Evidence Summary


 


Students Value Asynchronous Instruction, Individual Projects and
Frequent Communication with the Instructor in an Online Library Science
Classroom


 


A Review of:


Hajibayova, L. (2017).
Students’ viewpoint: What constitutes presence in an online classroom? Cataloging
& Classification Quarterly, 55(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2016.1241972


  


Reviewed by:


Heather MacDonald


Health and Biosciences Librarian


MacOdrum Library


Carleton University


Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Email: heather.macdonald@carleton.ca


 


Received: 21 Aug. 2020                                                             Accepted:  30 Oct. 2020


 


 


 2020 MacDonald.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.




 


 


DOI: 10.18438/eblip29826


 





 


Abstract 


 


Objective – Determine student
perceptions of online learning.


 


Design – Survey questionnaire.


 


Setting – An online class in the
School of Library and Information Science at a Midwestern US public university.


 


Subjects – 45 graduate students in an
abstracting and indexing class.


 


Methods – Class participants filled
in an online questionnaire at the end of the semester. The
survey covered topics related to collaboration, communication, modes of
instruction, and assessment. The researcher calculated frequency counts for
questions and did a correlation analysis.


 


Main Results – For collaboration the author found that 62% of students expressed no or
limited interest in participation in collaborative projects. Factors for
successful completion of group projects included member commitment, instructor
involvement, technology tools (discussion boards, wikis, blogs), group size
(3–5 people preferred), and the nature and design of the project.  


 


Preference for communication frequency via email
ranged from daily to never with the highest percentage (28.57%) preferring once
a week. Communication frequency through the learning management system (LMS)
was similar. The largest percentage of students preferred communication 2–3
times per week for virtual (38.89%) and face-to-face (41.67%) office hours. The
correlation between communication via LMS and virtual office hours was r
= 0.89, p < 0.05. Of students completing the questionnaire, 47.22%
found the instructor’s presence effective. While most students disagreed with
using social media in an online course, many friended or followed the
instructor or the class social media page.


 


Students preferred asynchronous over synchronous
lectures and activities. Preference for frequency was once a week. There was a
correlation between synchronous lectures and synchronous activities (r =
0.77, p < 0.05).


 


Student preferences for the frequency of overview and
discussion of class materials were roughly equal in distribution (daily, 4–6
times/week, 2–3 times/week, weekly, or never). There was a correlation between
synchronous overview and asynchronous overview of class materials (r =
0.93, p < 0.05). In terms of assessment, students found group
discussion, individual projects, research papers, quizzes, and tests the most
effective class assignments. Several correlation analyses were done between
assignment types.


 


Conclusion – This study found students
had limited interest in collaborative projects. It was also found that regular
communication with the teacher was important. Students preferred asynchronous
instruction and activities. They also preferred individual assignments for
evaluation. 


 


Commentary 


 


This study is assessed using the CAT: A Generic
Critical Appraisal Tool (Perry & Rathbun-Grubb, 2014). The author lists
four research questions (two are combined under one bullet point). The author
also provides background on factors influencing the quality of online teaching
and learning and then introduces the community of inquiry (CoI)
framework with three core overlapping presences (social, cognitive, and
teaching). The author references the validated CoI
instrument (Arbaugh, 2008) that measures each of the
presences and their interrelationships.  


 


Although this study is based on CoI,
it did not use the CoI survey instrument. The
instrument is not referenced in the Methods section, and no questionnaire is
provided in an appendix. The author asked students about instructor presence,
but the reader does not know how it was defined in the questionnaire. The study
includes student quotes in the discussion, but it does not indicate what
questions the author asked or if the author sought ethics approval or if
approval was required. The author presents a large amount of quantitative data
in six tables in the results related to communication, social media, modes of
instruction, and assignment frequency, delivery, and assessment. The author
also includes several correlation analyses but does not reference the
correlations in the discussion. This begs the question why they were done,
especially as there is no hypothesis related to these correlations. The author
finds a correlation between synchronous lectures and activities but indicates
that most students prefer asynchronous modes and yet does not provide a
correlation analysis for this conclusion. 



 


The discussion addresses each of the research
questions asked and ties in the results to the literature. The author
acknowledges the limitation of this study: a sample size of 45 graduate
students. The author connects the results to the CoI
framework with respect to social presence (communication frequency and tools)
and teaching presence (modes of instruction) in the discussion.


 


This is a timely topic with many institutions
providing online instruction for the 2020–21 school year. Despite its flaws,
this exploratory study provides a generous amount of data about graduate
student preferences for communication in an online environment as well as preferences
for learning modes, activities, and assessment. It points to flexibility and
engagement being critical for online learning, which is a valuable insight for
instructors designing and delivering online courses.  


 


References        


 


Arbaugh, J.,
Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S., Garrison, D., Ice, P., Richardson, J., &
Swan, K. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a
measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional
sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003 


 


Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The community of inquiry
theoretical framework. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook
of distance education (pp. 104–119). Philadelphia, PA: Routledge.


 


Kozan, K., &
Richardson, J.C. (2014). Interrelationships
between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education, 21,
68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.007


 


Perryman, C., & Rathbun-Grubb, S. (2014). The CAT:
A generic critical appraisal tool. In JotForm
– Form Builder. Retrieved from http://www.jotform.us/cp1757/TheCat