Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student perceptions and instructional evaluations: A multivariate analysis of online and face-to-face classroom settings

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined students’ evaluations of faculty performance in traditional and online classes. The study design builds upon prior research that addressed socially relevant factors such as classroom environments, students’ learning goals, expected, and received grades, and more importantly, students’ ratings of instructors’ performance. The sample consists of data from a population of humanities and social sciences faculty from a medium-sized southwest undergraduate university who taught both online and traditional classes during the semester periods Fall 2010 to Spring 2012. In a traditional setting, the evaluation factors (develops rapport with students, stimulates students, challenges student learning, provides timely feedback, and teaches fundamentals), and the external factors—(course level taught and gender)—were found to significantly contribute to faculty summary scores. In an online class, students consistently rank female instructors better. However, the evaluation criteria—develops student rapport, stimulates students, provides timely feedback, and teaches fundamentals (though not ‘challenges and involves students in their learning’)—mirrored the same affects observed in the traditional classroom evaluations. The finding that “teaches fundamentals” received the largest standardized beta-coefficient in both classrooms further confirms earlier research that university students perceive course mastery as a major indicator of instructor performance regardless of gender or rank. However, the results indicate that students’ perceptions are different when attending a traditional versus online classroom setting. This infers that synchronous and asynchronous settings require different teaching styles and different evaluation criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdous, M., & Yoshimurra, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: a comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers in Education, 55, 733–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrami, P.C., D’Apollonia, S. & Cohen, P. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: what we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology 82:219–231 (http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614383870?accountid=7082).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13:153–166 (http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/201510895?accountid=7082).

  • Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Flowers, C., Howley, L., Beattie, J., Spooner, F., & Mohanty, G. (2004). Student evaluation of college teaching: a practice in search of principles. College Teaching, 52(4), 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angiello, R. (2010). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. Education Digest, 76, 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benigno, V., & Trentin, G. (2000). The evaluation of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bento, R., & Schuster, C. (2003). Participation: the online challenge. In A. K. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based education: learning from experience (pp. 156–164). Hershey: Information Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, S.L. & Cashin, W.E. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research & literature. IDEA Paper No. 50, Pp. 22. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved from http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/idea-paper_50.pdf.

  • Beuschel, W., Gaiser, B., & Draheim, S. (2003). Communication needs of online students. In A. K. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based education: learning from experience (pp. 203–222). Hershey: Information Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno, A., & Brocato, B. R. (2011). Issues with online classes. Report prepared for the College of Liberal Arts and Science. November: Sam Houston State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, C. (2011). Medium for empowerment or a ‘centre for everything’: students’ experience of control in virtual learning environments within a university context. Education and Information Technologies, 16, 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. E., Gerdes, K., & Steiner, S. (2005). What’s looks got to do with it? instructor appearance and student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 611–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carle, A. C. (2009). Evaluating college students’ evaluations of a professor’s teaching effectiveness across time and instruction mode (online vs. face-to-face) using a multilevel growth modeling approach. Computers in Education, 532, 429–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashin, W. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32, Center for faculty evaluation and development. Manhattan, KS. Retrieved from http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Idea_Paper_32.pdf.

  • Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44, 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to report. East Sussex: Psychology Press Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: are they related to what students learn?: a meta-analysis and review. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2009). Response style contamination of student evaluation data. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 160–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results?: a comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40, 312–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, W. W., & Gill, P. G. (2009). Perceptions of online instruction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8, 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing research in the real world (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2005). Perceptions of distance learning: a comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching http://jolt.merlot.org/05011.htm.

  • Harris, D. M., & Parrish, D. E. (2006). The art of online teaching: online instruction versus in-class instruction. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24, 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEA Center. (2012). About the IDEA center. The IDEA Center Inc. Manhattan, KS. Retrieved from http://www.theideacenter.org/about.

  • Jaggars, S.S. & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: response to a department of education meta-analysis. Community College Research Center, 18 pps. Columbia University. New York: NY. July. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu.

  • Jaffee, D. (1997). Asynchronous learning: technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance learning course. Teaching Sociology, 25, 262–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, S. E., & Bayless, M. L. (2003). Online vs. traditional instruction: a comparison of student success. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(3), 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. K., & Bateman, B. (2010). Student participation patterns in online discussion: incorporating constructivist discussion into online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 9, 79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, T., & Chagchit, C. (2009). Online or traditional: a study to examine course characteristics contributing to students’ preference for classroom settings. International Journal of Communication and Information Technology Education, 5, 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koeber, C. (2005). Introducing multimedia presentations and a course website to an introductory sociology course: how technology affects student perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Teaching Sociology, 33, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M., & Maxwell, G. (2012). Faculty perceptions of cooperative learning and traditional discussion strategies in online courses. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13, 84–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lannutti, P., & Strauman, E. C. (2006). Classroom communication: the influence of instructor self-disclosure on student evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 54, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, M. H. (1995). Multiple regression and correlation. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 19–64). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M. A., & Jewell, R. T. (2007). Leveling the playing field: should student evaluation scores be adjusted? Social Science Quarterly, 88, 868–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What’s the difference? outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. Change, 31.3, 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. A. (2007). Student perceptions of face-to-face and trad and online discussions: the advantage goes to…. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliron, M. D. (2010). Online education vs. traditional learning: time to end the family feud. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57.11, B30–B32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and classroom environment. Communication Quarterly, 60, 386–402. Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamuk, S. (2012). The need for pedagogical change in online adult learning: a distance education case in a traditional university. University Of Gaziantep Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D. C. (2000). Is there a professor in this class? In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 95–110). Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, S. D., Kidd, R. S., & Latif, D. A. (2006). Relationships among student evaluations, instructor effectiveness, and academic performance. Pharmacy Education, 6, 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R. (2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? The Review of Higher Education, 35, 45–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowden, G. V., & Carlson, R. E. (1996). Gender issues and students’ perceptions of instructors’ immediacy and evaluation of teaching and course. Psychological Reports, 78, 835–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheff, T. J. (2006). Goffman unbound!: A new paradigm for social science. Boulder: Paradigm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severino, S., & Messina, R. (2011). Group dynamics in on-line and face-to-face interactions: an experimental study on learning methods. Sociology Mind, 1, 65–73.

  • Smith, D. L., Cook, P., & Buskist, W. (2011). An experimental analysis of the relation between assigned grades and instructor evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, S., Holley, L. C., Gerdes, K., & Campbell, H. E. (2006). Evaluating teaching: listening to students while acknowledging bias. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, J.R., Addison, W.E., & Smith, J.L. (2012). Comparison of online and classroom-based student evaluations of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 465–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor, S. C., & Moja, T. (2003). Pedagogical issues and gender in cyberspace education: distance education in South Africa. African & Asian Studies, 2, 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, C. H., & McIssac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenberg, F. P., & Stacey, E. (2008). Teaching philosophy: moving from face-to-face to online classrooms. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 34, 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 1–9.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wulff, S., Hanor, J., & Bulik, R. J. (2000). The roles and interrelationships of presence, reflection, and self-directed learning in effective world wide web-based pedagogy. In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 143–160). Westport: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Billy R. Brocato

  2. Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

    Alessandro Bonanno & Stacy Ulbig

Authors
  1. Billy R. Brocato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Bonanno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stacy Ulbig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Bonanno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brocato, B.R., Bonanno, A. & Ulbig, S. Student perceptions and instructional evaluations: A multivariate analysis of online and face-to-face classroom settings. Educ Inf Technol 20, 37–55 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9268-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9268-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation