Write a 1000 words comparison essay on attached articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs

Todd E. Jamison & Doris U. Bolliger

To cite this article: Todd E. Jamison & Doris U. Bolliger (2020) Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs, Journal of Education for Business, 95:5, 275-287, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698

Published online: 07 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 304

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

ORIGINAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH

Student perceptions of connectedness in online graduate business programs

Todd E. Jamisona and Doris U. Bolligerb

aDepartment of Business, Chadron State College, Chadron, NE, USA; bSTEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

ABSTRACT Researchers investigated students’ perceptions of connectedness in two online graduate- level business programs at a small college in the Midwest. One hundred and six participants completed the Online Student Connectedness Survey. Results indicate participants moder- ately agreed with items on the connectedness instrument. Participants, however, reported dissatisfaction with sense of community in their programs. Statistically significant differences were found with participants’ responses based on gender and number of successful credit hours completed. Participants reported specific learning activities instructors utilized in their respective programs, and they reported the desire for more interactive instructors who participated more in discussions and provided more timely responses to e-mail and phone calls.

KEYWORDS Business programs; connectedness; graduate education; higher education; online learning

Introduction

Human interaction, whether in person or through electronic means, is integral to human nature. Research has shown consistently that high levels of social connectedness and interaction with peers and instructors attribute to higher levels of retention and overall satisfaction of students with online courses (LaBarbera, 2013). Social connectedness is essential to learner success in higher education. Students who feel connected to others in online courses have reduced feelings of isolation, tend to perform better academic- ally (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008), and complete their programs (Levy, 2007). Feelings of isolation and students’ need for connectedness in online courses have been investigated by researchers in different dis- ciplines such as education; however, few research studies have specifically focused on student percep- tions of connecteness enrolled in graduate-level busi- ness programs that are offered online. This is surprising given the fact that there are many online graduate-level business programs offered at higher education institutions in the United States. In 2019, there were over 200 institutions that offered accredited master’s in business administration programs and over 100 universities offered graduate degrees in other business majors that were delivered fully online (U.S. News & World Report, 2019a, 2019b). For this reason,

it was the purpose of this study to investigate masters students’ perceptions of feelings of connectedness in two fully online business programs: (a) the master of business administration (MBA) and (b) the master of organizational management (MSOM) degree program.

Connectedness

There are many facets to social connectedness. Traditionally described as a measure of relationship to others, connectedness in online courses includes inter- action among peers, faculty, and students, and inter- dependence of course participants to successfully complete learning objectives (LaBarbera, 2013). It is important to understand connectedness as it can fun- damentally impact academic performance and reten- tion in higher education programs (O’Keeffe, 2013). Recent studies have shown a significant correlation between students’ sense of connection and academic success in online courses and programs (Kim, 2011). Therefore, connectedness is an important component of online courses and programs for adult learners (Barbarick, 2013).

For connectedness to work, faculty and students must have meaningful interactions with each other (Glazer & Wanstreet, 2011). Online courses can be particularly problematic because students usually learn

CONTACT Doris U. Bolliger [email protected] STEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, 5115 Hampton Boulevard, Education Building 4117, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 2020, VOL. 95, NO. 5, 275–287 https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1643698

at a distance and may not have the ability to syn- chronously discuss course topics with other students and instructors. Online discussions offer some level of interaction, but they are often asynchronous and may not be as meaningful to students as discussions in a physical classroom where two-way communication is possible (Simon, Jackson, & Maxwell, 2013).

Bolliger and Inan (2012) developed and validated the Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS), which includes the following four constructs: (a) com- fort, (b) community, (c) facilitation, and (d) inter- action and collaboration. Items on the instrument were derived from the literature and included five modified items developed by Walker and Fraser (2005) on the interaction and collaboration subscale.

Comfort Comfort is defined as a feeling of security in the con- text of online learning environments. This includes perceived comfort and satisfaction with course materi- als, technologies and tools used in the course, and ability to engage in discourse without the fear of per- secution (Yuzer & Eby, 2014). Online students who do not feel secure in their learning environment might feel socially isolated and seek to limit interaction with instructors and peers (Shin, 2002, 2003; Yuzer & Eby, 2014). However, the lack of interaction or social dis- course can lead to low academic performance and high attrition (Moody, 2004; Park & Choi, 2009). For students to be successful in online courses and pro- grams, they should feel secure in their environment, interact with instructors and peers without fear of intimidation, and use course tools without extensive training (Liebowitz, 2013).

