276 20

205 23

295 41

On-ground course number Number of students

246 15

276 13

Data Analysis: All data collected were ordinal, which only allowed the responder to
indicate one pre-defined category on a scale. Likert scales were converted to a five-point scale
for analysis. Not all scales were the same on the university survey; two response items were
converted to five-point scales. Survey items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Mean
responses of each item were calculated for the online survey and for items related to content and
delivery. Means were calculated for two corresponding on-ground courses. The means of the on-
ground and online courses were compared as well as the means of two online courses, the third
course, and the seventh course, to gauge changes in perception as the program developed.
Survey items were categorized with respect to content items and delivery items for each
survey. In order to compare the content items from the online and face-to-face survey, the items
were matched as noted in Table 2. Table 3 depicts the matched items from the face-to-face to the
online survey for the delivery questions.

324
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Table 2: Comparison of Online to On-ground Questions, Content

Online On-ground

Q5: The goals of this course were clearly Q1: The objectives of this course have been
stated at the beginning of the course. made clear.
Q32. My expectations for this course were Q2: In my opinion, the objectives of this
met. course have been accomplished.
Q26. The grading criteria were clearly Q6: The instructor informed students how
communicated at the beginning of the course. they would be evaluated in the course.
Q25. The workload demands for this course Q8: The workload for the course in relation to
were realistic for an online course. other courses of equal weight was (much
lighter to much heavier).
Q9: The textbook supported the intended Q10: Overall, I would rate the text, reading,
learning outcomes for the course. and other materials (excellent to poor)
Q10. Other reading materials assigned were
relevant to the course objective.
Q11: The content of the videos was relevant
to the learning outcomes of the course.
Q32. My expectations for this course were Q11: I would rate the overall value of the
met. course as (excellent to poor)
Q21. The instructor was supportive and Q12: Compared to the other instructors you
responsive to my questions. have taken courses with at GWU or
elsewhere, how effective has the instructor
been in this course

Table 3: Comparison of Online to On-ground Questions, Delivery

Online On-ground

Q22. I was satisfied with the response time I Q3: The instructor was readily available for
received from my instructor. consultation with students.
Q7: The learning activities were relevant to Q5: The instructor used class time well.
the goals of the course.
Q14. I found it easy to participate in Q7: The instructor made learning an active
discussion questions. process by stimulating thought, encouraging
participation, and guiding discussion.
Q27. I found it easy to communicate online Q9: Taking into account the instructor’s
with other students. methods, the class size was (too large to too
small)
Q21. The instructor was supportive and Q12: Compared to the other instructors you
responsive to my questions. have taken courses with at GWU or
elsewhere, how effective has the instructor
been in this course (top 10% to below
average)

325
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Results

Satisfaction with online courses: Overall, the online courses received strong ratings. No
item’s mean was below 3.59, with the highest mean at 4.54 on a five-point scale. In addition,
those items with the lowest means had the highest variability in response (standard deviations).
The overall mean for the content items was 4.19, with the weakest areas related to
instructional videos used in courses and workload demands. In contrast, the areas scored the
highest by students online were related to the clarity of goals and objectives of the course and the
relevancy of the course material for the respondents’ career pursuits. The data indicated a greater
degree of satisfaction with the delivery of the online courses. The overall mean for items related
to delivery was 4.33. Table 4 depicts the mean of the means of all content and all delivery
questions. When compared with the means for content, this difference was found to be
significant at the .05 level (p =.000). The area reported to be the weakest was response time from
the professor, while respondents reported the strongest area related to online course delivery as
the technical support received by the third-party provider.

Table 4: Mean of the Means Content and Delivery Items Online

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Means Content 21 3.59 4.52 4.19 .28

Means Delivery 11 3.91 4.54 4.33 0.19

In an effort to determine how the course evaluations changed over time, two online
courses were compared, course numbers 246 and 276. These courses were offered third and
seventh in the program, respectively. The premise for this analysis was that course evaluations
should be higher for courses taught later in the program, based on the experience of the earlier
courses taught. Indeed, the vast majority of content item means increased from the third course
to the seventh course. The only items that did not show a statistically significant difference were
related to reading materials, video content, and course content related to career and professional
goals.
Items related to delivery also were compared across the two courses. Every delivery item
increased in value from the third to the seventh course, except for the last item related to
resolving problems with technical support, which scored the same across the two courses. It
should be noted that this element is provided by the third-party provider and would be expected
to be the same across the courses. Of the 11 paired delivery items, 6 differences were statistically
significant at the .05 level from the third to the seventh course. These items were related to
location and access to course content, instruction on how to use media technology, relevancy of
learning activities, participation in discussion, and communication with other students. Based on
the data, the level of satisfaction with online courses does improve over time.
Comparison of online to on-ground courses: Finally, the level of satisfaction between
the online and the on-ground courses was evaluated. The mean content and delivery scores for
the on-ground course were 4.68 and 4.88, respectively. This is compared to 4.19 and 4.33 for
online course. The difference between the means of the online course content and delivery and
the on-ground course content and delivery was found to be statistically significant at the .05 level
(p = .037).

