Title Page

Research Tools and Techniques

Final project

Submitted By:
Ehtasham Sagheer SP18-BBA-034 (Leader)
Asam Masood SP18-BBA-026
Ahmar Raza SP18-BBA-009
Ali Haider SP18-BBA-016
Abu Bakar SP18-BBA-006

Submitted To:
Madam Gulbahar

Date: May 29, 2020.

1
Topic: Students’ Learning from online
courses in universities

Table of Content

Serial Description Page number

number
01 Abstract 3

02 Introduction 4

03 Theoretical Framework 6

04 Literature Review 6

05 Research Design 8

06 Questionnaire regarding online learning 10

07 Conclusion 12
08 References 13

2
 1. Abstract
Students, now days, facing issues in their university education about Virtual or online courses
that are being taught in their respective Universities. There are some training lectures that can
be delivered through online means and it can be effective. But to teach a complete course
through online means is totally challenging for students. It is because students are of the view
that they cannot clear their ambiguities and are unable to pick complex concepts behind the
topics, and student teacher interactions is the big part that they are sacrificing, and it becomes
their opportunity cost.
Online courses are effective but not in universities according to students. They are a good
means to train employees of organizations but in universities they are not as effective as they
should be. Learning affects a lot in online courses then in face to face interaction at classrooms.
Students behavior and attitude also shifts negatively when study setting shifted from physical to
online, it is because they are not getting the basic concepts and this impacts on their attitude
towards study. Also, not everyone has access to online means, so technical problems also have
an adverse impact on student learning.
In our Literature review, we came to know that face-to-face interaction allows more learning
facilities for students than online means. These online ways also affect their GPA with learning.
We also have highlighted three independent variables that are affecting dependent variable of
Student learning through online means. These are physical interaction between instructor and
student, technical problems and student attitudes.
Finally, we will gather responses of affected students through questionnaires to support our
study.

3
 2. Introduction
The educational community is finding itself on the edge of a new era of online learning. Online
learning has been promoted as being more cost effective and convenient than traditional
educational environments as well as providing opportunities for more learners to continue their
educations. Online learning has been defined as any class that offers at least part of its
curriculum in the online course delivery mode, or as a transmission of information and/or
communication via the Internet without instructors and students being connected at the same.
Today, however, online learning is defined more clearly as any class that offers its entire
curriculum in the online course delivery mode, thereby allowing students to participate
regardless of geographic location, independent of time and place. In other words, online
education has progressed to the point where students no longer need to be able to meet face-
to-face in order to complete a course.
Research in the area of online learning has demonstrated that the advantages offered by this
environment are many especially the convenience and flexibility offered by the “anytime,
anywhere” accessibility. This means that students have access to courses and course materials
24 hours a day (time independent), regardless of location (place-independent), making them far
more convenient than the traditional educational experience. Students can work at their own
pace, which is especially important for non-native speakers. Moreover, the ability of personal
identities to remain concealed means that all students, regardless of race, sex, disability, or
appearance are on equal ground. Finally, with the option of multiple representations of a
concept embedded in an online course, students can store and retrieve information more
effectively.
However, there are some disadvantages of online courses as well. Some critics claim that web-
based or online learning is not as effective as traditional classroom learning because of its lack
of face to face interactions. For example, Bullen conducted a case study examining student
participation and critical thinking in a college level undergraduate course utilizing computer-
mediated conferencing. The case study showed that some students felt disconnected from
others in this type of learning environment, citing lack of facial expressions and other features
common to a traditional classroom environment.
Mostly from anecdotal information, it is estimated that dropout rates for distance education
are higher than those for on-campus programs and courses. Some studies roughly estimate that
students enrolled in Factors that Influence Students’ Decision to Drop out from Online Courses
116 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 13: Issue 3 (Previously published in
JALN, Volume 8, Issue 4) distance education are twice as likely to drop out than on-campus
students. For example, Dutton, Dutton, and Perry studied two class sections of an introduction
to computer programming course; one was taught on-campus and the other in an online
version of the course. Their results revealed substantial differences in the likelihood of students

4
to complete the course. The online students had a 72.2% completion rate, while 90.3% of the
undergraduates completed their face-to-face course. A study of enrollment and attrition rates
for the online MBA program at West Texas A&M University found that online courses enroll
more students than traditional campus courses, but they also suffer from higher attrition rates.
That study was conducted by analyzing 15 graduate business courses offered during the past
three years where the same professor taught both the campus and the Internet courses.

