College Students’ Perceptions of Quality in Distance Education: The Importance of Communication Free

The increase in access to digital and online technologies represents a new challenge for educational institutions. Faced with developing not just distance education programs but quality distance education programs, educational institutions search for better ways of implementing the use of new technologies. Quality in distance education has been thought of in terms of teaching and learning activities and all the components of these processes: course design, support services, and interaction, as well as administrative practices that can encourage students to fulfill their educational goals. But what does quality mean for students taking a distance education course? How are distance education students’ expectations being met?

Studies on students’ perceptions of quality in distance education have used different instruments or scales, in which the concept of quality is indirectly communicated to the students through specific questions or survey items. But when students complete such surveys or questionnaires, they evaluate issues important for faculty (Richardson, 2003;,Richardson & Price, 2003;,Steyn & Schulze, 2003) and administrators (Rangecroft, Gilroy, Tricker, & Long, 2002;,Trippe, 2001; Valentine, 2003). Because these evaluations follow a top-down process, from administration and faculty to students, it is difficult to know if students actually deem as important the same aspects of quality as administrators and faculty do, or if they are merely evaluating those aspects which have already been determined a priori.

Researchers have reported on sets of standards and guidelines to be used when developing distance courses, standards that should be met to establish and maintain quality (Alger, 2002;,Mayadas, 2001;,Moore, 2002;,Ragan, 2003;,Varlejs, 2003). Interestingly, many of these quality standards seem to focus on the concept of communication, as expressed in terms of the level of organization, interaction, and responsiveness of various actors and entities involved. For example, Alger (2002) suggested that to “ensure conformity with previously established traditions of course quality and relevance of programs” the following factors should be met: “course development and approval, selection of qualified faculty to teach, pedagogical determinations about appropriate class size, [and] oversight of final course offerings” (p. 6). He also stated the importance of having “substantial interaction among students and faculty” and the “need for socialization and interaction” (p. 2). Alger also indicated “the student-faculty ratio must be considered even if the technology makes it possible to reach a much larger number of students than a traditional course” (p. 2). These indicators address communication and its importance among all sectors of the distance education environment.

Ragan (2003) defined quality in terms of the institution’s values and mission. He indicated quality in distance education programs involved the institution’s ability to articulate goals and objectives—taking into account the intended audience—and the purpose for the course or program. Ragan presented a set of five quality standards for online courses, including user interface, media elements, software, permissions, and accessibility, for quality to be achieved. As stated, his position appears more positivistic, even behaviorist in terms of the importance he poses on goals and objectives. He follows a systematic approach, emphasizing the instructional design process and the administrative side of course development. At the primary level, there is no mention of student support services or structures, and communication is mentioned as part of the initial phase only, in terms of the types of “activities synchronous or asynchronous, or a mixture of each” that will be part of a course (p. 6).

Varlejs (2003) addressed continuing education in library and information sciences and the possibilities that distance education poses in this field. He listed questions that should be answered when trying to assure “satisfactory experiences” in distance learning environments, including issues related to spelling out technical requirements, self-assessment to determine readiness for online learning, compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, around-the-clock technical support, appropriate access to library resources, instructors’ responsiveness, students’ interaction, and intellectual property. Several elements of this schema point toward a more constructivist perspective, in which the student is at the center of the process; for example, collaboration between faculty and students, facilitators and students, and interaction between students, play important roles. Here communication is interwoven in the different guidelines.

Moore (2002) and Mayadas (2001) presented a model for assessing quality of online learning based on five factors: learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness, access, faculty satisfaction, and student satisfaction. This model is more holistic, combining administrative and student issues. Administrative issues are addressed under cost effectiveness, access, and faculty satisfaction. Communication is emphasized under learning effectiveness and student satisfaction. Moore indicated that “quality of learning online is comparable to the quality of its traditional programs” (p. 69). Mayadas stated that there is no “significant variation in learning effectiveness between classroom and online courses taught in the interactive mode” (p. 136). Varlejs (2003) also supported this point when he addressed the “no significant difference phenomenon” (p. 335), meaning the medium is not related to the outcome; he specifically stated “that students learn just as much online as in live classrooms” (p. 333), suggesting face-to-face learning and distance learning should have the same outcome. If there is any difference, it will be in the teaching and learning practices, and the activities the students complete.