326
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Table 5 Overall Comparison between Online and On-ground Course Satisfaction

Content Delivery
Online 4.19 4.33
On-ground 4.68 4.88

Of the nine comparison variables for content items evaluated across the two mediums in
course 246, the difference between the means of four items were found to be statistically
significant (see Table 6). The significant differences related to the students’ sense that the course
objectives were met, clear grading criteria were provided, workload was reasonable, and
instructor effectiveness was noted. These four areas also were noted in the difference between
the third course (246) and the seventh course (276) online.
Of the five comparison variables for delivery items evaluated across the two mediums in
course 246, four differences of the means were found to be statistically significant. Areas of
significance included instructor availability and response time, class size, participating in
discussion, and instructor effectiveness. See Table 7 for the comparison data.

Table 6 Comparison of course 246 Online to On-ground, Content Items

Variables Means SD Significance 2-tailed

Objectives clear 4.80 .414 .271
Goals clear 4.60 .507
Objectives met 4.80 .414 .010
Expectations met 3.93 1.099
Told how evaluated 4.93 .258 .010
Grading criteria communicated 4.00 1.195
Workload same 4.46 .915 .002
Workload realistic 2.66 1.345
Materials 4.00 .926 .849
Textbook 4.06 .883
Materials 4.00 .926 .271
Other reading 4.40 .828
Materials 4.00 .961 .292
Other video 4.35 .633
Overall value 4.58 .515 .189
Expectations met 4.00 1.206
Instructor effective 4.83 .389 .001
Supportive/responsive instructor 3.08 1.311

327
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Table 7 Comparison of course 246 Online to On-ground Delivery, Delivery Items

Variables Means Standard Deviation Significance 2-tailed

Instructor available 4.85 .376 .000
Instructor response time 2.84 1.344
Instructor use of class time 4.87 .352 .070
Learning activities relevant 4.26 1.099
Guiding discussion 5.00 .000 .000
Discussion participation 3.50 1.160
Class size 5.00 .000 .000
Student Communication 4.26 .457
Instructor effective 4.83 .389 .001
Supportive/responsive instructor 3.08 1.311

As previously noted, overall the on-ground courses scored higher on the end-of-course
evaluations than the online courses; however, the seventh online course evaluations (276) were
rated higher by the students than those for the third online course (246). Interestingly, while four
of the content items in the 276 on-ground course were rated more highly than the content items
of the online course, none of those differences were significant at the .05 level. Likewise, none of
the mean differences of the delivery items in the on-ground and online courses were statistically
significant.
Given the quality differences in the 246 and 276 online courses, differences among the
online and face-to-face course evaluations may be due to the comparatively low course
evaluations of the 246 online course.
Data from the first seven online courses and two comparison on-ground courses revealed
that overall students were more satisfied with the delivery of on-ground courses than the online
courses. Within the online courses, students were more satisfied with the delivery aspects of
those courses than the content aspects of the course. It should be noted, however, that one online
course received a very low evaluation, which may be skewing the online data. Areas of
particular content weakness noted on the evaluations of the online courses included: instructional
videos used in courses, workload demands, and response time of the professor. Areas of strength
included clarity of goals and objectives, relevancy of material, and technical support from the
third-party provider. Data suggested that student satisfaction with the online courses increased
from the third to the seventh course. Interestingly, comparisons between the seventh online
course and its face-to-face counterpart revealed no statistically significant differences in the
mean item responses in either the content or delivery areas.

