Learning From the Learners: Student Perception of the Online Classroom

Students, perhaps more so than any other stakeholder in American educational systems, are aware that the traditional university model of set class times in brick-and-mortar classroom spaces no longer works for many. Some students, especially those who are older or working full-time and/or with family obligations, seek nontraditional programs that are more flexible and thus better suited to their overall life and lifestyle needs. Most of these students appreciate the opportunity and flexibility offered by online education, and believe that computer mediated learning and communication is as viable for the classroom and education as it is for the workplace (Bell & Kozlowski 2002). Online education has become the norm for hundreds of thousands of students, and is no longer just a fringe option. After analyzing more than 6,000 student discussion responses focused on seven open-ended questions, the article concludes by offering modest advice to institutions, professors, and students on how to improve the online learning and teaching experience for all, based on the student perspectives shared in this article.

Three hundred and two students registered in 16 graduate business courses were invited to offer their perceptions and experiences with online learning. Almost all of these students had prior experience with traditional face-to-face classroom learning. This sharing of learning experience was a voluntary contribution by the students, and was not graded or otherwise evaluated for coursework purposes. Two hundred and twenty-nine students voluntarily responded, resulting in over 6,400 individual comments, of which about 75 are shared throughout this article to document the discussion (see  Appendix A). The average age of the respondents is 38, including 132 males and 97 females. This data collection took place during Weeks 5 and 6 of an 8-week graduate online course, overlapped with regular coursework, and was essentially an additional classroom discussion open to all in each of the 16 cohorts.

The students were asked to respond to seven open-ended questions, and invited to share their perceptions of their online learning experiences ( Appendix B). An initial submission of about 100 words was expected in response to each of the seven questions during Week 5 of the course. Students were then asked the following week to respond and discuss the submissions of others in the cohort. Thus, a total discussion of just over 6,400 comments/postings.

A qualitative methodology approach was chosen so that a rich understanding of student perceptions of the online experience could be gained by allowing respondents to give nuanced and detailed accounts of their experiences with online learning. Content analysis was used to identify recurring patterns in the data (Berg, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The coding process involved reading all responses several times and then categorizing units of text including sentences, phrases, or paragraphs (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009). The coding process entailed the assignment of codes based on the nature of the experience or perception (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Six categories emerged from the data, and are discussed in this article.

Limitations of this research include that the students in this sample are likely older on average than most online students (age range 27– 62, average age 38). All students were enrolled in the same graduate business program, and taking the same course at the same university, with the 16 sections of the course being offered over a 3-year period. The course itself was designed as a discussion-based course with two written assignments; thus, the findings are not necessarily widely applicable to all types of online programs. Students in this sample all chose to do this graduate degree online, so favorable bias toward online learning may be present from the students in the sample. Some students may have been reticent in their postings given the open access to all in the cohort. All coding was done by the author, and thus is open to possible personal bias or misinterpretation. The research can be viewed as a single case study, and so open to the limitations common in case research.

Student debt is an obvious issue, but financial cost is only part of the student’s “cost” concern. Most students in this sample feel that the personal sacrifice required by traditional classroom education is too costly because face-to-face education with set class times and specified physical classroom locations does not meet their needs in terms of efficiency or effectiveness, or overall life balance.

Online classes remove the need for travel, and thus the time needed for travel, and may resolve even ongoing childcare or work issues caused by not being available to be in the home or the work place at certain times. Knowing that the timing and location of schoolwork can be changed to better meet personal needs reduces the stress encountered with set-time and location boundaries (Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012).

Yet, the need for further education is perceived as a near-constant expectation for many individual students. Required skillsets in the workplace are constantly being reset at higher levels, and so whether or not to attend school is not perceived to be optional. The challenge for adult students with work and family responsibilities is in finding educational systems that work for them.

Many students mentioned often feeling too tired to attend face-time evening classes.

The personal desire of simply not wanting to attend traditional classes is often mentioned as a motivator in choosing online education instead of the traditional classroom. The online option, even with flaws, is still seem as preferable to the traditional classroom setting.