Variables to Study:
Our research will study the impact of three most important variables on students’ learning
while getting online courses:
1. Technical problems
2. Interaction
3. Students attitude.
If students face technical problems, it will surely affect their learning negatively. Interaction can
be student-student, student-teacher or student-content, it can also impact learning process.
Students attitude is an important predictor of student’s success and learning.

Purpose of the study & Hypothesis development:

Our purpose of the study is to determine the students’ learning from online classes, and which
variables are affecting their learning while getting online education in university.
Following hypothesis will be tested:
H1: Technical problems negatively impact students learning while getting online classes.
H2: Interaction is a predictor of student learning.
H3: There is a relationship between student attitude and student learning.

Research Questions:
1. Are technical problems negatively impact student learning while getting online courses?

2. Is Interaction (student-student, student-teacher) has any impact on student learning?

3. Student attitude impacts student learning (during online courses) or not?

5
 3. Theoretical Framework:
Theoretical framework represents how different variables are related (causal relationship) to
each other diagrammatically.

IV’s DV
 H
Technical
Students Learning
problems

Interaction

Student Attitude

4. Literature Review:
Several researchers considered interaction an essential element to student learning and to the
overall success and effectiveness of distance education (Bruning, 2005; Burnett et al., 2007;
Fresen, 2007; Kearsley, 2000; Kim, Liu & Bonk, 2005; Moore, 1993; Northrup, 2001; Sutton,
2001; Thorpe & Godwin, 2006; Walker, 2005; Yildiz & Chang, 2003). Shale and Garrison (1990)
stated that “in its most fundamental form, education is an interaction among instructor,
student and subject content” (p.1). Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) considered
interaction among students and interaction between instructor and students as “educational
transaction” (p.1). Moore (1993) suggested that there is a transactional distance in distance
learning environment as instructors and learners do not interact in the same physical and
temporal space. In order to overcome potential shortfalls due to transactional distance, Moore
identified three types of interaction essential for learning in distance education:

6
1. Learner-content interaction: It is the method by which students obtain information from
the course materials. The content can either be in the form of text, audio or videotape, CD-
ROM, computer program, or online communication.

2. Learner-instructor interaction: This refers to the interaction between the learner and the
instructor. This can take the form of instructor delivering information, encouraging the
learner, or providing feedback. In addition, this can include the learner interacting with the
instructor by asking questions or communicating with the instructor regarding course
activities.

3. Learner-learner interaction: It is the exchange of information and ideas that occurs among
students about the course in the presence or absence of the instructor. This type of
interaction can take the form of group projects, or group discussion, etc. The learner-
learner interaction can foster learning through student collaboration and knowledge
sharing.

Kear, Williams, Seaton, and Einon (2004) suggested that there are three uses of information
and communication technology (ICT) in a distance learning course. The first use of ICT is to
support a resource-based learning approach where the students are given a wide choice of
learning materials. The second use of ICT is to allow students to participate in virtual
communication. The third use of ICT is to promote an active approach to learning.
In computer-mediated and Web-based distance learning courses, few studies have examined
the relationship between interaction and student learning and satisfaction. Much of the current
examination of interaction in computer-mediated courses takes the form of counting
participants’ email or the number of characters sent; however, this provides a superficial view
of what really happens in an online course (Hillman, 1999). The number of messages sent or the
characters in email do not indicate any evidence concerning student learning. The study of Hara
and Kling (2001) suggests the importance of feedback. Hara and Kling qualitatively investigated
students’ experiences in a Web-based course. Although students were taught by a qualified and
experienced instructor, they felt frustrated due to technical problems, lack of adequate
feedback, ambiguous instructions on the course Web site and in instructor’s e-mail messages.
Moreover, online interaction has been investigated from different angles, for example, Järvelä
and Häkkinen (2002) examined the quality of interaction in Web-based asynchronous
conferencing among pre-service teachers. They found three types of Web-based discussions:
higher-level discussions (24%), progressive discussions (40%), and lower level discussions (36%).
The authors conducted a more specific analysis for each discussion level based on social
cognitive theory of perspective taking. They found that high-level perspective taking was in
relation to higher-level discussion.

