Vol. 32 No. 2 (2017)
Research Articles

Cultural Communication Characteristics and Student Connectedness in an Online Environment: Perceptions and Preferences of Online Graduate Students

PDF HTML ePub
Tim Green
California State University, Fullerton
Bio
Malia Hoffmann
California State University, Fullerton
Bio
Loretta Donovan
California State University, Fullerton
Bio
Nawang Phuntsog
California State University, Fullerton
Bio

Published 2017-12-05

Keywords

  • online distance education,
  • low-context cultures,
  • high-context cultures,
  • course design,
  • program design,
  • connectedness
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Green, T., Hoffmann, M., Donovan, L., & Phuntsog, N. (2017). Cultural Communication Characteristics and Student Connectedness in an Online Environment: Perceptions and Preferences of Online Graduate Students. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 32(2). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1033
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This multi-year exploratory research examined the perceptions of connectedness of students enrolled in an online cohort-based Master’s program in educational technology. The research specifically examined the level of connectedness the graduate students from low-context and high-context cultures felt towards their peers, the professors, and the program. Participants (n = 50) were surveyed on their perceptions of connectedness and what elements of the program and course design led to their level of connectedness. Fourteen participants agreed to follow-up interviews. The data were used to compare how students who identified as low-context culture differed in their perceptions of connectedness to students who identified as high-context culture. The findings suggest that no matter what cultural identification students indicated, the feelings of connectedness toward peers, the professors, and the program were strong. Participants indicated feeling most connected to program professors, primarily due to the intensity and methods of communication. Findings indicate other program and course design elements that led to student connectedness. Implications for online course and program design are discussed.

Résumé

Cette recherche exploratoire pluriannuelle a examiné les perceptions de la reliance des étudiants inscrits à un programme de maîtrise en technologie de l'éducation fondé sur des cohortes en ligne. La recherche a tout particulièrement examiné le niveau de reliance que les étudiants diplômés, provenant de contextes culturels de bas ou de haut niveau, ressentent envers leurs pairs aussi bien qu’envers les professeurs ou le programme. Les participants (n=50) ont été interrogés sur leur perception de la reliance et  sur les éléments du programme et de la conception des cours qui influencent leur niveau de reliance. Quatorze participants ont accepté de participer à des entretiens. Les données ont été utilisées pour comparer la manière dont les étudiants identifiés comme provenant de contextes de bas niveau culturel avaient des perceptions différentes de la reliance de ceux identifiés comme provenant de contexte de haut niveau culturel. Les résultats suggèrent que, peu importe la catégorie culturelle des étudiants, le sentiment de reliance envers les pairs, les professeurs, et les programmes était fort. Les participants font part de sentiments particulièrement en lien avec les professeurs programme notamment en raison de l’intensité et des méthodes de communication. Les résultats pointent d’autres éléments de conception de programme et de cours favorisant la reliance étudiante. Finalement, la discussion porte sur les implications de ces résultats concernant la conception des cours et programmes en ligne.

PDF HTML ePub

References

  1. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card—tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/
  2. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.
  3. Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129-139.
  4. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143-152.
  5. Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70.
  6. Gazza, E. A., & Hunker, D. F. (2014). Facilitating student retention in online graduate nursing education programs: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 34(7), 1125-1129.
  7. Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman.S (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
  8. Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L., & Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (753-775). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
  9. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
  10. Hall, E. T. (2000). Context and meaning. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed.). (pp. 34-43). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
  11. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press Inc.
  12. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19-42.
  13. Hawkins, A., Barbour, M.K., & Graham, C.R. (2012). Everybody is their own island: Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 1-15.
  14. Heitner, K. L., & Jennings, M. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching knowledge and practices of online faculty. Online Learning, 20(4), 54-78. Retrieved from https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/download/1043/240
  15. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  16. Ivankova, N.V., & Stick, S. L. (2005). Collegiality and community-building as a means for sustaining student persistence in the computer-mediated asynchronous learning environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3), n3. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/OJDLA
  17. Johnston, J., Killion, J., & Oomen, J. (2005). Student satisfaction in the virtual classroom. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/
  18. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York, NY: Associated Press.
  19. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: AKA the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84.
  20. Laux, D., Luse, A, & Mennecke, B. E. (2016). Collaboration, connectedness, and community: An examination of the factors influencing student persistence in virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 452-464.
  21. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 593-618.
  22. Lim, D. H. & Kim, H. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 423-439.
  23. Moore, M. G. & Kersley, G. (1996). Distance education: A system view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  24. National Center for Educational Statistics (2016a). Digest of education statistics: 2015. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016014.pdf
  25. National Center for Educational Statistics (2016b). Status and trends in the education of ethnic and racial groups 2016. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016007.pdf
  26. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
  27. Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S. (2008). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. Teoksessa A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Uudistuva ja kehittyvä ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen symposiumi, 8, 783-796.
  28. Oddou, G. & Derr, C. B. (1999). Managing internationally: A personal journey. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
  29. Park, C. L., Perry, B., & Edwards, M., (2011). Minimising attrition: Strategies for assisting students who are at risk of withdrawal. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 37-47.
  30. Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12, 207-217 Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/index.php
  31. Roblyer, M.D. (1985). The greening of educational computing: A proposal for a more research-based approach to computers in instruction. Educational Technology, 25(1), 40-44.
  32. Ross, L. R., & Powell, R. (1990). Relationships between gender and success in distance education courses: A preliminary investigation. Research in Distance Education, 2(2), 10-11.
  33. Rovai, A.P. (2003). In search of persistence in rates in distance education online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1-16.
  34. Shea, P., Li, C. S, Swan, K., & Pickett, A. (2005). Developing learning community in online asynchronous college courses: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 59-82.
  35. Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
  36. Smith Jaggars, S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270-284.
  37. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
  38. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
  39. Waugh, M. & Su-Searle, J. (2014). Student persistence and attrition in an online M.S. program: Implications for program design. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(1), 101-121.
  40. Willging, P. A., & Johnston, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 105-118.
  41. Workman, J. J., & Stenard, R. A. (1996). Student support services for distance learners, DEONSEWS, 6, 3. Retrieved from http:/www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews6_3.asp
  42. Wurtz, E. (2006). Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 274-299.
  43. Yang, D., Baldwin, S., & Snelson, C. (2017). Persistence factors revealed: Students’ reflections on completing a fully online program. Distance Education, 38(1), 23-36.