Community A student’s sense of community is integral to feeling connected in online courses. Just as in physical social situations, students who feel a sense of community tend to perform better academically in online courses and programs (Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Rovai, 2001). Distance students are at a disadvantage because they do not have a physical presence in courses or on cam- pus (Barbarick, 2013). They must make an extra effort to participate in course activities and form connec- tions with peers and faculty. In an on-campus pro- gram, students and faculty usually develop a sense of community simply due to proximity. When students are physically on campus, it is easy to form study groups, visit professors during office hours, and talk with peers before or after class sessions. In an online environment, these types of interactions are difficult

to replicate because of the psychological and transac- tional distance students may experience. Students who feel a disconnect report feelings of isolation and are more likely to drop from online programs than those who do not (Moody, 2004; Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014).

Facilitation of learning Successful online learning takes more than just read- ing a book and answering questions. It involves a community of learners led by an effective facilitator. When students are engaged in discourse and collabor- ation with an involved instructor, they tend to feel connected and perform well (Swan, 2001). Instructors should be friendly and welcoming, encourage open and honest communication, and create a warm envir- onment were students do not feel intimidated by a high level of formality in the communication process (Rovai, 2001). For example, instructors who are overly formal or project an aura of authority may daunt stu- dents, resulting in students feeling less connected and less likely to engage in conversation (Rovai, 2003).

Another tenet of facilitation of learning is ensuring students are engaged in the course. Engaged students usually actively participate in course activities and seek to gain knowledge and skills. An active, learner- centered environment is suitable because it gives stu- dents some level of control over and require them to take ownership of their learning. Students should also participate in team- or group-based activities because these exchanges can facilitate and support student learning (Smart, Witt, & Scott, 2012).

Interaction and collaboration The fourth construct of the OSCS measures inter- action and collaboration in online programs because they are important elements in the success of students. Online courses and programs should include activities to foster interaction and collaboration (Barnard, Paton, & Rose, 2007). This includes developing activ- ities where students work together to complete an assignment or project and share ideas and information freely. Instructors may integrate a variety of informa- tion communication tools such as e-mail, discussion forums, wikis, chat rooms, and so forth for students to utilize while completing collaborative activities and assignments (Melkun, 2012). It is also beneficial for adult learners to integrate tools that allow for syn- chronous interactions (Barbarick, 2013). Frequent interactions with course participants and opportunities for collaboration have shown to increase learner satis- faction and the probability of retention (O’Keeffe, 2013).

276 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

Connectedness in online graduate programs

Many students who are enrolled in online graduate programs work in addition to completing coursework and have limited time to spend on activities they believe add no value. This situation can be exacer- bated when students feel disconnected from peers and faculty (Levy, 2007). This can result in high levels of attrition in online graduate programs.

Exter, Korkmaz, Harlin, and Bichelmeyer (2009) found that there was not a significant difference of students’ perceptions of connecteness between online and on-campus students. However, when students were interviewed, they mentioned they did not know some of the on-campus students and did not have adequate access to the professor outside of courses. They were able to form connections with peers within single courses but not beyond the boundaries of courses in the program. Participants suggested changes to the online program that would allow for more opportunities to connect and collaborate, for example, adding social media, blogs, and program- wide discussion forums. Students asked for places (virtual or physical) where they could gather and col- laborate. Others wanted to be included in on-campus activities via web conferencing.

Fostering connectedness in the online environment

As social connectedness in online courses and pro- grams is an ongoing concern, faculty are engaged in various activities designed to increase feelings of con- nectedness and mitigate feelings of learner isolation. Barbarick (2013) suggested including synchronous components, authentic interactions, and opportunities for sharing in online courses. LaBarbera (2013) pro- vided guidelines for instructors who wish to increase students’ feelings of connectedness or community in online courses. Timely, meaningful, and personalized feedback that is constructive needs to be provided for students to conceptualize a “persona” of the professor. Students who received frequent, timely feedback from professors felt a higher level of connectedness than students who received summarized feedback of overall performance in a course. Instructors should provide several opportunities for interactions inside and out- side of the classroom to improve connectedness.

To encourage interaction, instructors should create spaces for course participants outside the course itself and be actively involved in courses. Teaching or instructor presence is another important element that can contribute to students’ feelings of connectedness.

When instructors are not present in their courses, stu- dents do not have many opportunities to connect with them. Richardson et al. (2015) developed online instructor profiles after examining instructor presence behaviors in archived online courses. According to the authors, effective online instructors fulfill the follow- ing roles: advocate (supports student learning), facili- tator (participates in discourse), sense-maker (clarifies concepts), organizer (structures content), and main- tainer (administers actions). Involving students in activities outside the courses (e.g., off-campus events; institutional publications and ceremonies; student government activities) was recommended by Exter et al. (2009).

Individual characteristics

Gender and age Few researchers have investigated the impact of gen- der and age on perceptions of community in college courses and programs. Shea (2006) found that women felt slightly more connected than men did in the online environment. Results of a study that focused on perceptions of connectedness to the campus showed women felt more connected than men (Summers, Svinicki, Gorin, & Sullivan, 2002). In con- trast, Ngozi, Ada, and Christy (2010) investigated per- ceptions of school connectedness and found no significant differences based on gender. Researchers (Shea, 2006; Summers et al., 2002) who investigated differences of perceptions based on age found no sig- nificant differences. Ngozi et al. (2010), however, found a significantly higher perceived level of con- nectedness with students 17–24 years old than with students who were 25 years old or older.

Disciplines and time in programs Researchers found no significant differences in levels of connectedness between disciplines. They noticed, however, that students in computer science courses had the lowest mean. Students’ perceptions in liberal arts, natural science, engineering, and education were not significantly different. Feelings of connectedness were statistically significantly different between sopho- more and senior students. Seniors had higher mean scores than sophomores (Summers et al., 2002).

Research purpose and questions

The literature on students’ perceptions of connected- ness in online programs in limited. Few researchers have addressed graduate students’ perceptions, and

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 277

very few studies have focused on students in fully online master-level business programs. Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to investigate graduate students’ perceptions of connectedness in fully online MBA and MSOM programs. The following research questions guided the study:

Research Question 1: What are students’ perception of connectedness in the MBA and MSOM online pro- grams as measured by the OSCS?

Research Question 2: How do students’ responses dif- fer based on individual characteristics (age, gender, program, successful hours completed)?

Research Question 3: What are students’ perceptions regarding instructors integrating activities into their courses to foster connectedness?

Research Question 4: What interactions would stu- dents like instructors to integrate into their courses to foster connectedness?

Method

Setting and sample

Participants in this study were graduate students enrolled in online MBA and MSOM programs at a small regional college in the midwestern United States. The college was selected because it has two business programs that are delivered fully online and researchers had access to the population. Both busi- ness programs are similar in scope but the coursework differs slightly. The MBA program is designed to be a generalist program and does not have a specific focus area. In contrast, the MSOM program does not require students to complete advanced accounting and economics courses. Instead, students choose a focus area in human services, natural resources or sports management. Students enrolled in the MBA program may choose to complete either a thesis or internship as their culminating experience. Both programs are designed to be completed in two years with a full- time, nine-credit-hour load each semester or within 2.5 years with a part-time, six-credit-hour load each semester.

There are approximately 190 students enrolled in the MBA program and 83 students enrolled in the MSOM program. Students in the MBA program are located primarily in the United States; however, a few students do not live in the United States. Students in the MSOM program are all domestic students, and most reside in the northern Rocky Mountain region in the United States.

The college has no official standards or require- ments for instructors to include components pertain- ing to interaction or connectedness in online courses. Instructors may seek assistance with instructional design and development, but these services are lim- ited. The instructional technology team consists of only a few professionals who are unable to support the faculty with all instructional design and technol- ogy needs.

Participants

The majority of participants (n¼106) were men (53.8%) and 46.2% were women. Their ages ranged from 21 to 60 years old (M ¼ 32.68, SD¼10.31). More than one third of students (34.9%) were in their first year of their program, whereas 65.1% were in their second year of study. Most participants (77.4%) reported that they were enrolled in the MBA program; 22.6% of participants were MSOM students.

Instrument

The OSCS (Bolliger & Inan, 2012) was administered to participants after seeking permission from the authors. The instrument consists of 25 Likert-type scale questions and has four scales: (a) community, (b) comfort, (c) facilitation, and (d) interaction and collaboration. The instrument is a validated and reli- able instrument and has a 5-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The original reliability of the instrument was high (.97), and the internal reliability coefficients for all subscales were high: comfort (a ¼ 0.97), community (a ¼ 0.96), facilitation (a ¼ 0.94), and interaction and collaboration (a ¼ 0.97).

One multiple-response item was added to solicit responses pertaining to which instructional activities instructors used in online courses. Two open-ended questions asked students to share what instructors did to foster connectedness and what they would like instructors to do to foster connectedness. Demographic questions included age, gender, academic program, and number of credit hours successfully completed in the program.

Data collection

The data were collected during a four-week period in spring 2018 semester after obtaining permissions from the university’s Institutional Review Board. All 273 students enrolled in the MBA and MSOM programs

278 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

were invited to participate via e-mail. The invitation contained an embedded link to an online survey housed on a secure server. Participants were provided with information about the study and their rights as research subjects prior to completing the online sur- vey. Participants were invited to register for the draw- ing of one of ten $30.00 Amazon gift cards by completing a Google form. Three reminders were sent to students to increase the response rate. One hun- dred and fifteen individuals completed the survey; the response rate was approximately 40%.