Nontraditional students are often transient because of work schedules, relocation, or with work-related travel, and this interferes with regular attendance at traditional classes, much less the aggravation of trying to transfer credit hours from institution to institution. A frequent student observation is the overall length of time needed to complete a degree when only night or Saturday classes are available. Missed classes and missed learning opportunities in the traditional school are often beyond student control, yet still impacts their learning and grades.

Finally, many students feel education with set class times interferes with both family and work life, and also constrains quality learning. Loss of family life is a cost.

The personal cost in terms of travel times and other time spent in simply managing to attend traditional classes is a major concern for many students in this sample. The pragmatic time-flexibility in “attending” online class whenever and wherever is perceived to be as important, as is the benefit of not missing classes because of work or family responsibilities. For more than 80%of respondents, the ability to be in control of their own educational schedules, not only their class times but also their program completion time, looms large. Work-life balance issues are rarely discussed in the pedagogical literature, yet emerge as a major “cost” concern for many students in this sample. These students essentially assume the academic content is equivalent to traditional programs, thus allowing a default focus on personal cost and life balance. That education should fit into lifestyle, and not that lifestyle should change to accommodate education, was clearly stated.

Most students in this sample have complaints about the dynamics and learning environment of the traditional classroom, going beyond the already noted time and place constraints of the traditional physical classroom. The speed of the face-classroom, and lack of time for thinking or reflection, is noted by many.

The pragmatic need to keep up and take notes quickly, and perhaps incompletely or without understanding, is also noted.

The most common complaint regarding the face-classroom is that a few verbal students typically dominate classroom discussions, with most of the students in the class to sitting passively, and therefore not contributing their own perspectives and experiences to the discussion. This reluctance of students to engage in the face-to-face classroom may be caused by shyness, simple inability to get airtime, or even lack of interest in the discussion because of lack of energy as noted earlier. Over half the students in the sample resent the need to spend energy and time trying to have their contribution noticed.

In the traditional classroom most students feel there is little or no opportunity for student-to-student discussion or even student-to-professor discussion. Interaction in face-to-face classrooms is described by most as being one way from instructor to the class, with occasional interaction between a few students and the instructor (Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006; So & Brush 2008).

The discussion-based asynchronous online classroom flattens the traditional top-down classroom hierarchy, at least in part. Students have considerably more control over their own contribution, participation, and learning, partly because students drive the online discussion. The professor still controls the initial discussion questions, but he/she is not the dominant voice in the discussion as in most face-to-face classrooms, and student interaction is the online norm (Berry, 2006). Domination by the verbal few is simply not possible in the online classroom. For the discussion-based online classrooms in this sample, students were expected to offer an initial response to each discussion question, and then were expected to respond another three or more times to the responses from other students over a 1-week period. Competition for voice time in the asynchronous online classroom is not an issue, whereas communication blocking by students or the professor is commonplace in the face-classroom (Berry, 2011). The need for immediate response to any given question or topic is also removed completely, thus quiet time for reflective thought or analysis is possible and encouraged.

Pedagogical objectives such as analyzing and synthesizing are well served by the amount of interaction in the online classroom (Hacker & Niederhauser, 2000; Weiss, 2000). The challenge facing professors is on how to encourage student discussion beyond the sharing of descriptive information and experience to more analytical and critical thinking levels (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Richardson & Swan, 2003).

The 24/7 online asynchronous discussion generates literally hundreds of student postings per course, and this amount of discussion or experiential sharing is not possible in a synchronous face-to-face class, regardless of interest or intent by student or professor. Unlimited peer discussion is possible in the online classroom because all students in the cohort can talk at the same time, unlike turntaking, as in synchronous conversation. Further, the online discussion is spread over a week (168 hours) and not compressed into a 3hour face-class. This ability of students to selfregulate scheduling and learning often leads to greater satisfaction and learning outcomes (Eom, 2010).

