Student Perceptions of Success Potential

In the early years of online education, Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2005) and Winters (2006) expressed recognition that learning can be successfully mediated by technology. Now, years later as the pandemic forced extended use of technologies for learning, both positive and negative results ensued. While examining students’ experiences resulting from the abrupt transition to online courses in 2020, one study of 1300 students reported that more than 75 percent of students did not think they were getting a quality learning experience (Marcus & The Hechinger Report, 2020). Another project stated that 67 percent of the surveyed students (14,000) said they did not find online classes as effective as in-person ones (Marcus et al., 2020). Students reported being unimpressed by the caliber of education they were receiving 8. Others, dissatisfied by their experience, sought tuition refunds (Marcus et al., 2020) as classes were being taught almost entirely through recorded videos without live lectures or discussions, yielding experience that was not equivalent to what they would have received on campus 8. While prior to the pandemic, students rated overall learning experiences as 4.47 on a five-point scale, in March 2020 at the start of campus shut-downs, student ratings dropped to 3.11 with an increase to 3.67 by May (Wood, 2020).

Yet, while some students felt they were not learning nor being challenged (West, 2020), student reactions were varied. At the onset of the transition to online courses, 24% reported feeling nervous. By May only 6% were nervous, and eventually 28% felt “okay” with remote instruction while 20% felt “resigned” to it (Wood, 2020). These relatively low percentages for “okay” and “resigned” have implications for educators. Positive responses included that online learning provided opportunities to develop greater understanding of topics by reviewing available resources or recorded lectures, and that online learning gave students more freedom with their schedules (Wood, 2020).

As part of the foundation for academic success, it is noted that students’ personal lives were in upheaval. Pandemic related influences included family responsibilities, especially balancing parental and family duties with schoolwork (Acevedo, 2020; Cruse, Contreras-Mendez, & Holtzman, 2020; Douglas-Gabriel, 2020; Hirt, 2020; Malcom, 2020); financial hardships and stress due to job loss or wage reductions for self or family members (Anderson, 2020; Field, 2020; Hirt, 2020; Redden, 2020); food insecurities (Anderson, 2020; Cruse et al., 2020; Field, 2020; Hirt, 2020); housing concerns (Cruse et al., 2020; Field, 2020; Haber, 2020; Hirt, 2020; Malcom, 2020; Redden, 2020); mental and physical health (Redden, 2020); isolation (Bevins, Bryant, Krishnan, & Law, 2020; Binkley, 2020; Koenig, 2020); and technology access (Brownlee, 2020; Hirt, 2020).

Academic Continuity

For some students, the harsh realities related to pandemic induced changes meant reconsideration of academic goals and progression toward degrees. More than 13.3 million college students worried about factors related to their financial future including extreme economic uncertainty, rising student debt balances, and a deteriorating job market (Dickler, 2020). Seventy percent of students believed the pandemic made it harder to get a job (Dickler, 2020). Thus, economic instability and uncertainty forced many students to delay or discontinue their education as the only viable option in their struggle to care for families and cover costs associated with obtaining their degree (Redden, 2020).

Common threads in both popular and education-focused literature about pandemic effects were the surge of interest in gap years where students engage in another activity for a year before college 23, 24, 25, 10, deferring enrollment 25, 26, 27 , and returning or staying at home to attend community college (Field, 2020; Horn, 2020; Jaschik, 2020; Nadworny, 2020). While research indicated that students who delay enrollment, study part-time, or start at a community college are less likely to graduate from college than those who enroll in a four-year college immediately after high school and attend full-time 24, necessity called for other student options. By April 2020, one in six high school senior students who planned to attend a 4-year college full-time in fall of 2020 no longer planned to do so 24. Similarly, a National Society of High School Scholars survey, also in April 2020, reported that 32% of students said they wouldn’t go to college in fall of 2020 if classes were only online (Roos, 2020), and a second April study reported that 26% of college students said they were unlikely to return to their current college or university for the fall (Jaschik, 2020).

