Students' Satisfaction and Perceived Learning with a Web-based Course
Many developers of educational Web materials have a tendency to use the Web in traditional ways (e.g. Dehoney & Reeves, 1999; Kearsley, 1998). The resulting learning environments often appear as electronic versions of traditional courses. Many researchers have been arguing the need for Web-based learning environments that extend the opportunities they afford the students (e.g. Collis, 1997; Duschatel, 1997). These researchers have been guided in their thinking by learning theories, which stressed the need for, and value of, learning environments that provide active and engaging activities for students. Students should have the opportunities to construct knowledge rather than just being exposed to the transmission of knowledge.
But what of such learning environments? There is always the prospect of a significant gap between what is intended and what is achieved. Are these learning environments what the students expect and want from their teachers? Are these learning environments able to provide the levels of motivation needed to master the course content? These are some of the questions confronting teachers seeking to employ a Web-based learning setting with students as a means to enhance the access and flexibility of a course. This paper describes a study to assess students' perceptions of a Web-based learning environment using the problem-based approach and attempts to determine the level of success achieved by the students.
Adopting Web-based learning
The educational technology literature abounds with arguments
for and against the value afforded by technology. Research on the impact
of technology on learning has produced mixed results.
Problem-based learning: A Web-based solution for student-centred and flexibility in course delivery
Previous researches suggested the value to be gained from contextualising learning within settings which reflect the purpose of learning and how students might ultimately apply this learning beyond the classroom (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Herrington & Oliver, 1999). Situated learning, rooted in constructivist learning principles encourages students to construct their own meaning for knowledge and information. Moreover, situated learning values the importance of interaction and socialisation among students in the learning process.
Problem-based learning was selected as the means to implement the situated learning setting in this study. Problem-based learning is a curriculum approach, which helps students frame experiences through a series of problem-solving activities. Learning occurs through the application of knowledge and skills to the solution of authentic problems, often in the context of real practice (Bligh, 1995). Problem-based learning uses problems to encourage the students to acquire knowledge rather than through the exposition of discipline knowledge (Boud & Feletti, 1991). Problem-based learning is a form of situated learning, learning through goal-directed activity situated in circumstances that are authentic in terms of intended application of the learnt knowledge.
Problem-based learning has been reported to increase students’ motivation, to develop their critical thinking skills, and to deepen their understanding of content (Sage & Torp, 1997). But research has also shown that successful learning is not always guaranteed with problem-based learning or in fact with any new teaching method. For example, Wilhelm (1997) reported students often experience difficulties and discomfort with collaborative and self-directed learning which are essential elements of problem-based learning. Piling-Cormick (1997) also commented that inexperienced students could experience significant difficulties with self-directed learning activities. Success in student-centred learning depends on students' abilities for self-monitoring and self-regulation (Lan, 1996).
Findings from research on Web-based learning
Research on asynchronous Web-based learning in general reported high levels of students' satisfaction with the courses (Collins, 2000; Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, Shea, & Swan, 2000; Jiang & Ting, 1998; Motiwalla & Tello, 2000; Oliver & Omari, 2001; Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, & Maher, 2000). Additionally, Swan et al. (2000) and Fredericksen et al. (2000) also reported that students have perceived a high level of learning with their Web-based courses. However, most studies reported no difference in learning achievement between students taking Web-based courses and students enrolled in traditional face-to-face classes (Carswell, 2000; Collins, 2000; Kearsley, 2000; Wegner, Holloway, & Gordon, 1999).
In their studies of 31 Web-based courses, Motiwalla and Tello (2000) found that the students appreciated the flexibility of accessing the courses anytime and anywhere. Likewise Wegner et al. (1999) reported that 21% of the students in their study on a problem-based Web-course stated that the convenience of not having to travel and having flexible study hours was an added advantage.
Results from a study using a team-based instructional design in a Web-based undergraduate educational psychological course found that students felt a need to learn to motivate themselves differently for an online class (Matuga, 2001). Strategies used within regular classroom environments did not appear to work in Web-based courses. One student exclaimed:
“I have learned that self-motivation is something that I really have to work on when I am really busy with lots of things. It is really easy to say that I will do this stuff tomorrow, and then never do it tomorrow because I do not have a classroom to go to. I think I will focus on why I want to learn this stuff, rather than just getting it over with because it is a requirement for my major.”