Some online students feel frustration with some of the differences between asynchronous computer-mediated-learning (CML) and synchronous face-to-face learning. The benefits of CML may be recognized and appreciated, but online is still the newer and less comfortable experience for most. Over 80%of the students in this sample took their first degree or most of their first degree in the traditional classroom. Importantly, online is not perceived as being easier than traditional face-to-face learning by these students. Most students note that online courses demand more student time per course, even though this class- and work-time scheduling is more controlled by the students in terms of when they do their work. Four specific characteristics of online communication are consistently mentioned by most students: some feel isolated and alone; the roles of student and professor change dramatically; relationships between peers or peer and professor are sometimes more difficult to establish; and not having face-to-face conversations seems odd.

Some students feel isolated in the online classroom, and this seems partly correlated with the slower pace and lack of immediate response in CML, but also with the reality of working alone at the computer. Others express concern regarding the changed pace for learning or interaction.

An advantage of the CML classrooms is that students work/study/learn when personally convenient for them, yet this benefit leads some students to feel a lack of community or support because this independence results in lags for response time. The transportability of computing means that online learning activities can now be done at alternative times and locations, usually when alone (McCloskey, 2016).

Although many share the experience of detachment or isolation as noted above, others appreciate the near-exclusive focus on task, and the more professional tone in the online classroom.

Students recognize changed roles for both students and professors, and this sample expressed a mixed reaction to these changed roles. Some students feel uncomfortable with the added responsibility of organizing their own work and learning, yet others highly value this added autonomy and independence. Lack of participation in the discussion equates with lack of presence, which is documented in the electronic archive.

Student prior experience with CML and online learning seems to solve most of these participation and time-management issues. The benefits of personal flexibility and autonomy are the balancing tradeoffs once the changed communication dynamics are understood.

The outcomes of online learning in terms of connection or personal relationships evolving from the class is still viewed as weak by some. Many perceive that establishing personal relationships is more difficult in the virtual world. Many students find it strange and uncomfortable to communicate solely via text messaging.

Some suggest that they know their professor less well.

Others disagree, suggesting that the longer and more reflective responses common in CML balance and make up for the lack of face-to-face interaction.

Almost all students admit to missing face-to-face conversation while in the online classroom, yet most also acknowledge that synchronous communication is not necessary in terms of learning the course material. The lack of face-to-face communication creates trust issues for some, especially with team-based assignments as some have concerns about the willingness of other team members to do the work (Peters & Karren, 2009). The constant interaction found in the online classroom may aid in developing trust (Henttonnen & Blomqvist, 2005), but many students work together based on reluctant pragmatic need and not trust (Thomas, 2007). CML lacks the personal social control often found on synchronous work teams, and this causes unease for some (Cascio, 2000). Yet, the conclusion of many students is that higher levels of relationship are possible over time in the online class because of the depth of shared personal information and experience in the discussion-based asynchronous format.

The changed role of both professor and student is mentioned by more than 70%of the students in this sample, and most see this as a beneficial shift. Many students welcome this shift as it puts them more in charge of their own learning and thus more responsible for their own educational success. This change of role is initially confusing to some, and is further confounded by false expectations that the online classroom will be more or less the same as the traditional classroom (Berry, 2006).

Both students and professors need to develop new skills, abilities, and methods for success in the online classroom (Picciano, 2001). Communication patterns change in CMC, as do expectations of performance and other behaviors including team roles and responsibilities (Hinds & Weisband, 2003).

The most obvious difference between traditional and virtual education is that the mode of communication has changed, and this impacts all aspects of student perception. Students or professors who expect or try to make asynchronous communication work like synchronous communication often find themselves frustrated and unhappy.

The flow of conversation/communication is much slower in CML, the result of people who are not all in the same place (or electronic space) at the same time. Some individuals in the virtual classroom may be online every 3 hours, with a post or two, while others are only visible every second day with a dozen posts each time.

The pause commonly found in CML is thus seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage.

The strengths and weaknesses of CML take some time and effort to become familiar with, and there is often a lag before appreciating the advantages, and understanding how to protect against the disadvantages, both in responding in the discussion but also in questioning others in the cohort. Most students agree that clarity of message is essential.

