examining the trust factor in online instructor led college courses l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 278 Views
  • Uploaded on

Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses Shalin Hai-Jew, Ed.D. Kansas State University (KSU), Office of Mediated Education (OME) April 22, 2006, Seattle Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses' - jaden


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
examining the trust factor in online instructor led college courses

Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses

Shalin Hai-Jew, Ed.D.

Kansas State University (KSU),

Office of Mediated Education (OME)

April 22, 2006, Seattle

Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U)

“Learning and Technology: Implications for Liberal Education and the Disciplines”

introduction online learning
Introduction: Online Learning

Online learners “meet” for 10 weeks in an academic quarter in high-interactive instructor-led online college classrooms. They interact with each other as virtual peers (on virtual teams) through Web-based courseware. Andragogy and constructivism assume inter-relationships as bases for adult learning.

introduction cont
Introduction (cont.)

Often, human interactions online are asynchronous. Learners and instructors interact through a non-human technology through mostly text and occasionally graphics. There’s often no face-to-face time. There are no body language or tonal cues. The emotional affect tends to be flat. Emotions are conveyed through words and emoticons. 

initial questions
Initial Questions
  • What is the role of trust in such a virtual circumstance?
  • How is trust (a multi-dimensional construct) operationalized and manifested in such online classrooms?
  • Is trust important for effective learning in such an online classroom situation?
  • How may trust be enhanced in this circumstance?
purposes of the study
Purposes of the Study

Define the roles of trust in the following online relationships:

  • Student to instructor (reciprocal)
  • Student to student (reciprocal)
  • Student to curriculum (one-way)
  • Student to oversight organizations (reciprocal)
  • Student to technology (one way)
operationalizing trust
Operationalizing “Trust”

Trust (trŭst) n. 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing. 2. Custody; care. 3. Something committed into the care of another; charge. 4. a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one. B. One in which confidence is placed. 5. Reliance on something in the future; hope. 6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay for in the future; credit.

theoretical underpinnings trust and distance learning elearning literature review
Theoretical Underpinnings: Trust and Distance Learning / eLearning(Literature Review)
  • Trust is an essential part of human relations and cooperation as a “key enabler.” Trust allows for risk-taking, a necessary component in learning. Trust enables people to make changes. Trust promotes sharing and mutual learning, under the relational constructivist model.
theoretical underpinnings trust and dl cont
Theoretical Underpinnings: Trust and “DL”(cont.)
  • Trust appears as a construct in law, psychology, sociology, political science, economics, business, religion studies, philosophy, anthropology, history, computer science, sociobiology, organizational development, education, management literature, and others. It has been studied in interdisciplinary ways, too.
theoretical underpinnings of trust and dl cont
Theoretical Underpinnings of Trust and DL (cont.)
  • Trust has a moral dimension—of ethically justifiable behavior as expectations. [General trusters tend to have a higher ethical sensibility (Uslaner, 2000 – 01, p. 579) ]
  • “Swift trust” tends to be unstable, fragile. High initial trust has been linked to mitigating the effects of later disappointment (as a positive construct).
  • Three-Part Relation to Trust: (1) truster properties; (2) person being trusted, (3) specific context (Hardin, 1992, as cited by Kramer, 1999, p. 574)
ways to conceptualize trust
Ways to Conceptualize Trust
  • Individual attribute
  • Behavior
  • Situational feature
  • Institutional arrangement (Sitkin and Roth, 1993, as cited by Bigley and Pearce, July 1998, p. 405)
  • Trust is seen as a “cultural construct.”
  • Trust represents “choice behavior.” It is based on cognition and emotion.
three types of trust
Three Types of Trust
  • Calculus-based trust—based on mutual calculations on what each party may gain from the other (also deterrence-from-risk based trust, transactional trust)
  • Knowledge-based trust—based on mutual interactions and experiences (also cognition-based trust)
  • Identification-based trust—based on similarity and agreement between individuals, shared values, also affective-based trust (Dibben, Harris and Wheeler, Apr. 2003, p. 6; Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970)
another three types of trust
(Another) Three Types of Trust
  • Personal trust—”honesty, ethics, follow-through, intentions, handling of confidential information, straightforwardness”
  • Expertise trust—a person’s standing in his/her field, datedness of knowledge, credible information use to support ideas, application of expertise to situations
  • Structural trust—based on a person’s role and responsibilities (Joni, March 2004, pp. 84 – 85)
factors that lead to mistrust
Ambiguity

