Teacher communication preferred over peer interaction

Abstract

Purpose-Teachers have access to a growing range of online tools to support course delivery, but which ones are valued by students? Expectations and satisfaction are important constructs in the delivery of a service product, and how these constructs operate in a service environment, such as education where the student can also take on the role of the customer is unknown. This study focuses on the student perspective of online tools. The aim of this paper is to measure students' expectations and perceived importance of, and satisfaction with, a range of tools available in a virtual learning environment. Design/methodology/approach-A quantitative survey (n=396) was conducted and descriptive measures and statistical analysis were produced. Findings-Results show that the tools that enable instructors to communicate with students and vice versa are more important to students and more satisfying to them than tools that enable students to interact with each other. Also, business students appear to be different from non-business students, with respect to desired communications tools. Practical implications-The findings help us to understand business students' communication preference, which in turn helps teachers to create an educationally meaningful learning environment. Originality/value-This work connects an established model for online interactions with students' expectations and level of satisfaction with tools that are currently being used in the online education environment.

Technologically-mediated communication: student expectations and experiences in a FOMO society

“…With desire for interaction and connection noted as the major decisive factor for students with the option of studying face-to-face or online (Bailey et al, 2015), TMC is heralded as the primary way to improve DE student engagement at most Australian universities. Indeed, another study from the same institution as the present study found students regarded online tools that promoted interaction with their teacher were the most important among the plethora available (Small, Dowell, & Simmons, 2012). Likewise, absence of suitable levels of interaction with and connection to peers and teachers was described by North American distance students (Otter et al, 2013).…”

Responding to the New Normal in the Teaching-Learning Environment

“…To monitor students' performance via online classes, students and teachers must communicate with clarity (Suryasa, W.; Zambrano, R.; Mendoza, J.; Moya, M.; Rodríguez, M., 2020). Small, F., Dowell, D., and Simmons, P. (2012), likewise mentioned that the medium that allows educators to engage with learners and vice versa is significant and satisfying for effective monitoring of performance. Biasutti M. (2011) highlighted the factors of collaboration such as collaboration and teaching load management between and among educators and students which may result in better performance through the utilization of e-learning modules.…”

The Construction of Online and Offline Blended Teaching Course Quality Evaluation System

“…In terms of dimension division of blended teaching quality, Wang et al (2020) proposed that the online teaching quality evaluation system consists of three dimensions: teaching monitoring, evaluation and feedback improvement [7]. In terms of the influencing factors of blended teaching quality, the research showed that the motivation of learning, the interaction of peer, the structure of course, the feedback of teacher and other important factors affect the implementation effect of blended teaching [8]. Xie and Zhu (2012) found that the quality of blended teaching in university is affected by factors such as teachers, students, the support system of teaching, the effect and evaluation of teaching through a questionnaire survey [9].…”