Graduate students' perceptions of online teaching and relationship to preferred learning styles

MedSurg Nursing, Dec, 2005 by Arleen Fearing, Marguerite Riley

Arleen Fearing, EdD, RN, is an Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL.

Marguerite Riley, PhD, RN, is an Associate Professor, School of Nursing, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL.

Note: A poster of the same title based on the study in this article, presented at the 13th Annual AMSN Convention, September 8-12, 2004, in Chicago, Illinois, received a first place Blue Ribbon Award in the Research category.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Study Participants (n=28)

        Characteristics            n       %

Gender
Female                             28    100
Male                                0      0
Marital Status
Married                            24     86
Single                              2      7
Divorced                            1      3.5
No Indication                       1      3.5
Self-Assessed Computer Ability
Beginner                            5     18
Intermediate                       20     71.5
Advanced                            1      3.5
No Indication                       2      7
Previously Taken Online Courses
One course or more                 14     50
None                               14     50

Table 2.

Learning Style Survey Results (n=28)

   Learning Style       n      %

Visual                   2     7.1
Auditory                 4    14.3
Kinesthetic             13    46.4
Visual/Auditory          1     3.5
Auditory/Kinesthetic     4    14.3
Visual/Kinesthetic       4    14.3

Table 3.

FAST Survey Results (Mean Scores)

                 FAST Survey Items                     Mid-Term   Final

 1. Professor organized course content efficiently.      1.91     1.36
 2. Professor provided a syllabus which clearly          1.69     1.48
    stated course expectations and student respon-
    sibilities in accomplishing them.
 3. Professor treated students with respect.             1.37     1.19
 4. Professor was knowledgeable; that is, able to        1.55     1.36
    answer questions and bring in relevant ideas
    beyond the immediate lesson content.
 5. Professor expanded my horizons and                   1.66     1.38
    challenged my ideas.
 6. Professor communicated clearly and effectively       2.20     2.20
    online.
 7. Assignments were fair.                               2.00     1.39
 8. I knew how to prepare for the assignment.            2.12     1.58
 9. Course met expectations stated in the course         1.77     1.45
    objectives listed on the syllabus.
10. Orientation facilitated my use of technology for     2.00     1.73
    online learning.
11. Online materials assisted in my learning.            1.67     1.54
12. The asynchronous format provided me flexibil-        1.58     1.25
    ity to meet my learning needs.
13. I would recommend this course to a friend.           2.18     2.04
14. My overall rating of this professor                  1.68     1.81
15. My overall rating of this course                     1.89     1.49

Note: FAST Survey responses based on 1=Excellent, 2=Very Good
3=Acceptable, 4=Needs Improvement, 5=Unacceptable

Table 4.

Categorized Written Comments

               Area of Comment                   Mid-Terms     Finals
                                                 n = 50 *     n = 47 *

1. Praised the active learning promoted by          19           14
   these courses.
2. Ongoing interaction among students and           12            9
   faculty was beneficial.
3. More in-class meetings would have helped          2            2
   eliminate disconnect feeling.
4. WebCT training class prior to first course        5            4
   would help novice computer users.
5. Fast response time to questions by faculty        5            5
   was appreciated.
6. Workload and time commitment was heavy.          16            4
7. Personal computer problems interfered with        3            6
   completion of projects.
8. Ongoing communication is essential.              20           11

* Note: n = the total number of written comments, not the number of
participants. Because some comments concerned more than one item, the
summation of responses to the various items exceeds the value of n.