7
Sabry and Baldwin (2003) explored the relationship between sequential/global style dimension
and three types of Web-based interaction: learner-tutor (L-T), learner-learner (L-L), and learner-
information (L-I). The results indicated that that higher percentage of sequential moderate
(SEQ-MOD) learners used L-I and L-T interactions frequently as compared to global moderate
(GLO-MOD) learners, while the reverse applied to L-L interaction. Sequential-strong (SEQ-STNG)
learners scored higher percentage of frequent use of L-L interaction as compared to global-
strong (GLO-STNG) learners, however, the reverse applied to L-I interaction and L-T interaction.
Easton (2003) conducted a qualitative study to explore communication processes that affect
the roles of online distance learning instructor. She found that many communication skills
required of online instructor are like those needed for effective face-to-face teachings. She
concluded that online instructors need to develop new course management techniques for
teaching virtually. They need to define the virtual “time and place” and ensure that students
are notified. In addition, they need to determine when it is appropriate to use various forms of
mediated communication, such as e-mail or discussion boards.
A study by Arbaugh (2000b) examined the effects of interaction dynamics on student learning
in Internet-based MBA courses. He found that ease of interaction, classroom dynamics and
instructors’ emphasis on interaction were significantly associated with students’ perceived
learning. However, the findings might be influenced by the fact that the subjects participating in
the study were also attending traditional campus-based courses as they were enrolled in a
regular-MBA program. In a study conducted by Volery (2001) within a Web-enhanced course,
one of the critical success factors associated with learning effectiveness was classroom
interaction.

5. Research Design:
The research design is basically a blueprint or a plan for the collection, measurement and
analysis of data, created to answer your research questions. Following are its main
components:

Type of Research:
This research is a causal research because we are conducting this research to identify the cause
and effect relationship among variables(IVs and DV). We will check how independent variables
impact dependent variable.

8
Extent of the researcher interference:
Our research will be conducted in a natural environment and researcher does not need to
manipulate variables deliberately, so minimum interference of researcher will be required to
conduct this research.

Unit of analysis:
Unit of analysis describes from whom we will collect data to conduct our research. We than
analyze this data and propose findings/conclusion of our study. Unit of analysis can be
individuals, Dyads, groups or organizations etc.
Our research we focus on individual i.e. will check how students are learning from online
courses. Hence, students (individuals) are our unit of analysis.

Study Setting:
Study settings can be contrived or non-contrived. As we are conducting our research in a
natural environment, not in an artificial (lab) environment, to check the cause and effect
relationship; so, our study setting will be non-contrived.
Our study will be done in a natural environment, hence it is also called “Field study” or “field
experiment”.

Time Horizon:
According to Time Horizon a study can be “cross-sectional” or “Longitudinal” study.
Our study is cross-sectional or one-shot study because in this study we will collect data only
once, perhaps over a period of days, weeks or months to answer our research questions. We
will ask students about their learning from online courses and how independent variables are
affecting their learning process only once at any point in time.

9
 6. Questionnaire about online learning
Dear Participants
This questionnaire is designed to study aspects of students’ learning from online courses. The
information provided by you will help us better understand the quality of online education and
its impact on students’ learning.
Your response will be kept confidential. I request you to respond to the questions frankly and
honestly.

Section-1: (About yourself)

Please answer the following questions:
1. Your age:
1. Under 20 2. 20-30 3. 31-45 4. Or above

2. In which level you are studying:

1. Elementary school 2. High school 3. College degree 4. Graduate degree
5. Or other (specify)

3. Your gender:
1. Male 2. Female

4. Your marital status:

1. Married 2. Single 3. Widowed 4. Divorced 5. Or other (specify)

10
Section-2:
Please check the suitable box in front of question.

Serial QUESTIONS regarding learning 1 2 3 4 5

number from Online courses STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DISAGREE
1 I can easily access the Internet as
needed for my studies
2 I am comfortable communicating
electronically
3 I am willing to actively
communicate with my classmates
and instructors electronically
4 I feel that my background and
experience will be beneficial to my
studies
5 I am comfortable with written
communication
6 I possess sufficient computer
keyboarding skills for doing online
work
7 I feel comfortable composing text
on a computer in an online learning
environment
8 I feel comfortable communicating
online in English
9 I am motivated by the material in
an Internet activity outside of class
10 Learning is the same in class and at
home on the Internet
11 I can practice English grammar
during Internet activities outside of
class
12 I feel that I can improve my online
skills the same using the Internet
and in class
13 I believe that learning on the
Internet outside of class is more
motivating than a regular course
14 I believe a complete course can be
given by the Internet without
difficulty
15 I could pass a course on the

11
 Internet without any teacher
assistance
16 I believe that material in an
Internet course is better prepared
than a traditional class
17 When it comes to learning and
studying, I am a self-directed
person
18 In my studies, I am self-disciplined
and find it easy to set aside reading
and homework time
19 I can manage my study time
effectively and easily complete
assignments on time
20 *In my studies, I set goals and have
a high degree of initiative
21 I feel that face-to-face contact with
my instructor is necessary for
learning to occur
22 I can discuss with other students
during Internet activities outside of
class
23 I can work in a group during
Internet activities outside of class
24 I can collaborate with other
students during Internet activities
outside of class