Data analysis

Upon completion of the data collection process, data were analyzed, cleaned, and coded.

Statistical assumptions were examined. Results showed that the assumption of homogeneity of var- iances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p ¼ .014). Welch’s analysis of variance was used due to the homogeneity of vari- ance violation.

Two cases that were invalid or had missing data were deleted from the data set. Seven students who were not enrolled in either the MBA or MSOM pro- gram were removed. Four outliers with a z score of ±3.0 were deleted. One hundred and six valid cases remained. The internal reliability coefficient of the instrument was very high (a ¼ 0.94). The reliability for subscales was also very high: (a) comfort (a ¼ 0.86), (b) community (a ¼ 0.89), (c) facilitation (a ¼ 0.81), and (d) interaction and collaboration (a ¼ 0.88).

Frequencies and descriptive statistics were gener- ated for Likert-type items. Independent t tests with Bonferroni correction were performed to ascertain dif- ferences in responses based on gender, academic pro- gram, and hours completed in the program. A series of one-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni cor- rection were run to determine differences based on age groups. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using open coding and frequency count (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Patton, 2015). Categories were generated and added to the codebook. Frequency counts were tallied for each category and emerging themes were developed.

Results and discussion

Perception of connectedness

Because the scale has 25 Likert-type items that range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), scale scores can range from 25 to 125. Participants’ scores

ranged from 54 to 122 (M ¼ 90.69, SD ¼ 13.886), and the mean score for the instrument was 3.63 (SD ¼ 0.555). These results indicate students felt mod- erately connected in their online courses. These results are not surprising because recent studies that used the OSCS yielded similar findings (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Exter et al., 2009; Finn, 2018; Ford, 2015). However, students’ agreement or disagreement varied between the instrument’s four subscales. When asked how important connectedness is to students, the majority (67.0%) indicated that it was important or very important; the mean score was 3.75.

Comfort Over 90% of participants agreed with items 2 and 4. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed with items on the comfort subscale. Most students (94.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their instruc- tors had created a safe online environment, and 93.4% felt comfortable with introducing themselves. Over 80% of students agreed with Items 1, 4, 7, and 8. Students felt comfortable in their learning environ- ment (87.7%), had no difficulties expressing them- selves (84.9%), had no difficulties expressing their feelings and thoughts (84.0%), and communicated effectively (83.0%). Item 5 had the highest (M ¼ 4.49) and Item 6 had the lowest mean score (M ¼ 3.65). This subscale had the highest mean (M ¼ 4.12) of all four subscales (Table 1). These results indicate that students were comfortable in the online learning environment in general, and they were able to com- municate and share with other course participants while completing online learning activities. These findings are not surprising given the fact that students who enter college today have an “information-age mindset” (Frand, 2000, p. 16); they are accustomed to constant technological change, access to rapidly emerging technologies, and constant access to infor- mation and connectedness to others via their mobile devices.

Many students today are more familiar with online learning environments than students of previous gen- erations. In fall 2016, 31.6% of college students were taking at least one online course. As enrollment in online courses at higher education institutions has been steadily increasing over many years (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018), one can assume that many graduate students have been exposed to online courses during their undergraduate studies. Perhaps some have even taken online courses as high school students.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 279

Community Overall, students did not agree highly with items on the community subscale. Many participants selected the neutral option for these statements. The highest agreement was with Items 9 and 11; however, less than half of the respondents got to know faculty and peers well (46.2%) or thought making acquaintances was easy (44.3%). The highest disagreement was with Item 12. Students (67.9%) strongly disagreed or dis- agreed with the statement that they spent a lot of time with their peers; this item also had the lowest mean (M ¼ 2.21). The community subscale (M ¼ 2.68) yielded the lowest mean score of all subscale (Table 2).

The low mean score on the community subscale indicates that students in this study did not feel they were part of a community. Researchers have found similar results (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Finn, 2018; Ford, 2015). However, it is a concern that over half of participants disagreed that they are not emotionally attached to or spend time with their peers, and that their peers do not know them well. According to Liu (2006), lack of community in online courses can be attributed in part to the temporary and goal-oriented nature of online learning and limited opportunities for interaction in online courses. To engage students, reduce feelings of isolation, and avoid burnout,

community formation and presence should be encouraged and supported (Rovai & Jordan, 2004; Tinto, 1975).