Caution

Deceit

Editing or screening

Limiting channels

Secrecy

Indirection

Gimmicks

Hostile humor

Lack of emotion (Harvey, 1983, as cited by Fairholm, 1994, p. 139)

Absence of faith in others(Mirowsky and Ross, 1983, as cited by Ross, Mirowsky & Pribesh, Aug. 2001, p. 568)

Not a necessarily negative valence (Lewicki, Mcallister, & Bies, 1998, p. 455)

Factors that Lead to Mistrust
current dl challenges
Current DL Challenges
  • Whole student learning
  • Retention
  • Academic dishonesty
  • Technological challenges, standardization
  • Personalization (vs. standardization, automation, AI, simulations, “boxed courses”)
statement of the problem
Statement of the Problem

The virtual aspects of high-interactive, instructor-led online learning may impede or preclude the building of trust between individuals. Trust is a crucial social glue that allows people to take risks and to build learning, make changes, essential components of constructivism, which is said to guide the andragogy of online learning.

five research questions
Five Research Questions
  • How is trust manifested in an online classroom?
  • What does a high-trust online learning classroom and community look like?
  • What factors contribute to ‘trust’ or ‘mistrust,’ and how are these elements related?
five research questions cont
Five Research Questions (cont.)
  • How can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment?
  • Is there a relationship between high-trust and the effectiveness of student online learning (as measured by the proxies of student retention/persistence, course grades, and student perceptions)?
research methodology
Research Methodology
  • Literature review (“Trust,” DL, virtual teaming)
  • Initial informal survey of online learners
  • Creation of Online Trust Student Survey (OTSS) using Likert-type measures of both the importance of the item and student experienced measure of that item in their online classroom
research methodology cont
Research Methodology (cont.)
  • Pre-testing of OTSS survey on subgroup (DL students, faculty and administrators) for construct validity; survey revision
  • Online launch of survey for quantitative analysis (N = 630): factoral analysis, comparisons between means, ANOVA and MANOVA of descriptive factors with output component variables, regressions, and correlations
  • Collection of post-survey interview data for qualitative analysis from online learners (both high-trust and low-trust), online instructors and distance learning administrators
null hypothesis
Null Hypothesis
  • There is no correlation at the p < .05 level between learners’ trust level in an online instructor-led classroom and their effective learning.
population and sample
Population and Sample
  • 630 WAOL learners per quarter for freshman and sophomore-level courses
  • Fully online learning via Blackboard™ courseware technologies
  • Random sample from online learners who opt-in to take part in a 20-minute online survey in Winter 2005 via Perennial Survey
washingtononline virtual campus waol vc
WashingtonOnline Virtual Campus (WAOL-VC)
  • WashingtonOnline Virtual Campus represents a consortium of the 34 community colleges of Washington State. It offers some 21,000 FTEs of credits annually to learners from around the U.S. and the world.
  • The courses are built by Washington state community colleges instructors, who work as teams (lead instructor and two supporting instructors) to develop courses. The lead instructor creates the courses, and other instructors may teach them.
survey instrument otss
There were nine categories of trust factors

(47 items):