Discussion

Higher education programs are increasingly moving into the online market place in
response to the changing demographics of the post-secondary learner and new expectations for
on-demand learning. Given the growth in the online education market, geographic barriers to
instruction are almost nonexistent. Web-based instructional programs create competition for
students that were heretofore geographically bound to a local college or university. While the
quality of a program is certainly the first measuring stick for program evaluation in today’s
market, higher education institutions also must consider student satisfaction. Much of the
research on student satisfaction with respect to higher education is related to undergraduate

328
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

education. One study related to student satisfaction with graduate education noted that student
satisfaction is related to faculty-student interaction, peer interaction, and a sense of intellectual
stimulation of both the student and the student’s peers (Powers & Rossman, 1985). Data from
studies of online courses also suggested peer interaction, faculty-student interaction, and subject
matter are important contributors to student satisfaction (Diekelmann & Mendias, 2005;
Rosenfeld, 2005). Findings from this study suggested that faculty-student interaction and peer
interaction are two important elements to online learning at the graduate level as well.
Studies of online programs further pointed to a number of issues that, if addressed,
fostered student satisfaction. These issues included timely, helpful communication with the
instructor; clear directions regarding course expectations, student assignments and requirements;
and support for enrollment and data security (Choy, McNickle, & Clayton, 2002; Hara & Kling,
1999; Vonderwell & Turner, 2005).
The program under study received weaker evaluations with respect to timely, helpful
communication with the instructor. This may be due to the larger online class sizes; however, the
online courses under study all had facilitators with the ratio of 1 facilitator for every 15 students.
The nature of the online discourse created by the instructor or the relative infancy of the online
program also may be a factor in the weaker communication ratings. Faculty who try to recreate
face-to-face interaction, primarily mediated through the instructor in the online environment,
may be facing a maelstrom of postings they find difficult to manage. Alternatively, students new
to this environment also may need to be acculturated to the notion of peer-to-peer and self-
initiated learning moderated by the instructor, but not directed by the instructor. According to
Vonderwell and Turner’s (2005) case study, students may ultimately find online courses offer a
more rewarding educational experience.
The study program received relatively stronger feedback with respect to technical
support. In this case, the online technical support is primarily provided by a third-party, for-profit
company. While the university has the capability to provide such support in-house, the quality
control in an organization solely focused on online instruction should not be underestimated. One
of the most highly rated evaluation items on the online course evaluation included the comment,
“Technical support was available whenever I needed it.”
Data from prior studies suggested that clarity of student expectations, assignments, and
requirements is important to undergraduate online learners (Choy, McNickle, & Clayton, 2002;
Hara & Kling, 1999; Vonderwell & Turner, 2005). This appeared to be an important element of
online coursework at the graduate level as well. Students evaluated the courses weaker in the
areas of clarity of assignments, grading criteria, and professor interaction. This suggests students
wanted more and timely feedback on their assignments. This critique is an area to which faculty
might want to be especially sensitive.
One area heretofore not explored in the online graduate literature is the workload level.
Responses to the online evaluations and comparisons to on-ground courses indicated that
students felt a much heavier workload in the online medium than face-to-face. This may be due
to the nature of online study. Typically, in an on-ground classroom, every student is not
responsible for answering all questions. In an online program, when each student is required to
pose a response, students cannot “hide” in the crowd. The area of perceived workload merits
further study.
The comparison of the online to on-ground 276 courses suggests that students can be
equally satisfied with both course delivery models in a graduate educational administration
program. The differences in student evaluations between the online and on-ground versions of
the course were not statistically significant. While intra-program comparisons were attempted, it
is hard to draw conclusions based on the two courses studied as there was significant

329
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

improvement in course evaluations from the third to the seventh course. More comparison
studies are needed in the area of delivery models. Future studies should compare student
satisfaction with other online and on-ground courses taught in the Master’s program.
Implications: Powers and Rossman (1985) found student satisfaction with graduate
education related to professor-student interactions, intellectual stimulation, and peer interaction.
As a result, programs should ensure that online class sizes remain small so that student
satisfaction can be accomplished. Prior studies also revealed the importance of course design and
delivery (Choy, McNickle & Clayton, 2002; Vonderwell & Turner, 2005). These were made
more compelling by this study, given student feedback on clarity of assignments, timeliness of
feedback, and interaction with faculty. Another manifestation of student concern about design
and delivery may be related to whether or not the student is ready to be an autonomous learner.
Watkins, Leigh, and Triner (2004) found that the e-learner is not always ready for online course
work. Initially, the online learner may need more direct instructor attention than the on-ground
learner.
These implications certainly impact staffing, whether it is at the faculty or teaching
assistant level. In addition, if students need much closer supervision or more frequent
interaction, faculty course load will need to be evaluated. Staffing and course load impact
budgeting for colleges and universities. Program faculty have voiced their fears that the
university will not consider the faculty need to interact with online students and monitor their
progress more frequently as pertinent concerns in determining faculty load. In addition, the
findings from this study suggest that e-learning at the graduate level may allow institutions to
draw on a larger student pool. Yet, program administrators and faculty may not be able to
achieve economies of scale (i.e., larger class size) and maintain comparable student satisfaction
and engagement levels.
Finally, there may need to be instructional units developed to assist learners in preparing
for e-learning, aside from students having the appropriate hardware and software for learning
success. The best designed course possible will be to no avail if students do not have the skills to
manipulate the hardware and software programs and electronic libraries or the ability to take
responsibility for their own learning.
Further Study: Online programs are here to stay. Their reach creates new competition in
a market place that once was defined by geographic boundary. The key for educational
administration faculty is to learn what elements are most important to successful on-line
instruction and to learn how to address those elements in programming. The results of this study
suggested that clarity and instructor availability will be keys for the future of this type of
instruction: this may have implications for staffing, course load, student accountability, and
grading. Longitudinal study is warranted to ensure that online programs meet student needs and
maintain quality over time. In addition, researchers need to vary designs and methodologies in
the study of online programs to not only compare online and on-ground instruction and learning,
but also assess the importance of the findings. The growth of e-learning makes more in-depth
study imperative. More focus on summative, rather than formative data, should be the focus of
this research.