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

7. Conclusion:
The landscape of higher education has been the subject of much discussion with recent
technological advances. Although teaching technologies and methodologies are always
changing, the rapid and ongoing growth of online teaching suggests that this format will be
increasingly used in the future (Aslanian & Clinefelter, 2013). Of course, widespread adoption of
any technology or methodology does not itself serve as a panacea for higher education.
Changes to instructional formats should always be supported by rigorous studies that identify
both improvements and shortcomings of each new or old instructional mode relative to
learning outcomes. Ultimately, as online education programs continue to grow, success and
failure of one format or another should be gauged through instructional content, student

12
attitude, grade disparity, course completion rates, as well as qualitative aspects of online
education.
The data that we have gathered from questionnaire clearly showing that students learn most
from face-to-face interactions between students and instructor, as it will help them to clear
their queries at the spot. Students from backward areas did not have any access or little access
to internet. This is hampering not only their learning but also their interest in studies also. Due
to this their attitude towards study affects.
Finally, we will conclude that online education cannot take over face-to-face education. There
are several reasons that we have already proved through our analysis, but most important
element that make a difference is student-instructor interaction. It is totally lacking in online
education.

8. References:
Moore, A., Masterson, J.T., Christophel, D.M., and Shea, K.A. (1996). College teacher immediacy and
student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45, 29-39.

Berge, Z.L. and Collins, M. (1995). (Eds.) Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Harasim, L.N., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching
and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2).

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., and Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at a Distance:
Foundations of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Jiang, M. and Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students' perceived learning in a web-based
course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 317-338.

Ward, M., and Newlands, D. (1998). Use of the Web in undergraduate teaching. Computers and
Education, 31(2), 171-184.

Matthews, D. (1999). The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T.H.E. Journal,
27 (2), 54-66.

Dutton, J., M. Dutton & J. Perry. Do online students perform as well as lecture students? Journal of
Engineering Education 90(1): 131–139, 1999.

13
Terry, N. Assessing enrollment and attrition rates for the online MBA. T.H.E. Journal 28(7): 64–68, 2001.

Abrami, P. C., & Bures, E. M. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning and distance education.
American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 37–42.

Bernard, R. M., & Amundsen, C. L. (1989). Antecedents to dropout in distance education: Does one
model fit all? Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 25–46

Bernt, F. L., &Bugbee, A. C. (1993). Study practices and attitudes related to academic success in a
distance learning programme. Distance Education, 14(1), 97–112.

Bures, E., Abrami , P. C., & Amundsen, C. (2000). Student motivation to learn via computer-conferencing.
Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 593–621

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.

Coggins, C. C. (1988). Preferred learning styles and their impact on completion of external degree
programs. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 25–37

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education.
American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

Hawkes, M. (2001). Variables of interest in exploring the reflective outcomes of network-based

communication. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 299–315.

Kember, D. (1995). Open learning courses for adults: A model of student progress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.

Lou, Y., Dedic, H., &Rosenfield, S. (2003). Feedback model and successful e-learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.),
Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practice (pp. 249– 260). London and Sterling, VA:
Kogan Page.

McKnight, C. B. (2001). Supporting critical thinking in interactive learning environments. Computers in

the Schools, 17(3–4), 17–32.

McVay, M. (2001). How to be a successful distance education student: Learning on the Internet. New
York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature
[Research Monograph]. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Morgan, C., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education student attrition.
Distance Education, 20t(1), 96–108.

Phipps, R., &Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the
effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.

14
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional
Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.

Smith, E. (1999). Learning to learn online. Retrieved July 24, 2003, from http:// www.csu.edu.au

Sweet, R. (1986). Student dropout in distance education: An application of Tinto’s model. Distance
Education, 7(2), 201–213.

Tabachnik, B. S., &Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.

Taylor, J. C. (2001, April). Fifth generation distance education. Keynote address delivered at the ICDE
20th World Conference, Dusseldorf, Germany, April 1–5. Retrieved September 8, 2002, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/conferences.html

Winkelmann, C. L. (1995). Electronic literacy, critical pedagogy, and collaboration: A case for cyborg
writing. Computers and the Humanities, 29(6), 431–448.

Woodley, A., de Lange, P., &Tanewski, G. (2001). Student progress in distance education: Kember’s
model re-visited. Open Learning, 16(2), 113–131.

15