Individual trust propensities

Communications

Instructor

Organizations

Peer-to-peer relations

Policy macro-structure

Student empowerment

Curriculum

Technologies

Survey Instrument (OTSS)
post survey dl administrator interview
Post-Survey DL Administrator Interview
  • How do you influence how instructors teach in the program?
  • How do you influence the online curriculum?
  • How important is trust between a student and an instructor in an online learning environment? Why?
  • How important is trust between a student and other students in an online learning environment? Why?
  • How important is trust between a student and the curriculum in an online learning environment? Why?
  • How important is trust between a student and courseware technologies in an online learning environment? Why?
  • What aspects of leadership in administration contribute to learner trust?
post survey online instructor interview
Post-survey Online Instructor Interview
  • Is trust an important factor in successful online learning? If so, how? If not, why not?
  • How important is trust between a college student and instructor in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested?
  • How important is trust between college students (peers) in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested?
  • How important is trust between student and curriculum in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested?
online instructor interview cont
Online Instructor Interview (cont.)
  • How important is trust between student and courseware technologies in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested?
  • Is there a certain time when trust “solidifies” in an online classroom? If so, when? If never, why?
  • What aspects of the online classroom contribute to building trust?
  • What aspects of the online classroom contribute to creating distrust?
  • In a case of mistrust, how can a class reestablish trust?
post survey online student interview high trust group low trust group
Post-Survey Online Student Interview (High-trust group, Low-trust group)
  • What personality indicators do you use to know whether or not to “trust” an instructor?
  • How can an instructor come across as “real” in an online space? Please give some from-life examples.
  • Do you consciously build others’ (students’ and instructors’) trust in you when you participate in an online class? If so, how? If not, why not?
  • Have you ever felt like your trust was violated in an online class by an instructor? Please explain what happened. Please share as many experiences as possible.
  • Have you ever felt like your trust was violated in an online class by a fellow student? Please explain what happened. Please share as many experiences as possible.
descriptors of survey respondents frequency and percentage distribution
Descriptors of Survey Respondents(Frequency and Percentage Distribution)
  • Frequency Percentage
  • OTSS Respondents
  • 630 100%
  • Gender
  • Female 520 83%
  • Male 110 16%
  • Year in College
  • Freshman 174 27%
  • Sophomore298 47%
  • Junior 90 14%
  • Senior 22 3%
  • Fifth Year+46 7%
  • Age Range
  • 15 – 19 103 16%
  • 20 – 29 266 42%
  • 30 – 39 125 19%
  • 40 – 49 102 16%
  • 50 – 59 32 4%
  • 60 – 69 2 - -%
  • 70 – 79 0 0%
  • 80+ 0 0%
descriptors of respondents cont
Descriptors of Respondents (cont.)
  • Cumulative GPAs: A’s (50%), B’s (45%), C’s (3%), D’s (0% but there were a few in number), and F’s (0% with none)
  • Racial Breakdown: 84% Caucasian, 3% Hispanic American, 2% Asian American, 1% African American, 1% Native American, 5% as other, 1% Unknown
descriptors of respondents cont31
Descriptors of Respondents (cont.)

Reasons for Taking an Online Course

  • Academic schedule (24%)
  • Convenience (23%)
  • Work (18%)
  • Family (13%)
  • Commute (9%)
  • Other (4%)
  • Health, academic advisor suggestion, course reputation, and instructor reputation (1% each)
attitudes towards online learning at the beginning of a course
Attitudes Towards Online Learning at the Beginning of a Course
  • Positive expectations (39%)
  • Enthusiastic (16%)
  • Neutral attitude (25%)
  • Negative (2%)
  • Skeptical (16%)
prior experiences with online courses
Prior Experiences with Online Courses
  • 1-5 prior online courses (50%)
  • 0 prior online courses (37%)
  • 6-10 prior online courses (8%)
  • 11 – 15 prior online courses (1%)
  • 16 – 20 prior online courses (1%)
  • 66% was said the prior online learning was effective; 30% had mixed results, and 4% found the online learning ineffective
familiarity with subject matter of analyzed waol course
47% had no prior experience from either high school or college in the subject matter of the course about which they were describing