Carswell (2000) compared a traditional Open University course and another version of the course using the Internet for communication. The students felt that they gained valuable experience in using the Internet and its associated tools. While such learning was not an objective of the course it was a welcome by-product. Collins (2000) likewise reported that students enrolled in a Web-assisted non-major biology course also commented that they had gained experience with the Internet and email.
In general, students were tolerant of technical problems, as long as they are solved. Although students did experience problems with modems, lost lines and servers but they accepted this as a fact of life (Carswell, 2000). However, Horvath and Teles (1999) in their study with mature students who were computer-naďve, reported that initial encounter with computer-mediated Web-assisted courses, generated high levels of anxiety. They concluded that the presence of peers and instructor is no substitute for an intuitive interface design. Problems with the computers generated high levels of frustration and anxiety. Students' difficulties were caused not only by the lack of requisite skills to diagnose the problem or the lack of computer knowledge and skills to solve the problem but, more importantly, by the elevated level of anxiety which blocked rational, as opposed to effectively motivated, behaviour. Students tend to feel embarrassed in response to these problems (Carswell, 2000; Horvath & Teles, 1999).
Hislop (2000) noted that students vary substantially in their approach to a Web-based class just as they do to a traditional class. A student's behaviour may change over time due to external factors, such as, how busy they are at work, their interest in a particular course, or their level of relevant experience. Nonetheless, at a given time, there is some typical behaviour patterns that seem common to all students. Hislop (2000) named these behaviours as leading, lucid, lively, lurking, listless, lagging, and lost. Carswell (2000) reported that the Internet-based conferences in his study attracted a high number of "lurkers". Reasons given for lack of participation included confusion as to their roles, unclear expectations, and not wanting to participate.
While students generally felt that the instructor provided
answers and feedback promptly, Matuga (2001) reported that some students
felt that they were not receiving individual attention. Motiwalla and
Tello (2000) reported that approximately a quarter of their students
were dissatisfied with the computer-mediated component and a further
36% were neutral. Around 67% of the students agreed that the computer-mediated
communication tools facilitated student-instructor interaction. Another
47% of the students agreed that the communication tools facilitated student-student
interaction. Bourne, McMaster, Rieger, and
Nonetheless, there were reports that students perceived the electronic group-based discussions as forcing them to look at the opinions of others as a way to get new information, and to reflect and learn from their peers (Carswell, 2000; Matuga, 2001). Corrent-Agostinho et al. (1998) in a study with a non-compulsory computer-mediated communication component within a Web course, reported that due to the asynchronosity of the discussion forum, students had time to reflect on the material and on comments made, before making comments themselves. They suggested that this might aid metacognition.
In a study of problem-based Web learning environment, Oliver and Omari (2001) found that the majority of students saw value to be gained from, and appeared satisfied with, their learning experience. However, for nearly 50% of the students, this was not their preferred form of learning. Similarly, the majority of students stated a level of enjoyment in the collaborative problem-based computer-mediated learning but nearly 50% again said they would prefer to work alone rather than in group. Wegner et al. (1999) found that around 29% of the students in a problem-based approach Web course, expressed a lack of content background as a concern of studying in the course. The lack of instructional direction was expected as the basic nature of Web learning creates barriers to the type of interaction experienced in traditional classrooms. Additionally, the problem-based learning instructional approach features a more student-centred approach to learning. The instructor is not expected to give answers and directions, but assumes a supportive and more passive role. Students, not used to this method of inquiry, experience some discomfort in making the transition from teacher-centred to student-centred learning
The Web-based environment
The Web-based environment for this study and its functional elements, based on the problem-based learning approach, have been described in an earlier paper (Hong, Lai, & Holton, 2001). In summary, the Web-based learning environment has the following forms:
This Web-based learning environment was implemented with 26 part-time students (15 males and 11 females) studying the Master of Science degree in Human Resource Development Program at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. The Web-based course "Statistics for Social Sciences" was conducted for 14 weeks between November 2000 and March 2001, without any face-to-face lectures. There was an initial face-to-face session for the students to get to know each other and the instructor, the structure of the course, and to be familiar with the key features of the course Web site. Subsequently there were three face-to-face sessions to familiarise the students with the statistics software (Statistics for Social Sciences Package, SPSS). These sessions also enabled the instructor to obtain feedback and provide the students with assistance and moral support.