Most communication models acknowledge the reality of noise, situations or behaviors or communication characteristics that interfere with a clear transmission of a message. CML has different types of noise, but still has noise. Misunderstanding may be related to the student not being familiar with the CML environment, either in their own writing or careful reading of other posts, and the time lag in CML contributes to lack of clarity and focus.

Students learn from each other as well as from the professor and courseware in the CML classroom, simply because all students are expected to share their thoughts and experiences with all others on a myriad of discussion topics. Everyone is expected to contribute. Over 90%of communication is from student to student in the online cohort, instead of being mostly from the professor to the class. Cohortbased discussion results in more opinion, comments, and shared experience, but perhaps also less academic focus as well.

Some online students note that the student is more in charge of the classroom, at least in terms of the discussion, and as a consequence some students note that the professor’s role is also changed.

Most students are concerned with the amount of writing required in the online discussion-based classroom.

The sheer volume of comment posted by the student cohort is noted by almost all, again demanding new skills of time management and persistence from the student.

Students build their personal understanding of the course material through active discussion and learning from all in the cohort, including the professor, and this is a more difficult synthesis compared to the more simple transfer of ideas and information only from the professor to the student (Meyer, 2003). Students are accountable for their participation, a task easily evaluated as all CML contributions are archived (May & Gueldenzoph 2006). Parallel and overlapping asynchronous communication instead of sequential communication is appreciated by most students, once they become familiar with the process. A different communication skill set is required from both professor and student in the CML classroom compared to the traditional classroom, and these skills can take some time to develop (Johnson, Chandidprapa, Yoon, Berrett, & LaFleur, 2003; Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). All those involved should not assume that all CML students or professors share the same attitude or skillset in using asynchronous CML.

A major challenge when entering the CML online classroom is the autonomy of time use available to students for online work, and students control how much time they choose to spend in the classroom.

Online can be all-consuming because the classroom is not limited to set times and set places and with a specific amount of work expected by the professor in that limited time. The personal challenge of competent time management cannot be ignored.

The distractions of working at home or office, and other distractions not found in the traditional classroom, cannot be ignored either.

Because most students are online every day, the pace of online and the accumulation of unread postings seem relentless. If a student misses class for a few days the time cost of catching up can seem insurmountable. As an example, in an online class of 15 students if every student makes just one comment for each of three ongoing discussions on a given day, that results in 45 comments just for that one day, and a 4-day absence results in about 180 postings to read and absorb. As most students take multiple classes, this build-up of material expands even further.

Almost all students comment on the need for self-discipline, and the amount of time and effort required for success in the online classroom. This flexibility of when to participate is associated with perceived increased student learning outcomes and satisfaction (Arbaugh & Duray, 2002), but also leads to trouble for those without competent work and study skills.

Online students share many of the same concerns as face-to-face classroom students, but with added worries and uncertainty about the virtual environment, virtual communication, and technology. Working on virtual teams is a concern for many online students, and while some students simply don’t like working on teams, virtual or face-to-face, these issues are then further exacerbated and complicated by the use of CML. These issues seem especially troublesome for novice or near-novice online students.

Frustration with online teams is enhanced if other members on the team are slow responders or last-minute workers. This is perhaps less of a problem in face-classes as non-performing team members can be seen and chastised. With virtual communication though, team members are not even sure that a communication query was seen or read, adding further confusion and stress to the team.

Responsibility to the learning team is an added constraint and expectation beyond just personally doing well in the class, or managing one’s own timetable and schedule. Given increased student autonomy in terms of scheduling work, this can become complex.

Students identify aids that can alleviate some of these concerns. Team charters created by the team to lay out the specifics of participation and process per project, and especially who is responsible for what and by when, are seen as beneficial.

Another commonly expressed concern is more personal, focusing on a general fear of lack of self-discipline, or of not having sufficient personal time to do the level of quality work desired.