The option for students to choose community college rather than 4-year college enrollment included both high school students who decided to begin college at community college rather than a 4-year school as planned (West, 2020) and college and university students opting to return home to study 25, 24. Surveyed parents, too, were dubious of paying full tuition rates for online-only education, with 52% wanting their high school seniors to now enroll in colleges close to home, 56% advocating with their student for a delayed start of January 2021, and 46% supporting attendance at lower cost schools, including community colleges, and then transferring later (Jaschik, 2020). Indeed, 10% of seniors who planned to attend 4-year colleges made alternate plans with nearly half planning to enroll at community colleges (West, 2020). Thus, COVID-19 was seen to have substantial impacts on the continuity of students’ academic progress as thousands reconsidered their college plans 24.

Many of the results reported here were not the result of formal and rigorous clinical trials, but were results reported through mainstream media channels for established organizations. This is consistent with the nature of the sudden onset of the pandemic and subsequent reactive remediation for its impacts. Further, the survey results cited were addressed to large numbers of students enrolled in higher education, which attests to their usefulness as information sources. What is lacking is a focus on the technology education subset of higher education.

Course Features

Previous work by the research team revealed that technology students vary in their preferences and use for online instructional tools and course features (Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2012; Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2015; Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2016; Miertschin, Goodson, & Stewart, 2013; Miertschin, Goodson, & Stewart, 2019; Miertschin, Stewart, & Goodson, 2017; Stewart, Goodson, & Miertschin, 2011; Stewart, Goodson, & Miertschin, 2012; Stewart, Goodson, Miertschin, & L, 2010; Stewart, Goodson, Miertschin, Norwood, & Ezell, 2013; Stewart, Hutchins, Ezell, Martino, & Bobba, 2010; Stewart, Miertschin, & Goodson, 2020). Other researchers also found variation in student preferences. Saeed, Yang, and SinnappanSaeed, Yang, and Sinnappan (2009) focused their early study of student preferences for instructional strategies on students’ learning styles, especially in the use of emerging web technologies. Watson, Bishop, and Ferdinand-James 43 ranked course feature preferences as responsiveness to students, engagement with students, prompt feedback, communication among students and instructor, clear expectations, learning guidance, organized courses, meaningful coursework, offering synchronous sessions, and use various instructional methods. Mann and HenneberryMann and Henneberry (2014) focused on student-content, student-instructor, and student-student preferences. Yu Yu (2020) found flexible schedules and instant access to be the best course features for students.

Through research during the pandemic, students expressed their reaction to the value of course features related to their transition to online instruction, and the features fell into two categories: technology-based and human-based. Students reacted strongly to the efforts of faculty to create online course delivery modes in as little as eight days (Marcus et al., 2020), often with the assistance of commercial providers of education technology who offered products and services free or with steep discounts anticipating later sales (Marcus et al., 2020). While most experienced the transition without advance preparation, Alqahtani and Rajkhan46, in research assessing critical success factors during the pandemic, reported that the readiness of faculty was highly critical. In some cases. Emergency financial aid was available from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEEFR) of the CARES Act to enable universities to purchase new technologies including student laptops, hotspots, and other tech tools (Brownlee, 2020). As a result, students said 69% of campus administrations and 78% of professors had been supportive during the pandemic (Redden, 2020).

Technology-Based Course Features

On the technology side, students concluded that their forced experience with online learning meant that everyone needed to become more “tech savvy” (Wood, 2020). Alqahtani and Rajkhan’s46 study found the most influential factors for E-learning during COVID-19 to be technology management; support for technology; increased student awareness for use of E-learning systems; and demanding a high level of information technology use from instructors, students, and universities.Wood (2020) also reported that ninety-six percent of students used their desktop or laptop for coursework while only 14% worked using a mobile device. Courses relied heavily on video conferencing applications (Wood, 2020). Tools noted as beneficial included Zoom for lectures and classroom interactions through breakout rooms and Google Docs & Google Slides for collaboration (Wood, 2020). Students felt that video chats were, or felt like, more work than in person discussions, and that these modes of communication without the social cues available in face-to-face interactions were problematic (Haber, 2020). Zoom fatigue was real (Klein, 2020). Interestingly, in some cases, the use of video communications provided an unsettling glimpse of the personal lives of individuals as sessions captured home environments (Haber, 2020).