330
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

References

Allen, I. A., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Retrieved on July 31, 2005, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey.asp

Bataineh, E. (2001, March). A summary look at internet based distance education. In F. Fuller
and R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, (pp. 17-22). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822)

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001, March). Using constructivist principles in designing and
integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller and R. McBride (Eds.), Distance
education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, (pp. 32-36). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
457 822)

Broad Foundation (2005). The Broad Foundation: Management. Retrieved July 23, 2005, from
http://www.broadfoundation.org/investments/management.shtml

Carlson, S. (2005, October 7). The net generation goes to college [Electronic version]. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), 34.

Choy S., McNickle, C., & Clayton, C. (2002). Learner expectations and experiences: An
examination of student views of support in online learning. Leabrook, SA: Australian
National Training Authority.

Diekelmann, N., & Mendias, E. P. (2005, September). Being a supportive presence in online
courses: Attending to students’ online presence with each other [Electronic version].
Journal of Nursing Education, 44(9), 393-396.

e-Learners.com (2005). Online educational administration degrees. Retrieved July 31, 2005,
from http://www.elearners.com/online-degrees/educational-administration.htm

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999, December). Students' frustrations with a web-based distance
education course. First Monday. Retrieved July 31, 2005 from
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html

Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2005). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation
programs. Retrieved July 23, 2005, from http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050517Learning
to Lead.pdf

Kraus, K. M. (1998). Administrator and faculty responses to distance education: The

EASTNET initiative. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07), 2273.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools
Project.

331
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Roach and Lemasters

Nicholson, J., & Sarker, S. (2002, December). Unearthing hidden assumptions regarding online
education: The use of myths and metaphors. Proceedings of the International Academy
for Information Management Annual Conference: International Conference on
Informatics Education Research, Spain, 298-306.

Powers, S., & Rossman, M. (1985). Student satisfaction with graduate education: Dimensionality
and assessment in a college education. Psychology, 22, 46-49.

Quitadamo, I. J., & Brown, A. (2001). Effective teaching styles and instructional design for
online learning environments. Washington, DC: Department of Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED462 942)

Rosenfeld, G. (2005). A comparison of the outcomes of distance learning students versus

traditional classroom students in the community college. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 66(05), 1607.

Samarawickrema, R. G. (2005, May). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning:

Some preliminary findings [Electronic version]. Distance Education, 26(1), 49-67.

Sanders, D. W. (2002). Policy implications of intellectual property at public institutions of higher

education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(2), 456.

Saunders, E. S. (2001, November). Interactive online learning for teachers [Electronic version].
NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 51-57.

Sheard, J., & Markham, S. (2005, August). Web-based learning environments: Developing a
framework for evaluation [Electronic version]. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30(4), 353-368.

Tyre, P. (2005, November 28). Professor in your pocket: Now course casting lets college
students skip classes and download lectures onto their iPods [Electronic version].
Newsweek, 146(22), 26.

Vonderwell, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active learning and preservice teachers’ experiences in an
online course: A case study [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(1), 65-85.

Watkins, R., Leigh, D., & Triner, D. (2004). Assessing Readiness for E-Learning [Electronic
version]. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(4), 66-79.

Whitman, L. E., Malzahn, D. E., Chaparro, B. S., Russell, M., Langrall, R., Mohler, B. A. (2005,
July). A comparison of group processes, performance, and satisfaction in face-to-face
versus computer-mediated engineering student design teams [Electronic version].
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 327-334.

332