Some view the need for self-discipline as a responsibility that simply was not necessary in the face-to-face classroom. Some view this as an unfair expectation, while others see this as a personal growth opportunity.

Others simply struggle to find any time for school, regardless of communication method.

Technology breakdown or even just using the technology in a competent manner is a concern for some. Details of where and even how to post, receive announcements or work plans, and the classroom norms and expectations are all new to those recently exposed to online learning.

One surprise evolving from this research was the overwhelming concern with teamwork in the CML classroom. Most workplace teams use computer mediated communication to some extent, if only to send agendas or files across the office, thus most students might be expected to have some experience with virtual teams and online communication. Teams are interdependent and share a common purpose (Duarte & Synder, 2001), so the broader issue may simply be that the nontraditional students in this sample resent this need for interdependence, and the need to trust others while missing the visual controls available to face-to-face teams (Costa & Bijlsma-Frankema, 2007; Weibel, 2007).

This article has documented and commented on student frustration with both traditional face-to-face classrooms and online classrooms. Many students feel uncomfortable with the change in the communication dynamics from face-to-face classrooms to the online classroom, and the pace of online work, leading to ongoing concerns with online learning. The challenge for educators and institutions is using this awareness to improve online teaching and online systems to mitigate these frustrations.

The first step perhaps is to be aware of the institutional support needed by students. The school cannot assume that the transition to online will be seamless, or even easy, for many if not most students.

Students identify guidance and institutional advisors as critical to their success in the online environment. All expect a routine structure and system that works for them the first and every time.

Online students need to assume responsibility for their own success, even prior to the start of class.

The need for professors and facilitators who understand the stressors on the student is mentioned by almost all students.

Many students mentioned time and economic support from their employers, adding yet another stakeholder to the mix. Some employers appreciate that the virtual collaboration skills learned in the online class may well have applicability on the work site.

Although employer and institutional support is important, the most significant support comes from family and friends. Some students work on their online studies from work, but most students work from home, and this can be challenging.

Any virtual communication experience seems valuable, and most students acknowledge that prior experience with online education, or virtual work in their workplace, helps immensely.

Almost without exception students acknowledge the need to develop excellent self-management and time management skills if they expect success in the online environment. Most students suggest that the electronic CML environment itself demands this added sense of responsibility.

The concern for many students is their lack of conviction that they can make this transition from dependency to being more fully independent, given other life responsibilities.

Many students in the online environment self-identify as more mature than traditional students. Most also claim that online education suits them, as seems logical given that unsuccessful or unsuited students would likely selfselect out of online classes after the first course or two, and wouldn’t choose to be in the online classroom for their graduate degree.

Most students in this sample claim that online personally suits them better. For some, this may be a choice based on job or family constraints, for some a preference based on age, but for many, online is a choice because of personality or other personal characteristics.

This article has presented findings collected from 229 students over 16 graduate business school classes. The students in this research have identified the need for institutional support, technology security and tech support, employer support, professor support, peer cohort support, and support from family and friends. The stakeholders involved to create success in the online classroom far outnumber just the student and professor. However, adaptations and changes can be made by institutions, and professors, and the students themselves to make the experience more positive and successful. Both operational and quasi-philosophical lessons from the learners are offered.

Institutions need to recognize that CML is not the same as face-to-face classroom learning; thus, both students and professors need training in the effective use of CML. If a discussion-based class, a seamless CML system is an absolute must, thus allowing both professor and student to concentrate on learning and course content without technical glitches. Prior to being placed in the CML classroom, students need knowledgeable course program assistance and program advisors. The institution must also provide a caring and qualified help desk to assist both students and professors with CML, technical, or other online issues. The institution must understand that online is simply not the same as traditional classrooms except presented using computer-mediated communication. Great face-to-face classroom instructors are not necessarily great online instructors, or vice versa. Because the communication dynamic is changed, different skills and abilities are needed for both effective CML teaching and learning.