Quality is accomplished in part by promoting interaction “with instructors, classmates, the interface, and through vicarious interaction” (Moore, 2002, p. 69). It is also accomplished by emphasizing communication and community building. When measuring students’ attitudes, Moore found that “[d]iscussion and interaction with instructors and peers” is a necessary factor for student satisfaction (p. 70).

Researchers have suggested that the importance of communication stands out from other aspects of the distance learning experience (Diebal, McInnis, & Edge, 1998; Ferrari, 2002; Gibson, 1998;,Rangecroft et al., 2002;,Steffensen, 2003;,Zhao, 2003). Authors have examined this issue from different perspectives. For example, Gibson (1998) indicated that collaboration “enhance[s] the quality of learning and foster[s] the use of higher-order skills” (p. 141). Diebal, McInnis, and Edge (1998) presented the “need for discussion sessions with on-site facilitators” (p. 25). Ferreri (2002) pointed out that “[s]uccessful programs demand a partnership of faculty, IT [information technology] staff, and administrators” (p. 3). Steffensen (2003) went on to suggest that interaction can be accomplished through: “e-mail, instant messaging [for chats], voice conferencing, [and] posting dialogue-threaded dialogue” (p. 6) in a forum or bulletin board. Zhao (2003) proposed a quality framework for online higher education based on four building blocks, one of which being student satisfaction as it relates to student-instructor interaction. And Rangecroft et al. (2002) concluded that one of the main aspects in quality distance education courses is effective communication, giving and receiving feedback, and providing extended interaction between students and students, and students and teacher, as well as face-to-face interaction to reinforce important concepts.

A review of the literature suggests that quality in distance education has been studied mostly from a positivist view, utilizing a top-down approach based on questionnaires and scales. Little has been reported from a phenomenology perspective, bottom-up, that allows for the study of quality through the eyes of the distance learner. This study was an attempt to understand quality from such a perspective.

The purpose of this study was to identify students’ perceptions about quality in distance education, examining factors affecting the quality of a distance education course from the student’s point of view. The focus was on how learners experienced and perceived distance education (Crotty, 1998;,Glesne, 1999). As such, the intent was to build on constructivist ideas to uncover what students think about quality in distance learning (Gilroy, Long, Rangecroft, & Tricker 2001) from a phenomenological perspective in which the researchers had to “set aside all previous habits of thought” so that students could “open … [their] eyes” to what quality meant for them (Crotty, 1998, p. 80; Glesne, 1999, p. 7). In this way, students were able to present their views without any constraints or limitations.

The population used in this study included all students enrolled in distance education courses during the summer 2002 semester at a large university in the southeastern United States (N = 1,269). The population included students from six academic colleges that offered distance education courses. A random sample (n = 400) was drawn from this population for data collection purposes.

The research design for this study was qualitative in nature, using a single open-ended question delivered via a Web-based form that was used to collect data. Given the geographic separation, students in the sample were contacted by e-mail. A link was provided to the Web site that contained the questionnaire. The Web site consisted of the informed consent and an open-ended question, which stated: “List as many factors as you can that you personally believe could potentially affect the quality of a distance education course in any way. Please be as specific as possible.” A text box was provided that allowed participants to include as many items as they deemed necessary. Demographic information was also gathered, to identify such student characteristics as program of study, degree or program type, gender, and age.

In an effort to further enrich the data set, several follow-up e-mails were sent to all students in the sample to encourage their input. Data were collected until a point of redundancy in the data was achieved (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). Ultimately, 54% of the sample responded (n = 214).

Student responses were archived in a text file and transferred to an Excel table. In the first stage of data evaluation, a total of 214 responses were identified. Data were further evaluated for integrity, and six responses were eliminated because they were found to be duplicates; this reduced the original data set to 208 cases. A possible reason for the duplicates was that students could have pressed the submit button more than once when sending their responses.

Data were analyzed using a modified Delphi approach. Each e-mail response was considered as a unit of analysis. An inductive approach was implemented, starting with content analysis (Berg, 2001;,Goetz & Le Compte, 1997) to identify major categories identified from the literature as being relevant: communication, facilitators, course organization, site location, administrative issues, and support services. Then axial coding was performed on the topic of communication, “breaking down the major code into numerous subcodes” (Glesne, 1999, p. 135). To determine accuracy, dependability and consistency of coding, two experts in distance education checked the researcher’s work from the beginning (Emmert & Barker, 1989).