Data was gathered from the students through open-ended interviews and questionnaires at the end of the course. The questionnaires consisted of statements probing the students' perceptions of the course, student-student and student-teacher interactions, asynchronous Web-based conferences, and group dynamics during the conferences. For each of the statement, the students had five choices of response: "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "No Opinion", "Disagree", and "Strongly Disagree".
Findings and Discussions
Consistent with the findings of the majority of studies of Web-based courses in the literature (Collins, 2000; Fredericksen et al., 2000; Jiang & Ting, 1998; Motiwalla & Tello, 2000; Swan et al., 2000; Oliver & Omari, 2001), students in this study reported high levels of satisfaction with the Web-based course. More than two thirds perceived the course positively, with only three students viewing the course negatively (Table 1).
Table 1. Students' perceptions of the course
Similar to findings reported by Motiwalla and Tello (2000) and Wegner et al. (1999), the students in this study appreciated the flexibility of accessing the Web-based course at anytime and from anywhere. One student commented, "I could access the course from anywhere. I didn’t have to be present in class. I was not tied down by time constraint and could learn at my convenience. I could discuss and interact with my friends and teacher, although not face-to-face."
Students who actively seek support from the teacher and fellow students, or have support within the family to cope with the Web, were generally satisfied with their learning experience. A student who expressed satisfaction with the course commented during the interview:
“I was interested and motivated to learn at the beginning of the course because it was Web-based. Then I have some problems with my computer. I felt lost. However, my friends and the instructor helped me to adapt to the learning environment.”
On the other hand, during the interview, another participation that was less satisfied with the learning experiences in the Web-based course had the following observations:
“It was a new learning experience. I was eager to try the course. However, when I faced problems, I could not get immediate support. Email was quite troublesome. I had to wait for reply from the instructor and friends. Though the response from the instructor was fast, sometimes I would like an immediate answer.”
This finding concurs with Eastmond and Ziegahn’s (1995) conclusion that adult students must be technologically proficient or have someone in their immediate support system who is competent in using technology, in order to be successful in Web-based courses. The students who were less proficient and did not seek assistance with the learning environment expressed either no opinion (N=5) or dissatisfaction (N=3) with the course. The Web-based learning environment did not motivate these students. Matuga (2001) suggests that students may have to motivate themselves in different ways for Web-based courses since strategies used within the regular classroom do not work. It is not easy to complete certain readings or assignments because students do not have a classroom to go to.
Thirteen of the students in this course also reported improvement in attitudes toward the computer, and to computer knowledge and skills, unintentional learning outcomes also reported by Carswell (2000) and Collins (2000). One student commented: "Before this course, I used the computer only for email and typing test paper. Now I can use the SPSS, the Web and online discussions. I became more familiar with handling the computer. Most of us have come out of from our shell and were less nervous. Now we spend most of our time in front of the computer."
The students were generally satisfied with the student-student and student-teacher interactions in the Web-based course. This finding concurs with Swan et al. (2000), Fredericksen et al. (2000), and Motiwalla & Tello (2000)’s findings that students generally perceived the asynchronous format of the Web-based course as supporting interactivity and involvement. However, a few of the students were not sure (N=7) or felt that the course did not facilitate interaction with the teacher (N=1) (refer Table 2). A few of the students were also not sure (N=5) or felt that the course did not facilitate interaction between the students (N=3) (refer Table 2). It is possible that some virtual students could be frustrated from the inability to ask questions of the teacher and fellow students in a face-to-face environment. One participant commented, "… when I faced problems, I could not ask the instructor immediately. Email was quite troublesome. I had to wait for the reply from the instructor. Though the response was fast, sometimes I would like an immediate answer."
Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = No Opinion, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly Disagree
Table 2. Students' perceptions on interactions in the course
The students were divided on their opinions regarding the asynchronous Web-based conference using problem-based approach. While the students felt the discussion during computer conferences enhanced their learning, about one third of the students were undecided or disagreed (refer Table 3). This finding is similar to those reported by Motiwalla and Tello (2000) and Oliver and Omari (2001). Oliver and Omari (2001) in their study on problem-based learning found that half of the students indicated that it was not their preferred form of learning and they would prefer to work alone rather than in a group. Similarly, Motiwalla and Tello (2000) reported that 25% of the students in their study were dissatisfied with the computer-mediated communication component and further 36% were neutral.