Facilitation Over 80% of students agreed or strongly agreed with four items on the facilitation subscale: Item 15 (87.7%), Item 16 (86.8%), Item 17 (86.8%), and Item 20 (80.2%). They agreed instructors promoted collab- oration and interaction, integrated collaboration tools, and were responsive. Approximately, only one third of participants (33.0%) agreed that instructors partici- pated in online discussions (Item 19). This item had the lowest mean (M ¼ 4.17) on the subscale (Table 3).

It is encouraging that so many students agreed that their online instructors promoted collaboration and were responsive to students. Very few instructors, however, according to respondents participated in online discussions. Researchers have pointed out that instructors can increase students’ sense of community by being present. Instructor presence and interaction are an important aspect of student satisfaction and engagement (Bolliger & Martindale, 2004, Martin & Bolliger, 2018). When students are learning in online environments that do not require synchronous meetings or sessions, there are limited opportunities to engage with instructors (LaBarbera, 2013). The

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and percentage for comfort subscale items (N ¼ 106). Percentage

Item M SD SD/D N A/SA

1. I feel comfortable in the online learning environment provided by my program. 4.25 0.778 2.8 9.4 87.7 2. I feel my instructors have created a safe online environment in which I can freely express myself. 4.42 0.599 0.0 5.7 94.3 3. I feel comfortable asking other students in online courses for help. 3.72 0.993 11.3 24.5 64.2 4. I feel comfortable expressing my opinions and feelings in online courses. 4.19 0.770 2.8 13.2 84.0 5. I feel comfortable introducing myself in online courses. 4.49 0.651 0.9 5.7 93.4 6. If I need to, I will ask for help from my classmates. 3.65 0.996 13.2 24.5 62.3 7. I have no difficulties with expressing my thoughts in my online courses. 4.14 0.774 2.8 12.3 84.9 8. I can effectively communicate in online courses. 4.11 0.760 1.9 15.1 83.0 Overall 4.12 0.571

Note. Scale items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A ¼ agree; D ¼ disagree; N ¼ neutral; SA ¼ strongly agree; SD ¼ strongly disagree.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and percentages for community subscale items (N ¼ 106). Percentage

Item M SD SD/D N A/SA

9. I have gotten to know some of the faculty members and classmates well. 3.27 1.159 29.2 24.5 46.2 10. I feel emotionally attached to other students in my online courses. 2.41 0.974 55.7 30.2 14.2 11. I can easily make acquaintances in my online courses. 3.10 1.103 34.9 20.8 44.3 12. I spend a lot of time with my online course peers. 2.21 0.983 67.9 20.8 11.3 13. My peers have gotten to know me quite well in my online courses. 2.46 1.034 55.7 27.4 17.0 14. I feel that students in my online courses depend on me. 2.61 1.038 44.3 34.9 20.8 Overall 2.68 0.842

Note. Scale items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A ¼ agree; D ¼ disagree; N ¼ neutral; SA ¼ strongly agree; SD ¼ strongly disagree.

280 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

facilitation of discussions can model appropriate inter- actions and engage and support students (Martin, Wang, & Sadaf, 2018). Instructors who do not get involved in online discussions miss a prime opportun- ity to interact and connect with their students.

Interaction and Collaboration The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed with all items on the interaction and collaboration subscale. Over 70% agreed with three items that per- tain to working with others (74.5%), discussing ideas (70.8%), and collaborating with peers (70.8%). Item 21 had the highest (M ¼ 3.77) and Item 22 had the lowest (M ¼ 3.59) mean score, indicating that participants in general agreed that they work with others in online courses. The overall mean for items on this subscale was 3.68 (Table 4).

Integrated activities by instructors Frequency analysis was performed on one multiple- response item which listed several strategies, activities, and tools that instructors may integrate in their courses. Students reported their online instructors uti- lized several different items on the list. The top five items were discussion forums, collaborative group projects, frequent announcements, ice breaker intro- ductions, and required weekly group activities (Table 5). According to participants, fewer instructors provided online office hours, required students to share resources or broke students into smaller

discussion groups. Fewer than 15 students reported their instructors used online synchronous chat ses- sions, social media, or discussion leader assignments.

Most instructors not only promoted collabor- ation—as mentioned previously—but the majority of students indicated their instructors integrated oppor- tunities for them to actively work together, discuss ideas, and collaborate with their peers. Students were also able to share resources and their work with others. Martin and Bolliger (2018) used Moore’s (1993) interaction framework to study students’ per- ceptions of online engagement strategies. Students thought that collaborative work and icebreakers were the most beneficial strategies in the learner-learner category to engage them in their online courses. Shackelford and Maxwell (2012) pointed out that col- laboration with peers fosters not only community but deeper student learning.