Operational lessons include the obvious awareness that instructors must learn and understand effective CML communication skills, and that effective CML communication is not the same as effective face-to-face communication. An encouraging tone and supportive attitude is still expected, but much more difficult to achieve in the CML environment. In a practical sense, CML is seen as a 24/7 environment by most students, and this alone is a challenge for many novice online professors more used to the once-per-week-and-done face-classroom. Expectation for conversational (text) tone and participation is set by the professor, and the absent professor may lead to absent students in the CML classroom. Professors need to be prepared to spend much more time online as compared to teaching a traditional face-classroom course. The professor should expect to be challenged with research and data-driven questions from students who now have the ability to do research and collect data prior to response in any given discussion. Data-driven instead of opinion-driven discussion is the norm in the CML classroom.

Classroom management skills are also different in the CML classroom. Professors must understand that the discussion-based online classroom is interactive and student-centered, and that students have much more control and independence over the direction and tone of the classroom. Thus, the professor steps back and does not hinder more student control of their own learning, and student learning from the cohort. Finally, the instructor must recognize that school and schoolwork is not necessarily the top priority of all students, even more so than in the traditional classroom. This lower priority is often not choice, but simply a reality, although in a practical sense somewhat offset by the 24/7 availability of the courseroom and course materials.

Students should expect to spend time prior to the start of class navigating the various support sites, and becoming familiar with the University online system. On a traditional campus one might expect to walk around to find out where the bookstore is, and the information technology walk-in support center—the online environment is essentially the same, but needs to be found and “known” to the student through online search. The fundamental need for success in the online discussion class is that the student learns effective CML discussion skills, and must be prepared to be present in class 5 to 7 days per week. Online is simply more time intensive than a traditional once-per-week class. The student must also understand that discussion and participation is the core of the class, and communication blocking online means there is no excuse for not participating.

Students must be self-disciplined, selfmotivated, and mature about their educational opportunity. Students are more in charge of their own learning, and thus responsible for the amount of work and effort they put into the course. The traditional face-classroom is upended, and students must be willing share experiences to aid the learning of others. The control dynamic is flattened in the online classroom, with added responsibility resting with the student and the student cohort. Finally, as with the professor in the online classroom, students should expect to be challenged with research and data-driven questions. Experience with online education seems to alleviate the fear of online learning for many, but training in CML and experience in working on virtual teams seems essential as well. Much of the fear regarding online learning is personal and not content- or academically related, focusing on the need for time management and self-discipline in terms of meeting deadlines and getting the work done.

Online professors and institutions and students can all alleviate some of the concerns currently surrounding online learning. Yet, online is not for everyone, professor or student. Students who are successful are generally technologically savvy, appreciate the pace and benefits of the online conversation, have excellent time management and self-discipline skills, and have a desire for learning that overcomes the frustrations sometimes present in the online environment.

1. Please comment on the issue of financial and personal cost in gaining an education generally in the online or in the traditional face-to-face classroom/program.

2. Please comment on the various benefits and/or frustrations you personally found/ find in the face-to-face (traditional) classroom, and relate these to your perceptions of difference from the online classroom.

3. Please comment on the various benefits and/or frustrations you personally found/ find in the online classroom, and relate these to your perceptions of difference from the face-to-face classroom.

4. Please comment on the responsibility or role differences for both professor and student comparing the online classroom and the face-to-face classroom.

5. Please comment on any other general issues experienced in the online classroom, aside from specific course expectations.

6. How could some of these issues from questions one through five above be resolved?

7. Please offer any final thoughts regarding these questions as impacted by either online or the face-to-face classroom. What could the institution, the professor, or you personally do to improve these situations?

Initial coding from these seven questions resulted in 21 categories. Fourteen categories were populated by less than a dozen comments each, and were then merged into the remaining seven broader categories.

• Category 1. Student perception of personal cost

• Category 2. Student issues with the traditional classroom

• Category 3. Differences between traditional and online classrooms

• Category 4. General frustrations with computer-mediated online learning

• Category 5. Time management and selfdiscipline

• Category 6. Student personal concerns and other general concerns online education

• Category 7. Student solutions to issues/ problems