Table 3. Students' perceptions of the asynchronous Web-based conferences
For the students who felt that the Web-based conferences were useful, learning was a collaborative endeavour of sharing knowledge and experiences. One student observed: “Exchanging ideas and thoughts with friends that were more knowledgeable helped improve our understanding. The conferences also promoted closer relations among the students.” Students could reflect on their own, and fellow students', ideas and contributions to the conferences. Another student commented: "The conferences were interesting compared to the face-to-face discussions, lectures and examination. I could slowly understand, interpret, and analyse the postings." Similarly, students in Carswell's (2000), Corrent-Agostinho et al. (1998), and Matuga's (2001) studies commented that Web-based discussions forced them to look at the opinions of others as a way to get new information, take another point of view and learn from peers. Explaining to other students, helps in the student's own understanding and serves to maintain interest and motivation.
As can be seen from Table 4, the students were satisfied with the facilitators and learning material used in the Web-based conferences. However, the students were not happy with the group dynamics during the asynchronous Web-based conferences using problem-based approach. Four of the students were not sure if they had contributed to the discussions in the Web-based conferences while another four felt that they had not contributed. Likewise five students were undecided as to whether they had learned from the discussions in the Web-based conferences. Another five students commented that they had not learned from the conferences. Eight of the student felt that their group members were not punctual and did not came prepared for the conferences. This finding agrees with Matuga's (2001) discovery that some groups had better group dynamics and interacted more than other groups.
Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = No Opinion, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly Disagree
Table 4. Students' perceptions on the small-group dynamics, role of the facilitators, and learning material
There were some students who read the postings in the conferences but seldom participated. They blamed their lack of participation on inadequate mathematical and computer knowledge, anxiety about using computers, fear of embarrassment and the discomfort felt when their peers commented their work on. Some students felt that the more able students were not willing to share their knowledge. On the other hand, the more able students perceived these students as not having prepared for the conferences and as relying on others for answers. Some students did not actively take part in the conferences. Some quotes that illustrated these findings were,
“Sometimes I did not post messages but I was actively looking at the posting. I also e-mailed to my friends and the teacher. I was afraid I might ask questions that looked stupid. E-mails to individuals were not so embarrassing.”
“Most of us had a phobia of using the computer, especially to discuss online. When we looked at the discussion, we do not know what we could contribute, so we just browsed. But after the first assignment, we improved a little bit. We could handle the discussion better.”
“We need both individual and group learning. Individual learning is difficult but it trains oneself to be self-reliant. Learning in a group, some members tend to do nothing and depend on others to complete the group tasks.”
Hislop (2000) characterised these behaviours as lurking, listless, lagging, and lost. The lurking students are present but invisible. They follow class activities, but do not participate. The listless students participate, but not very much. They are not very motivated, and seem immune to efforts to encourage more class participation. Like lurking students, the listless students do not have much negative impact on the class as long as there are not very many of them. The lagging students are always a few steps behind the rest of the class. They may not contribute at all since they are too far behind in their reading or other independent work. When they participate, they tend to contribute at the last minute. The lost students are missing in action. They come in two distinct groups. The first group includes students who are not participating in the class at all. The second group includes students who are contributing, but whose contributions are generally off the topic or erroneous.
Lastly some of the students felt isolated during the course and prefer the more complex part of the course to be conducted face-to-face. Students acknowledged that the teacher provided prompt feedback and answers but some still felt that they did not receive individual attention. One student remarked: "However, when I faced problems, I could not ask the teacher immediately. Email was quite troublesome. I had to wait for the reply from the teacher. Though the response was fast, sometimes I would like an immediate answer. Our friends were also busy with their own work. Sometimes I felt helpless at home." Similarly, Bourne et al. (1997) reported that 30% of their students were uncomfortable with the use of asynchronous computer conferencing and Web-based learning environment and expressed preferences for face-to-face lectures.
This current study concludes that students in the Web-based statistics course using a problem-based approach achieved comparable achievement with two previous versions of the face-to-face course (refer Table 5). However, the results of the comparisons should be interpreted with care. The face-to-face courses were lecture-based and were not taught using the problem-based learning approach. The students for the courses were also not tested for equivalence in mathematics and scholastic aptitude entry level. The finding on learning achievement in this course was in agreement with results from the majority of studies in the literature. Carswell (2000), Collins (2000), Kearsley (2000), Wegner et al. (1999) reported no difference in learning outcomes between students in Web-based courses and students in face-to-face courses. Use of technology in any capacity does not guarantee academic success, but indications from this study suggest that it does not necessarily have any significant negative effects.
Note: The researcher taught the first and third cohorts of students while another teacher taught the second cohort students.