Differences in responses based on individual characteristics

To evaluate differences in responses, independent t tests were performed on age, gender, number of suc- cessful credit hours completed, and academic pro- gram. Results showed significant differences in responses based on gender and credit hours but no significant differences based on academic program. A series of one-way analyses of variance was conducted to ascertain differences based on four age groups;

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and percentages for facilitation subscale items (N ¼ 106). Percentage

Item M SD SD/D N A/SA

15. Instructors promote collaboration between students in my online courses. 4.07 0.621 1.9 10.4 87.7 16. Instructors integrate collaboration tools (e.g., chat rooms, wikis, and group areas) into online course activities. 4.12 0.713 1.9 11.3 86.8 17. My online instructors are responsive to my questions. 4.17 0.774 4.7 8.5 86.8 18. I receive frequent feedback from my online instructors. 3.95 0.748 2.8 21.7 75.5 19. My instructors participate in online discussions. 3.02 1.014 32.1 34.9 33.0 20. In my online courses, instructors promote interaction between learners. 3.92 0.732 5.7 14.2 80.2 Overall 3.87 0.554

Note. Scale items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A ¼ agree; D ¼ disagree; N ¼ neutral; SA ¼ strongly agree; SD ¼ strongly disagree.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and percentages for interaction and collaboration scale items (N ¼ 106). Percentage

Item M SD SD/D N A/SA

21. I work with others in my online courses. 3.77 0.887 9.4 16.0 74.5 22. I relate my work to others’ work in my online courses. 3.59 0.934 16.0 20.8 63.2 23. I share information with other students in my online courses. 3.66 1.004 17.0 16.0 67.0 24. I discuss my ideas with other students in my online courses. 3.67 0.973 14.2 15.1 70.8 25. I collaborate with other students in my online courses. 3.72 0.892 11.3 17.9 70.8 Overall 3.68 0.774

Note. Scale items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A ¼ agree; D ¼ disagree; N ¼ neutral; SA ¼ strongly agree; SD ¼ strongly disagree.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 281

however, no statistically significant differences were found. The two business programs studied and the students they attract may have been too similar in nature to yield significant differences in participants’ responses. Results show that age was not a very important factor in this study. Shea (2006) found similar results.

Gender There was a statistically significant difference for one statement (Item 12) between women (M ¼ 2.00, SD ¼ 0.866) and men (M ¼ 2.39, SD ¼ 1.048), with men scoring higher than women (M ¼ 0.39, 99.8% CI [0.76, 0.03]), t(103.581) ¼ 2.076, p ¼ .014. Further, Cohen’s effect size value (d ¼ 0.406) suggested a medium effect size. This item pertained to students spending time with their peers; however, neither males nor females had particularly high mean scores. In other words, they did not spend much time with other students in their courses.

A limited number of studies have investigated stu- dent perceptions of gender-based sense of community in college courses and programs. Other researchers found women felt slightly more connected than men (Rovai & Baker, 2005; Shea, 2006). The question then becomes whether gender truly is a factor in percep- tions of community.

Number of successful credit hours completed Because the MBA and MSOM program requires a total of 36 credit hours that are usually completed within two years, reported credit hours were grouped into two categories: first-year (0–18 hr) and second- year (19 hr or more) students. Results show that there were statistically significant differences in mean scores between first- and second-year students for five scale items: Item 3 (M ¼ 0.47, 99.8% CI [�0.903, �0.054]), t(61) ¼ �0.780, p ¼ .028; Item 4 (M ¼ 0.37, 99.8% CI [�0.708, �0.027]), t(54) ¼ �2.26, p ¼ .035; Item 5 (M ¼ 0.34, 99.8% CI [�0.632, �0.045]), t(53) ¼ �2.31, p ¼ .025; Item 21 (M ¼ 0.44, 99.8% CI [�0.847, �0.035]), t(51) ¼ �2.18, p ¼ .034; and Item 24 (M ¼ 0.49, 99.8% CI [�0.919, �0.059]), t(56) ¼ �2.28, p ¼ .026. Effect sizes are reported in Table 6. Cohen’s effect size values suggested a moderate practical sig- nificance for all five items.

