A profile of MPA students’ perceptions of online learning: What MPA students value in online education and what they think would improve online learning experiences
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2021
A profile of MPA students’ perceptions of online learning: What MPA students value in online education and what they think would improve online learning experiences
What do MPA students value in online education and what do they think would improve online learning experiences in an MPA program? Ironically, few studies have tried to derive more than a couple of factors in a single study. Integrating the key concepts from across the literature, the perceptions about an array of quality factors were identified and studied both quantitatively and qualitatively with a survey of 160 MPA students. The results distinguish and rank seven factors affecting students’ perceptions of quality online education in a theoretically coherent framework. Those factors are: basic online modality, teaching presence, instructional support, interactive online modality, social presence, cognitive presence, and trust in the online teaching system. The overall impressions of online learning examined include the degree of online acceptance, the likelihood of taking online classes, and the effects of instructional skill.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-GahtaniS. S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Information, 12(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001
2.
ArbaughJ. B.Cleveland-InnesM.DiazS. R.GarrisonD. R.IceP.RichardsonJ. C., & SwanK. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
3.
ArtinoA. R. (2010). Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal factors that predict students‘ choice of instructional format. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.005
4.
AsoodarM.VaeziS., & IzanlooB. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.060
BainbridgeJ.MelitskiJ.ZahradnikA.LauriaE.JayaprakashS., & BaronJ. (2015). Using learning analytics to predict at-risk students in online graduate public affairs and administration education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2015.12001831
7.
BernardR. M.AbramiP. C.LouY.BorokhovskiE.WadeA.WozneyL.WalletP. A.FisetM., & HuangB. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379
8.
BillingsD. M.SkibaD., & ConnorsH. (2005). Best practices in web-based courses: Generational differences across undergraduate and graduate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2005.01.002
BrowerR., & KlayW. E. (2000). Distance learning: Some fundamental questions for public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 6(4), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2000.12023480
11.
ButzN.StupniskyR. H.PekrunR.JensonJ., & MarsellD. (2016). The impact of emotions on student achievement in synchronous hybrid business and public administration programs: A longitudinal test of control-value theory. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovation Education, 14(4), 441–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12110
12.
CampbellH. E. (2006). Cheating, public administration education, and online courses: An essay and call to arms. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2006.12001411
13.
ClaytonK. E.BlumbergF. C., & AnthonyJ. A. (2018). Linkages between course status, perceived course value, and students’ preferences for traditional versus non-traditional learning environments. Computers & Education, 125, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.002
14.
EomS. B.WenH. J., & AshillN. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
15.
GarrisonD. R.AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson (eds.)., Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 113–127). Routledge.
16.
GarrisonD. R., & Cleveland-InnesM. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
17.
GibsonP. A., & DunningP. (2012). Creating quality online course design through a peer-reviewed assessment. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(1), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2012.12001678
18.
GigliottiR. A. (2016). Institutional identification and sense of community: Analysis of a new online graduate public administration program. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002255
19.
GinnM. H., & HammondA. (2012). Online education in public affairs: Current state and emerging issues. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 242–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2012.12001683
20.
GreenH. J.HoodM., & NeumannD. L. (2015). Predictors of student satisfaction with university psychology courses: A review. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725715590959
21.
HarrisR. A., & NikitenkoG. (2014). Comparing online with brick and mortar course learning outcomes: An analysis of quantitative methods curriculum in public administration. Teaching Public Administration, 32(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739414523284
22.
HoA.LuL., & ThurmaierK. (2006). Testing the reluctant professor’s hypothesis: Evaluating a blended-learning approach to distance education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2006.12001414
23.
HolzweissP.JoynerS. A.FullerM.HendersonS., & YoungR. (2014). Online graduate students’ perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955262
HsuW.-Y. (2003). Online education on campus: A technological frames perspective on the process of technology appropriation. Diss. London School of Economics and Political Science (United Kingdom). Retrieved October 7, 2020 from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/2657
26.
Inside Higher Ed. (2019). The 2019 survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A study by Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Author.
JaggarsS. S., & XuD. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?Computers & Education, 95(April), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014
29.
JooY. J.LimK. Y., & KimE. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictor in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008
30.
JungI. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: From the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9171-4
31.
KehrwaldB. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments. Distance Education, 29(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004860
32.
KilonzoS. M.SandfortJ., & LiuH. (2016). Using multimedia learning objects in public affairs classrooms: Global experiences with Hubert project e-cases and e-studies. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002252
33.
KimT.WelchS., & NamS. (2016). Examining graduate students’ perceptions of preferences for online courses. International Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 179–194. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/129807/
34.
KuoY.-C.WalkerA. E.SchroderK. E., & BellandB. R. (2013). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet and Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
35.
LeeH.-J., & RhaI. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in Web-based distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 372–382. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.4.372
36.
Liaw-S.-S., & HuangH.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors of self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015
37.
MaconD. K. (2011). Student satisfaction with online courses versus traditional courses: A meta-analysis. Northcentral University.
38.
MarksR. B.SibleyS. D., & ArbaughJ. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904271199
39.
MartinF.WangC., & SadafA. (2018). Student perception of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003
40.
MaycockK. W. (2018). Chalk and talk versus flipped learning: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12317
41.
McGowanW. R., & GrahamC. R. (2009). Factors contributing to improved teaching performance. Innovative Higher Education, 34(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-009-9103-6
MohammadiH. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
45.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019) . Fast facts: Distant learning. In the digest of education statistics. U.S. Department of Education.
46.
NguyenT. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
47.
NiA. N. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2013.12001730
48.
NiA. N., & Van WartM. (2019). Exploring ways to enhance public administration online quality and NASPAA’s potential roles. 2019 NASPAA Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
49.
OtterR. R.SeipelS.GraefT.AlexanderB.BoraikoC.GrayJ.PerersenK., & SadlerK. (2013). Comparing student and faculty perceptions of online and traditional courses. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001
50.
PaechterM.MaierB., & MacherD. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
51.
PalmerS., & HoltD. (2010). Students' perceptions of the value of the elements of an online learning environment: Looking back in moving forward. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09539960802364592
52.
RahmD.ReedB. J., & RydlT. (1999). Internet-mediated learning in public affairs programs: Issues and implications. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 5(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.1999.12022072
53.
RichardsonJ. C.MaedaY.LvJ., & CaskurluS. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
SeamanJ. E.AllenE., & SeamanJ. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Survey. Rearch Group.
56.
SheaJ.JoaguinM. E., & WangJ. Q. (2016). Pedagogical design factors that enhance learning in hybrid courses: A contribution to design-based instructional theory. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(3), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2016.12002254
57.
SitzmannT.KraigerK.StewartD., & WisherR. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web‐based and classroom instruction: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
58.
SoH. J., & BrushT. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
59.
songL.SingletonE. S.HillJ. R., & KohM. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging charateristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
WilkinsonJ. (2009). Staff and student perceptions of plagiarism and cheating. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 98–105. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864328
64.
ZhaoY.LeiJ.YanB.LaiC., & TanH. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x
65.
ZhuC. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136. Retrieved October 7, 2020 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ979456