A total of 200 students identified their gender; of these, 55% (n = 109) were female. From the total number of undergraduates (n = 53) who answered the questionnaire, 47% were female, 51% were males, and 2% did not answer this question. Most of the graduate students (n = 145) were women (56%), 40% were males, and 4% did not answer this question. In this classification, undergraduate students included those seeking a degree, as well as those not seeking a degree. Graduate students included master’s and doctoral students.

Students’ age in this sample ranged from 19 to 60 years old. Graduate students were, on average, 36 years old, and undergraduates were between 28 (females) and 32 (males) years old, on average. The largest range in age was observed in the undergraduate male group, ranging from 19 to 60 years old (a spread of 41 years).

Students were asked to list factors they believed contributed to quality. Overall themes that emerged from the data included a large variety of factors, ranging from increased communication among all sectors of the distance learning program to excellence in course materials, prompt delivery of materials to remote students, increased number of site locations, administrative issues mostly related to registration and financial aid, and support services, both technical and academic.

Communication was the factor identified by most students as contributing to quality in distance education courses. As a 51-year-old female graduate student wrote: “Communication is key, between all involved in the program.” Students related quality in communication with the following features: interaction between students and instructors, and between students and students; timely feedback from instructors; and availability and accessibility of teaching assistants, facilitators, professors, help staff, and technical staff. They also identified specific communication tools, such as chat rooms, discussion boards, and email that helped them interact with others.

A reverse relationship between gender and academic degree, and the importance they place on communication was seen in the results. Based on counting coded responses, for undergraduate students, 56% (15 out of 27) of the male students identified communication as an important factor, while 72% (18 out of 25) of the female students identified communication. When graduate students identified communication, 70% (43 out of 61) of male students considered it important, while only 57% (48 out of 84) of female students identified communication. More than half of all students (124 out of 200) in the sample considered communication an important factor in distance learning.

In general, students reported that quality in communication was related to a “good communication system between students and instructors”; timely feedback from instructors; “availability of TA’s [teaching assistants], professor, help staff”; “improve[d] professor accessibility”; “ability of students to contact professors and TA’s and to have questions answered”; good communication between the instructor and the technical support staff (audio/video technicians, computer support staff); and the development of good discussion in the chat rooms and discussion forums. Students commented that quality communication consisted of feedback from faculty and facilitators, and that communication tools—such as e-mail, discussion groups, and chat rooms— had to be used effectively for quality communication to occur.

Both graduate and undergraduate students identified feedback as the most essential factor affecting quality communication in distance education courses. Many students wrote about the importance of having contact information and accessibility to professors and facilitators from whom they could receive appropriate, prompt, and timely feedback to their questions, and prompt evaluations of their assignments and tests. For example, a 28-year-old male graduate student indicated that “delayed email/phone messages result[ed] in late work.” A 42-year-old female student explained how feedback impacted her performance in class saying:

Students indicated that feedback should be individualized, although questions could be posted in a discussion forum and answered there as well, or answered synchronously in the chat room. Feedback could be provided asynchronously or synchronously, through emails, phone calls, or during face-to-face meetings, students responded. One student wrote that feedback is the means the students have to know if they are “on the right path.”

As mentioned, communication tools have to be used effectively to promote quality communication in distance education courses. Following are students’ comments regarding the use of three forms of electronic communication in distance education courses—e-mail, discussion groups, and chat rooms—and how they relate to quality.

E-mail: Students noted that e-mail was an easy communication tool to use. Many students identified e-mail as their preferred communication method. One female graduate student, who preferred using e-mail to communicate, said “E-mail allows me to ‘talk’ to anyone in my class individually at any time. We can work on projects together—without being close geographically. I can interact and share information easily.”

Frequent e-mail communication was identified as important to successful communication. As one female graduate student wrote, “Frequent contact via e-mail from instructors is important, even if it is just a ‘keep-up-thegood-work’ e-mail.” But still other students preferred face-to-face interactions, especially when students felt it necessary to explain situations that would not be easy to communicate in an e-mail message. This was the case of a 21-year-old female student who wrote, “I don’t like how I can’t come into to visit my teachers and for them to go over what I missed on my test … it is sometimes hard to explain everything in an e-mail.”