For all items, second-year students scored higher than first-year students. Second-year students were more comfortable asking other students for help, expressing their opinions and feelings, and introduc- ing themselves compared with students in their first year. Second-year students were also more likely to work and discuss ideas with other students. A possible reason for these results is that they have more experi- ence in the online learning environment than do stu- dents in their first year. More experienced students are more familiar with the environment, course

Table 5. Instructor used activities (N ¼ 106). Activity n %

Send frequent course announcements (e.g., weekly) 93 87.7 Use icebreakers (e.g., introductions) 75 70.8 Use discussion forums 104 98.1 Break students into smaller discussion groups 44 41.5 Assign discussion leaders 4 3.8 Require group activities (e.g., weekly activities) 63 59.4 Require collaborative group projects (e.g., major writing assignments) 94 88.7 Require students to share resources 45 42.5 Incorporate synchronous chat sessions 10 9.4 Provide online office hours 55 51.9 Use social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) 6 5.7 Other 12 11.3

Note. Participants were able to select multiple responses.

Table 6. Results of t tests for significant items (N ¼ 106). Earned credit hours

0–18 hr (n ¼ 37) 19 hr and above (n ¼ 69) 99.8% CI for Mean DifferenceItem M SD M SD t df d

3 3.41 1.12 3.88 0.88 [�0.903, �0.054] �0.780� 61 0.467 4 3.95 0.94 4.32 0.63 [�0.708, �0.027] �2.26� 54 0.462 5 4.27 0.80 4.61 0.52 [�0.632, �0.045] �2.31� 53 0.504 21 3.49 1.12 3.93 0.69 [�0.847, �0.035] �2.18� 51 0.473 24 3.35 1.16 3.84 0.82 [�0.919, �0.059] �2.28� 56 0.488 Note. �p < .05.

282 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

structure, professors and their expectations, and inte- grated tools of the learning management system (Brown, 2001).

Activities and strategies used by instructors

Ninety-three students shared how instructors fostered connectedness in their online courses. Responses to this open-ended question indicated instructors of 78 students used communication tools such as discussion forums for required student introductions and weekly participation. Fifty students reported instructors uti- lized team projects in their courses. Eight participants shared their instructors promoted interaction by com- municating consistently and using discussion forums and interactive team assignments. Seven participants indicated their instructors were responsive to students’ needs through timely communication, ample feedback on assigned work, and relevant course interaction. Thematically, almost all responses focused on instruc- tors using tools to foster connectedness. Very few par- ticipants mentioned specific methods or policies.

Instructor use of tools including discussion forums, team projects, student introductions, and frequent interaction are part of sound instructional design for online courses (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008; Smaldino, Lowther, Mims, & Russell, 2015). In add- ition, instructor responsiveness and prompt and per- sonalized feedback on assignments are important elements in forming connections between instructors and students (Dyer, Aroz, & Larson, 2018; Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008). Student responses indicated instructors are utilizing tools in their courses to create an environment supportive of connectedness.

Suggested activities and strategies

The second open-ended question asked participants what they would like instructors to do to foster con- nectedness in their online program. Responses were primarily centered around three themes: interaction, synchronous communication, and feedback. Additional responses are listed in Table 7.

Most comments pertained to the need for instruc- tors to be more interactive. They wanted instructors to participate in discussions and desired timely responses (or in some cases, any responses) to e-mails or phone calls. One student stated, “In some courses, I have waited up to three days for answers to ques- tions that I really needed a response on.”

Several responses about discussions revealed either a complete lack or not enough instructor participation

in discussions. One student shared, “Some professors participate in the forums with students which adds further insight into topics and student performance. However, this practice seems to be rare. More professor insight into forums would create a better connection with the instructor.”

Nine respondents shared a desire for more synchronous communication including weekly chat sessions or virtual meetups to share resources, ask questions, or get help on assignments. Eight partici- pants expressed a desire for instructors to offer more and timely feedback on assigned work. Students wanted more feedback than currently provided, faster return of grades, and feedback on discussion forum posts. Five students were satisfied with existing levels of connectedness.

Connectedness is not a necessity Ten students related they thought connectedness is not necessary or were too busy to worry about con- nectedness in their programs. One student wrote, “I am okay with not working closely with other students. I am taking an online course for the flexibility and connectedness is the trade-off I am willing to part with.” Ten students wrote either nothing needed to be changed or the question was not applicable.

Results show that the majority of instructors reportedly followed suggestions in the literature to promote connectedness in their courses. However, according to student responses to open-ended ques- tions, not all instructors used the strategies. The instructor is the most important individual to students (Bolliger & Martindale, 2004) and should be cognizent of students’ needs such as the need for frequent instructor-student interactions, and timely feedback and responses to questions or concerns (Durrington, Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006; Ertmer et al., 2007; Knowlton, 2003). And while some students value con- nectedness in online courses, Exter et al. (2009) pointed out that not all students have a need for con- nectedness or community for a variety of reasons

Table 7. Suggested activities and strategies (n ¼ 88). Response n

More frequent and timely interaction with instructors 23 Synchronous methods of learning and communication 9 More and timely feedback on assigned work 8 Hold on-campus office hours 2 Add more group assignments and projects 2 Restructure discussions to make them informal 2 Encourage students in a positive manner 2 Add peer sharing of resources 1 Include more video and audio lectures 1

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 283

such as other sources of support, time constraints or work and family.