Yet, course designs were also reported to mitigate some of the negative aspects of technology-based instruction and accentuate the positives. Students expressed that technology added personal touches via online chat groups and virtual office hours (Gordon, 2020). Online material could be produced and delivered in shorter segments of 10 to 15 minutes to retain student attention (Gordon, 2020) and online formats offered flexibility for personal time management (Wood, 2020).

These experiences coincide with pre-pandemic student perceptions. Course design was previously found to be important by Reisetter and Boris Reisetter and Boris (2004) who reported that poor course design causes student frustrations that can lead to poor learning outcomes. Nath and Ralston-Berg Ralston-Berg and Nath (2008) also found that students placed high value on well-organized courses. Additionally, Young and Norgard Young and Norgard (2006) expressed that students preferred consistent design across courses. This was not possible in the quick transition of courses to online formats.

Human-Based Course Features

On the human side, students wanted to be seen as individual people and not just as those reacting to learning strategies (Wood, 2020). They expressed appreciation for faculty who communicated with them, and who offered both structure and flexibility (Wood, 2020). They valued faculty who provided high quality education and engaged students with the material, even if issues occurred (Wood, 2020). They experienced frustration, lack of motivation due to changing academic and personal schedules, and anxiety about missing deadlines (Wood, 2020). Further, they missed in-person interactions (Wood, 2020).

In offering advice to professors and mentors, students mentioned multiple things they wanted known. These related to difficulty focusing, unstable mental health, lack of designated study areas and uninterrupted study time, computer exhaustion, the disruption of the move to online, stress and anxiety, family challenges, and generally how hard online learning was (Harris, 2020). These desires are consistent with the research findings of Kimble-Hill et al. Kimble-Hill et al. (2020) that found students had to overcome hurdles of technology access, environmental disruptions, and cultural pressures. They wanted empathy, understanding of the abnormal situation, advice about future academic goals, less emphasis on exams and more on course material, motivation and guidance, creation of a strong and collective atmosphere of participation, patience and understanding, lighter workload, and value for the individual (Harris, 2020). They recommended that peer mentors (Field, 2020; Hirt, 2020), advisers, and professors offer emotional support and cheer for their success (Wood, 2020).

Services and Factors Impacting Student Success

Beyond the instructional course features and tools implemented by faculty, academic institutions invested heavily in time and resources to support students. Pre-pandemic, foundation for the value of support services for student success was codified in several quality frameworks. Indicators within these frameworks for quality programs included the “student support dimension” of Jung (2012), Quality Matters’ “learner support” (MarylandOnline, Inc, 2008), and Institute for Higher Education Policy’s “student support” benchmark (Phipps & Merisotis, 2000), During the pandemic, 69% of students reported that campus administrators had been supportive (Redden, 2020). Programs developed, enhanced, and extended included technology support, for example laptop and Wi-Fi access (Brownlee, 2020; Field, 2020; Horn, 2020; Marcus et al., 2020; Nadworny, 2020; Redden, 2020); financial assistance including scholarships (Brownlee, 2020), grants and financial aid (Amour, 2020; Douglas-Gabriel, 2020; Hirt, 2020; Redden, 2020), elimination of account balances (Redden, 2020), free summer classes (Field, 2020; Redden, 2020), reduced payment plans (Redden, 2020), and extending job resources to family members (Anderson, 2020); food assistance including food banks and pantries (Douglas-Gabriel, 2020; Field, 2020), gift cards for groceries18 , and food delivery services (Anderson, 2020); housing and study space programs (Field, 2020; Sperance, 2020); and counseling and advising services including social services advising and referrals (Douglas-Gabriel, 2020), mental health counseling (Anderson, 2020; Kyaw, 2020), mentoring programs (Field, 2020; Hirt, 2020; Lauterborn, 2020), academic advising (Whitmire, 2020), telehealth (Anderson, 2020), and increased communications (Field, 2020; Whitmire, 2020).

Demographics

As background to interpretation of the findings of this study,Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the survey participants.

Student participants were predominately under 30 years of age (93%), Just over half (56%) were male and just under half (44%) were female. More students worked part-time (44%) than full-time (24%); 57% reported a GPA of 3.0 or higher; and 73% were junior or higher classification.