21% had had a quarter’s worth

13% had had two quarters of experience

8% had an academic year’s worth of experience

2% had four quarters worth

1% had five quarters worth of experience

2% had six quarters worth

2% had 7 quarters or more of prior experience

Familiarity with Subject Matter of Analyzed WAOL Course
factor analysis results level of importance to online learning
Factor Analysis ResultsLevel of Importance to Online Learning
  • PROSOLID—Level of professionalism of oversight organizations, solidity of the curriculum
  • AUTHEN—Authenticity of learning, instructor supportiveness
  • INSPRES—Instructor ethics, presence, boundary-setting
  • PEERINT—Peer interactions, full expressiveness
  • PROBRES—Timely resolution of learner problems
factor analysis results level of agreement with the student as a learner
Factor Analysis ResultsLevel of Agreement with the Student as a Learner
  • INSEFFET—Instructor effectiveness
  • STRUINTE—Structural integrity of overseeing organizations
  • TECHNORE—Technological responsiveness and stability
  • STUDEMPO—Student empowerment
  • INFOVALI—Informational validity
  • SOCLIFE—Social life of online learners
  • REALHON—Reality in simulations, honesty in co-learning, real-world learning
survey respondent descriptors and variables anova and manova
Survey Respondent Descriptors and Variables(ANOVA and MANOVA)
  • For the MANOVAs, the year in college showed a high frequency on the TECHNORE (technological responsiveness) factor (F = 3.158, p = .014).
  • The age descriptor connected with STRUINTE (structural integrity) with an F = 3.273, p = .006. Gender and age interacted for a statistically significant F = 6.312 and p = .000 with STRUINTE as well.
  • No other statistically significant issues were surfaced through the MANOVA between these descriptor variables and these four factors based on learner responses to the OTSS 47 variables about their online learning experiences related to trust.
survey respondent descriptors and variables anova and manova38
Survey Respondent Descriptors and Variables (ANOVA and MANOVA)
  • In terms of gender differences, in a test between subjects, high Fs existed for STRUINTE (structural integrity) (F = 21.437, with a p = .000). STUDEMP (student empowerment) also showed a significant difference (F = 10.565, p = .001). Lesser differences were observed for INSEFFECT (instructor effectiveness) with F = 8.787, p = .003, and TECHNORE (technological responsiveness) with F = 6.685, p = .010). This said, the statistical imbalance between females to males (N = 520 to N = 110) should be considered.
other highlights from findings
Other Highlights from Findings
  • INDIVIDUAL TRUST PROPENSITIES: Learners identified their own trust propensities as the most salient of the three factors here and their sense of self-motivation and focus next, followed by the (reverse-phrased) threat to sense of well-being as not important.
main highlights from findings
Main Highlights from Findings
  • COMMUNICATIONS: Communications with the instructor are critical to learners in terms of their perception of online trust. The instructor’s responses need to be appropriate. His/her sense of ethics has to be strongly expressed, without any apparent conflict of interest and imbued by a sense of good will and flexibility.
main highlights from findings cont
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • INSTRUCTOR: The instructor needs to follow his/her official role, foremost. Of second importance is his/her respect for learner privacy, then instructor enthusiasm and then professional credentials. The least important aspect was that of extra-role behavior offered by instructors such as letters of recommendation, contacts with professionals in the field, and facilitation of internship opportunities.
main highlights from findings cont42
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • ORGANIZATIONS: Learners find trust of their home institution’s professionalism is more critical than their view of WAOL or their particular academic field.
  • PEER-TO-PEER RELATIONS: Learner anonymity was defined as the most important factor followed by the perception of the need to learn from peers, the amount of planned interactivity in the online classroom, and the encouragement of all peers to participate. Having shared values with peers was deemed the least important.
main highlights from findings cont43
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • POLICY MACRO-STRUCTURE: WAOL-VC respondents identified the close adherence to stated policy as the most critical, with the timeliness of instructors posting guidelines as the next most important. Having access to the classroom before the quarter started, following a routine and having accurate academic advising about online courses seemed to be less critical to respondents.
main highlights from findings cont44
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • STUDENT EMPOWERMENT: Linking grades to actual learning was a critical factor in student empowerment. Learners also expressed the importance of instructor encouragement of learners to be proactive. Instructor control over student messages and whether learners had control to make changes to the learning in the online classroom both seemed less salient.
main highlights from findings cont45
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • CURRICULUM: This category had many highly-ranked scores. The most critical variable was the need to have complete lectures and course materials. Having real simulations online was important as well as having responsive handling of learning problems. Having clear directions was important as well as knowledge that the curriculum was college-level material. Of lesser importance was the up-to-datedness of curricular materials, clarity that no cheating or plagiarism was occurring in the classroom, and the offering of prior student work examples for perusal.
main highlights from findings cont46
Main Highlights from Findings (cont.)
  • TECHNOLOGIES: Respondents identified their level of technological trust as the most important of the three variables, with timely solving of technological issues and reliable courseware of high importance as well (albeit at slightly lesser scores based on the factorial analysis).
paired samples statistics
Paired Samples Statistics
  • Most of the 47 factors showed higher importance of rating than the actual perceived ranking of that particular variable through paired samples statistics. In other words, they valued the factors higher than their perception of the presence of that factor in their actual studies.
  • Yet, the variations were slight, with small mean differences.
q1 how is trust manifested in an online classroom
Q1: How is trust manifested in an online classroom?
  • For 47% of respondents, trust develops by the middle of the course.
  • 41% suggest that trust exists from the beginning as a given, a form of “swift trust.”
  • 8% suggest that trust “never develops.”
  • 2% suggest that trust develops at the conclusion of the course.
q1 how is trust manifested in an online classroom cont
Q1: How is trust manifested in an online classroom? (cont.)
  • Trust manifests in timely communications; mutual respect among learners; high ethics, fairness, grading transparency and professionalism of the instructor; integrity in educational institutions; “sincere,” substantive, and timely postings by peers; clear and enforced policies; proactive and empowered learners; appropriate comprehensive college-level curriculum and accurate online simulations, and stable technologies with ready 24/7 support.
q2 what does a high trust online learning classroom and community look like
Q2: What does a high-trust online learning classroom and community look like?
  • 89% of respondents ranked in the high-trust category (defined as those with scores of 5—”Somewhat agree”—and above). The mean score was 6.0155 for this high-trust group.
  • 10.5% of respondents ranked in the low-trust category (defined as those with scores of below-5—”Neutral” and below). The mean score was 4.4460 for this low-trust group.
  • Both had low Adjusted R-Squares in regressions but significance in ANOVAs.
q3 what factors contribute to trust or mistrust and how are these elements related
Q3: What factors contribute to ‘trust’ or ‘mistrust,’ and how are these elements related?
  • To address potential issues of multicollinearity between these variables, a Pearson Product Moment (PPM) Correlation procedure was done to see if any of the variables had a correlation of +0.70 or higher. Based on the PPM, the highest potential correlation was between the completeness of course materials and lectures (IM40ACompleteLectures) with the assigning of fair grades (IM39AFairGrdes) with a moderate .689 Pearson Correlation. The second highest potential correlation was a moderate .616 between “IM40ACompleteLectures” and “IM37AClearWorkAssign”.
q4 how can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment
Q4: How can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment?
  • Structure mutual dependencies between learners in online classes.
  • Have a clear instructor telepresence early in the class and throughout the quarter.
  • Maintain high ethics by the instructor and oversight organizations.
  • Protect learner privacy.
  • Surface the issue of trust early in the quarter as a learner issue. Harness the early trust.
  • Maintain high quality curriculum.
q4 how can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment cont
Q4: How can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment? (cont.)
  • Post messages regularly.
  • Support the posting of substantive and sincere peers’ messages and interactions.
  • Maintain consistency in teaching.
  • Keep transparency and fairness of grading.
  • Have an organizational presence in online classes, particularly for the local colleges.
  • Support and adhere to stated policies.
  • Strengthen learner empowerment via access to information, encouragement and nurturing, and course decision-making.
  • Maintain reliable technologies, with 24/7 learner support.
slide54