Table 5. Final grades for the Web-based and the face-to-face courses
This paper described a research undertaken in a Malaysian university, which explored students' perceptions and successes in a Web-based learning environment designed to support problem-based learning. The students' achievement in the Web-based course was comparable to a face-to-face version of the course. The students' feedback from the interviews and questionnaires indicated a general level of satisfaction and contentment with a student-centred and flexible form of learning involving problem-based learning in a group setting and Web-based delivery. Although the students agreed that learning was enhanced through the interaction in the asynchronous Web-based conferences, and reflecting on the postings of the conferences, problem-based learning and asynchronous Web-based conference was not their preferred form of learning. Some groups had better group dynamics than others did. Some students were lurking, listless, lagging, and lost.
The findings suggest that the tasks ahead will be to improve the Web learning environment to provide more structure and guidance to students in learning from asynchronous interaction and group activities. There is also a need to explore strategies to guide students in a problem-based learning environment. Further research and development are needed to refine the Web-based environment to support and enhance students’ learning using a problem-based model.
Bligh, J. (1995). Problem-based learning in medicine: An introduction. Post-Graduate Medical Journal, 71 (8), 323-326.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge
of problem-based learning,
Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell,
J. O. (1998). Paradigms for online learning: a case study in
the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning networks course,
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Carswell, L. (2000). Distance education via the Internet: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31 (1), 29-46.
Collins, M. (2000).Comparing Web, correspondence and lecture versions of a second-year non-major biology course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31 (1), 21-27.
Collis, B. (1997). Pedagogical re-engineering: A pedagogical approach to course enrichment and design with the WWW. Educational Technology Review, 8, 11-15.
Corrent-Agostinho, S., Hedberg, J., & Lefoe, G. (1998).Constructing problems in a Web-based environment. Educational Media International, 35 (3), 173-180.
Dehoney, J., & Reeves, T. (1999). Instructional and social dimensions of class Web pages.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10 (2), 19-41.
Duschatel, P. (1997). A Web-based model for University instruction. Journal of Educational Technology System, 25 (3), 221-228.
Eastmond, D. V., & Ziegahn, L. (1995).Instructional
design for the online classroom. In Z. L. Berge & M. P, Collins (Eds.) Computer-mediated
communication and online classroom, Vol. III Distance Learning,
Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., Shea, P., & Swan,
K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with online courses:
Principles and examples from the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Network, 14 (2),
Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effect of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36 (1), 5-13.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10 (1), 3-24.
Hislop, G. (2000). Working professional as part-time
online learners.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4 (2),
Hong K. S., Lai K. W., & Holton, D. (2001). Web
based learning environment: Observations from a Web based course in a
Malaysian context. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
17 (3), 223-243,
Horvath, A., & Teles, L. (1999).Novice users' reactions to a Web-enriched classroom. Virtual University, 2, 49-57.
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998). Course design, instruction,
and students' online behaviors: A study of instructional variables and
student perceptions of online learning. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Kearsley, G. (1998). Educational technology: A critique. Educational Technology, 38, 47-51.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and
teaching in cyberspace,
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers and Human Behaviour, 7 (1/2), 75-94.
Lan, W. (1996). The effects of self-monitoring on students' course performance, use of learning strategies, attitude, self-judgement ability and knowledge representation. Journal of Experiential Education, 64, 101-115.
Matuga, J. M. (2001). Electronic pedagogical practice:
The art and science of teaching and learning online. Educational Technology & Society,
Motiwalla, L., & Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (4), 253-264.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001).Student responses to collaborating and learning in a Web-based environment. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17 (1), 34-47.
Piling-Cormick, J. (1997).Transformative and self-directed learning in practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 69-77.
Reeves, T. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20 (2), 39-46.
Sage, S., & Torp, L. (1997). What does it take to become a teacher of problem-based learning? Journal of Staff Development, 18, 32-36.
Stoll, C. (1996). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts
on the Information Superhighway,
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000).Building knowledge building communities: Consistencies, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 (4), 359-383.
Wegner, S. B., Holloway, K. C., & Gordon, E. M.
(1999).The effects of Internet-based instruction on student learning. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (2),
Wilhelm, K. (1997). Sometime kicking and screaming: Language teachers in training react to a collaborative learning model. Modern Language Journal, 81, 527-542.
Copyright by the International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the authors of the articles you wish to copy or firstname.lastname@example.org.