Research Question 1

Data related to research question #1 “How did technology students perceive their potential for success during COVID-19?” included attributes related to initial reaction, adaptation, expected impact on semester grades, and anticipation of content learning. Extended investigation of relationships between demographic variables (classification, normal course format, age, and GPA) and expected grades and learning is also reported to enhance understanding.

Reaction to Class Format Change

While many students (41%) were indifferent to the change, 25% showed varying levels of concern and 33% showed levels of relief. From this data it is not possible to infer the reasons for student concern nor relief, but the data does show that 74% of students were either indifferent or relieved by the move to totally online course formats. It is possible that the technology base of the students may have been an influence on their reaction to class format change. In contrast, the 25% of students who expressed concerns provides reason for educators to take notice (see Figure 1).

Adaptation to Change to Total Online

Student perceptions of adaptation to the change to online course formats indicated both agility in adapting and concerns with 41% of students reporting that they were adapting well, 20% not adapting well, and 39% noting no difference (see Figure 2). Again, while 80% of students were either adapting well or noting no difference, the 20% of students who were not adapting well is of concern.

Grade Impact

In addition to overall adaptation, technology student responses showed that while a range of perceptions existed, a substantial 60% of students who rated the effect of the change on their semester grades indicated they were not overly concerned about the effect the change had on their grades (see Figure 3). Of particular interest is the finding that 23% of the students expressed their perception that the change to online formats would result in higher semester grades.

Learning Impact

Additionally, students were given the opportunity to record how they felt the change to a total online format affected their overall learning of course content. While 56% of technology students selected a score between “learned much less” and “learned much more”, 30% of the technology students indicated varying levels of less learning (see Figure 4). Since the goal of courses and instruction is to facilitate student learning, the 30% of students whose responses indicated that they learned less is noteworthy. Another factor to consider is how well the applied content and hands-on learning and laboratory activities of technology courses transferred to the online environment.

To further understand technology student perceptions of impacts on grades and learning, analysis was extended to investigation of relationships between demographic variables (classification, normal course format, age, and GPA) and expected grades and learning (see Table 2).

Research Question 2

Findings related to research question #2 “What course features or tools did technology students value during COVID-19?” were designed to provide input for course improvement. Student success during the pandemic-driven transition to online courses was possibly related to the course tools applied. Data was collected to ascertain which tools and course features students valued. Calculated mean scores for 11 course tools or features indicated that most students preferred course materials (e.g. slides, examples, etc.) that were developed by the instructor. The least valued tools were student online presentations and lectures with clickers. Table 4 shows the technology students’ summary response values (mean and standard deviation) for eleven course tools or features derived from individual responses about each tool ranging from “No Use”, which corresponded to a score of 1, to “High Use”, which corresponding to a score of 9. The eleven course tools or features were instructor course materials, asynchronous instructor videos, e-text content, asynchronous discussion boards, non instructor created videos, computer simulations, online collaborative assignments, online synchronous discussions, computer games, student online presentations, and lectures with clickers. Results are in Table 4, presented in order from the highest mean score to lowest.

Research Question 3

For analysis of research question 3, “What factors enabled technology students’ course completion?”, it is first useful to consider the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on student’s lives. Figure 5 shows the percent of students who experienced each of multiple impacts they were asked about by the survey. Table 7 shows summary statistics for the number of impacts suffered by individual students. Noteworthy is the critical nature of the impacts and the number of impacts affecting students’ lives. More than 40% of students experienced household income decreases, anxiety, or increased difficulty in study from home Fewer than 40% of students experienced increased job workload or hours, job loss, or other. Substantially fewer experienced no impacts or a household member having contracted COVID-19. The summary statistics for number of impacts indicate that, on average, students experienced multiple impacts, with the median number of impacts being 3.

Factors to Enable Success

Finally, to illuminate opportunities for faculty and administrators to create improved learning environments for students, they were asked, in an open ended inquiry, to comment briefly on factors that enabled them to successfully complete courses after the transition to online formats. These comments were in addition to the data gathered about course tools and features and already discussed. Most commonly mentioned items were communication and understanding from the instructor, flexible due dates, and support from a partner or advisor (see Table 8). Recommendations from the students for improvements included increased training for faculty in online delivery and more online resources.