Q5: Is there a relationship between high-trust and the effectiveness of student online learning (as measured by the proxies of student retention/persistence, course grades, and student perceptions)?

  • The null hypothesis suggests that there’s no linear relationship between the variables of the online Trust Number and that of Student Success. This simple regression with a p < .05 contrasts with the adjusted R Squared (used because it adjusts for the inflation found in the R Squared) shows that there are statistical grounds for possibly rejecting the null hypotheses with a p < .001 according to the ANOVA table. With a high F score of 50.620, these statistical results may be significant in showing a low positive correlation between online trust and student success.
slide55

Q5: Is there a relationship between high-trust and the effectiveness of student online learning (as measured by the proxies of student retention/persistence, course grades, and student perceptions)? (cont.)

  • The low Adjusted R Square suggests that the variation in the independent variable of the online Trust Number measure accounts for 7.3% of the variation in the dependent variable Student Success. That may be expected given the complexity of other variables that affect student academic success. That said, this finding may suggest that the role of online trust is a factor to be considered in overall learner success.
interpretation
Interpretation
  • Trust seems to be one of many factors that have some influence on student success (as measured by the proxies of retention, grade outcomes, and student perceptions).
  • Operationalizing trust is a complex endeavor, and many factors apparently affect this construct.
recommendations for future research
Recommendations for Future Research
  • More mixed methods explorations into trust in online learning would be insightful.
  • Further testing of the OTSS instrument would aid its development.
  • Applying these findings to applied course design, online instruction and distance learning administration would enhance eLearning.
thanks
Thanks

Thanks to the Way, the Truth and the Life; Rodin Max; my dissertation chair Dr. Daisy Arredondo-Rucinski; committee members Dr. David Marshak and Dr. Mark Roddy; Connie Broughton and Mark Carbon of WAOL; Dr. Roberto Peña and Dr. John Jacob Gardiner, of Seattle University’s EDLR Program; George Fisher of Perennial Survey; John Backes, Dr. Ann Garnsey-Harter, and Jim James at Shoreline Community College, and the many students, instructors and administrators who contributed their insights to this research.

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Thanks for your attention.
  • Comments? Suggestions? Questions?

---

  • Eruditio Loginquitas @ Instructional Design Open Studio (IDOS blog) http://ome.ksu.edu/id/blog/
  • shalin@ksu.edu and (785) 532-5262
  • Axio Learning Management System: www.axiolearning.org