Articles of Interest on Student-faculty contact in Online Learning
Connolly, S. & Diepenbrock, A. (2011). Perspectives of online graduate preparation programs for student affairs professionals. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(2) 79-90.
- This exploratory research study utilized qualitative and quantitative research methods to determine how midlevel student affairs professionals perceive online education for preparation in the field. The participants noted that they do not perceive online education as equivalent to master’s degree preparation programs for student affairs professionals that take place in traditional face-to-face classrooms. Professionals place a high value on experience and personal contact with faculty, peers, and administrators throughout the educational experience and the participants do not perceive this as available through online education.
Cotten, S. R. & Wilson, B. (2006). Student-faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants.Higher Education, 51(4), 487-519
- This paper documents the results of a qualitative study of student-faculty interactions. The work explores the frequency and nature of interactions, sheds light on the determinants of interactions, and reveals the dynamic processes that underlie contact between faculty and students. Focus group results indicate that students have minimal contact with faculty outside the classroom, and do not appear to be aware of the importance of interacting with faculty. Results also illustrate key factors that deter and facilitate student-faculty interactions. The findings and their implications should be beneficial to faculty, student life professionals, and administrators alike.
Cox, B., McIntosh, K., Terenzini, P., Reason, R., & Lutovsky Quaye, B. (2010). Pedagogical signals of faculty approachability: factors shaping faculty-student interaction outside the classroom. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 767-788.
- Decades of research demonstrate that college students benefit from positive interaction with faculty members, although that same evidence suggests that those interactions are far from common, particularly outside the classroom. Moreover, relatively little is known about which, when, how, and why faculty members choose to engage with students outside of the classroom. Guided by the theory that faculty members use in-class behaviors to signal their ‘psychosocial approachability’ for out-of-class interaction with students [Wilson et al. (1974) “College professors and their impact on students”, Sociology of Education, 47(1), 74-92] this study uses data from 2,845 faculty members on 45 campuses to identify the personal, institutional, and pedagogical factors that influence the frequency and type of interaction faculty members have with students outside of the classroom.
Cox, B. & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a residential college. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343-362.
- Faculty-student interaction is an important component of the undergraduate experience. Our year-long qualitative study explored the complex nature of faculty-student interaction outside the classroom. Our resulting typology identifies five types of interaction: disengagement, incidental contact, functional interaction, personal interaction, and mentoring. This typology provides researchers with a new lens through which they can examine faculty-student interaction and suggests that even non-academic interactions between students and professors can be meaningful to students. Finally, the typology will allow faculty, staff, and administrators to improve current practices and develop initiatives that build bridges between faculty and students outside the classroom.
Guidera, S. G. (2003). Perceptions of the effectiveness of online instruction in terms of the seven principles of effective undergraduate education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 32(2/3), 139-178.
- This study investigated the perceived effectiveness of online instructional delivery among full-faculty experienced teaching online as well as in traditional classroom environments and variables of instructional experience, rank, academic field, online instructional experience, and course level as they related to Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles of Effective Undergraduate Education. These principles assert that good instructional practice encourages student-faculty contact, encourages cooperation among students, encourages active learning, gives prompt feedback, emphasizes time on task, communicates high expectations, and respects diverse talents and ways of learning. Respondents rated online instruction as slightly more effective overall and also more effective for promoting prompt feedback, time on task, respect for diverse learning styles, and communicating high expectations, but was rated less effective for promoting student-faculty contact and cooperation among students. Perceived effectiveness was higher for experienced faculty and increased with the number of online courses taught and with course level of the online class. Academic field had a more limited influence.
Li, L. & Pitts, J.P. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 175-185
- In this study, we explored the utility of using IM for virtual office hours as a supplement to traditional office hours and found that even with the availability of convenient and easy-to-use communication technology, students were not inclined to initiate interaction with their professors. Our study suggested several directions for future research. First, there is a need to better understand the difference in communication needs of traditional vs. nontraditional students Second, the utilization of synchronous communications technologies such as IM and Twitter are predicted to grow as universities and colleges continue to expand their distance courses offerings. As professors increasingly utilize Web 2.0 technologies in their courses, it will be important to understand the appropriate uses of various technologies and how to integrate them effectively into the classroom environment. Finally, in this study, students preferred email as their primary source of communication with their instructor. It would be important in future studies to better understand the factors that contribute to students’ utilization of different communication technologies to ensure the appropriate technologies are leveraged effectively in the course.
Reis-Bergan, M., Baker, S. C., Apple, K. J., & Zinn, T. E. (2011). Faculty-student communication: beyond face to face (Chapter 5), in D. S. Dunn, J. H. Wilson, J. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Best practices for technology-enhanced teaching and learning: Connecting to psychology and the social sciences (pp. 73-85). New York, Oxford University Press.
- A worry for many teachers who are accustomed to the traditional give-and-take of the classroom is the loss of face-to-face contact and communication, especially, though not exclusively, through online courses. The authors of this chapter suggest that interaction with students is not lost when electronic venues are involved; indeed, they offer compelling evidence that connections and intellectual exchanges actually can be enhanced. The authors profile common technological tools for faculty-student communication (as well as student-to student exchanges), including Facebook, instant messaging (or “IM-ing” in the parlance), and the new virtual world software known as Second Life. As readers will see, given that technology is second nature to the current generation of students, many avenues offered by technology may well increase the frequency and even quality of interactions between students and their teachers.
Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010) Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3): 57-77.
- Some faculty members are reluctant to offer online courses because of significant concerns relative to the impact of such formats on the quality of instruction, learning, and participant interaction. Faculty members from The University of Southern Mississippi implemented synchronous interactive online instruction (SIOI) in the spring of 2007. This article explores the rationale for use of the particular technology, faculty conclusions regarding implementation of the technology, and the impact of the technology on instruction and learning. Comparisons by students of the quality of the learning experience in this environment with the quality of learning in face-to-face and asynchronous online learning environments were also analyzed. The study finds that instructors and students view SIOI favourably. The mean student ratings for the dimensions of instructional quality were the same for SIOI and face-to-face course formats in all but one dimension, but mean ratings for SIOI and face-to-face formats were consistently higher than those for asynchronous online instruction. The single exception was for the dimension, ease of access to the course; the SIOI and asynchronous online formats were rated higher than the face-to-face format in this quality dimension. These findings suggest that it is possible to achieve levels of effectiveness in an online instructional format similar to those that are realized in face-to-face delivery. However, there is slight, though not statistically significant, evidence of concern about the quality of student collaboration in SIOI enabled courses. Thus, instructors will need to capitalize on available mechanisms for interaction and collaboration.
Keywords: Internet in education; discussion in education; web-based instruction; online courses; instructional effectiveness in higher education