Discussion Groups: Overall comments related to asynchronous discussion groups— also called bulletin boards or threaded discussions—focused on how to make discussions better. Most students thought the use of discussion groups was an effective tool that allowed students to interact with other students and with the instructor. However, negative comments were prevalent, due primarily to the many tangents that discussions can take and to the number of students participating in a discussion at one time. As one 31-year-old female undergraduate student wrote, “Sometimes with the number of students we have, when everyone asks a question on it, it gets very tedious to read them all!” A 47-year-old female student agreed with this point by saying, “There were so many topics and so many students that it didn’t have the feel of a discussion.”

Students liked having smaller discussion groups. As one 46-year-old female graduate student said, “I think that the area groups are too large; 10-15 students would be much better. It would give each student time to participate in discussions and ask questions.” In addition, some students noted that participation in discussion groups should be part of their grades, as “participation grades” are given in traditional, face-to-face classrooms. A 60-year-old male indicated, “There is also no reason that participation in discussions should not be part of the student’s grade.”

Chat rooms: Chat rooms allow students, facilitators, and professors to communicate with each other at the same time. As with their comments about discussion groups, students had several suggestions of how to make the use of this synchronous tool better. One 19-yearold female undergraduate suggested that “more designated times for online chat rooms to have question/answer time with the professor and the other cyber-students” was needed. Students noted that these chat rooms needed monitoring and direction. A male undergraduate student wrote, “Chat rooms can substitute for classroom discussions, but too often the discussions degenerate into irrelevant personal chats. There is no reason that a chat room session cannot be directed and, if necessary, disciplined by the instructor.” Graduate students provided suggestions to make chat rooms more effective, including having a facilitator or instructor develop chat questions, incorporating two types of chats—“a structured chat format vs. a free-for-all discussion format”—and inviting guest “speakers” to participate in chats.

This study’s findings reflect Thompson’s (1998) perspective that students registering for distance education courses and programs are “and will continue to be—too heterogeneous to provide a basis for a ‘typical’ profile’” (p. 19). Nevertheless, results of the study do suggest some commonalities related to the importance that communication plays in students’ perceptions of quality in a distance education setting.

This study supports previous research (Irani, Telg, Harrington, & Scherler, 2003) that contended that success in distance education is tied to the type of communication and interaction that takes place between an instructor and learners. In the present study, one of the most important factors addressed by the students, from all levels and ages, was the need for firstclass communication among faculty, technicians, facilitators, administrators, and other students. Communication was seen as a key factor for quality distance education instruction.

One way of increasing and enhancing communication between instructors and students is by providing adequate and timely feedback. The lack of feedback could be an anxiety-provoking element that limits students’ possibilities of success in distance learning. Distance education has benefited from the development of technological communication tools available through the Internet that allow for an increase in communication and, therefore, in feedback. These communication tools have become more accessible and friendlier to use, allowing students to have greater opportunities through distance learning. E-mail, discussion forums, and chat rooms are commonly used to complement instruction in distance education. Students in this study felt they benefited from the use of communication tools, but thought the tools were not used well in some situations. For example, they suggested discussion forums should be limited in size or number of students, so that better discussions could be developed. They also suggested that chat discussions should be monitored and evaluated, as class discussions are.

Students’ responses also point to the importance of building virtual-learning communities in distance education. As shown in other studies (Granger & Benke, 1998;,Meyer, 2003;,Steffensen, 2003), building a community of learners helps students be successful. Meyer (2003) addressed the impact of building community over students’ “confidence expressing oneself, learning from others, and feeling connected and accepted” (p. 22).

Researchers have emphasized that adequate distance education instructional design and technology training should be provided to those developing distance education courses to sustain a quality program (Telg, 1995;,King, 1999;,Spotts, 1999;,Irani & Telg, 2001, 2002). Results from this study suggest that instructors’ use of technological communication tools—such as chat rooms and discussion boards—is related to students’ perceptions of a quality distance education program. One recommendation would be for educational institutions to provide communication tools training and quality technical support for those developing distance education courses, and to encourage instructors to learn distance education skills and methods that facilitate communication. Otherwise, students’ perceptions of quality in distance education courses may be negatively influenced.