Conclusion

It was the purpose of the study to investigate students’ perceptions of connectedness in two online graduate- level business programs at a midwestern college. In general, results show that students felt they were mod- erately connected. The majority of students agreed with items on three subscales: comfort, facilitation, and collaboration and interaction. Many students, however, disagreed with items on the community sub- scale. In other words, the students had a low sense of community.

It is encouraging that, according to students who participated in this study, many instructors promoted interaction and collaboration and used a variety of activities and tools to support student connectedness. Yet, some students reported they did not have strong feelings of connectedness. Some students desired more instructor-student interaction and wanted instructors to be more present. They thought their instructors should be more involved in the course and participate more in discussions. Some participants were satisfied with what their instructors were doing, whereas others did not find it necessary to feel connected in their courses. These results indicate that students have dif- ferent needs and highlight the important fact that there will always be a need for students to work on activities and assignments individually.

Online courses continue to have higher attrition than on-campus courses. There are many reasons independent of course delivery (e.g., personal charac- teristics, employment, support systems) for the higher attrition of nontraditional, adult learners. The online environment, however, does introduce additional chal- lenges such as ineffective communication, and feelings of isolation (Boston, Ice, & Burgess, 2012; Gaytan, 2013; Lee & Choi, 2011). As pointed out previously, instructors are an important factor in impacting stu- dent satisfaction. They also play an important role in student success and retention (Tinto, 2006) because they represent the program, department, college, and university.

Instructors, therefore, should provide opportunities to interact, share, collaborate, and design activities to support the development of students’ feeling of con- nectedness. These activities aimed at engaging the online student can promote feelings of trust and a sense of belonging and community (Kuh, 2003; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). When students feel

connected with others, they may be more intrinsically motivated to complete their online programs, which will ultimately lead to an increase in student success and retention.

Limitations

The following limitations should be taken into consid- eration when interpreting or generalizing the results of this study. First, the study was geographically lim- ited because only students in two business programs at one college participated in the study. Although stu- dents who enroll in online programs at U.S.-based higher education institutions may live throughout the country or other countries, most study participants— with a few exceptions—resided in the northern Rocky Mountain region. Second, the population and, there- fore, the sample was relatively small with only just over 270 enrolled students in both programs. However, the response rate was acceptable for a study that utilized an online survey. Response rates are typ- ically lower for online surveys compared with paper- based surveys (Nulty, 2008). To increase the response rate, Nulty suggested sending reminder e-mails and offering a drawing for gift cards. Third, only graduate students were invited to participate due to the design of the study. Responses of students enrolled in under- graduate online programs may vary considerably from the population in this study. Last, the data were self- reported due to the nature of the study. Students may have chosen responses due to social desirability factors instead of responding truthfully. However, their participation was voluntary and anonymous, and par- ticipants were encouraged to share their percep- tions openly.

Future research

Due to the geographical limitation, student target population, and small sample size in this study, researchers may replicate the study in the future. Future researchers could include students in different programs in a variety of disciplines, undergraduate and graduate students, and courses delivered asyn- chronous and synchronously.

The two open-ended survey questions may have been too broad because students primarily entered information about general activities instead of strat- egies used by instructors to foster connectedness. Researchers who desire to ask similar questions in the future may ask open-ended questions regarding spe- cific instructional strategies and approaches, specific

284 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

assignments, projects or assessments, etc., that directly affect connectedness. Questions regarding the facilita- tion or scaffolding of activities or assignments may also provide the field with valuable answers. To inves- tigate these issues more deeply, researchers could include qualitative or mixed-methods research designs.

We do not completely understand the motivation of students enrolled in MBA and MSOM programs. Without specifically knowing why students enroll in online business programs and what their expectations are, it is difficult to meet students’ needs related to connectedness, community, interaction, collaboration, and so forth. Questions regarding students’ needs and motivations are worthy of investigation as their answers will move our field forward.

Disclosure statement

No financial interest or benefit has arisen from the direct applications of the research.

ORCID

Doris U. Bolliger http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-6243

References

Barbarick, D. (2013). Connectedness: A phenomenological study of the social experiences of adult learners in an online course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3605241).

Barnard, L., Paton, V. O., & Rose, K. (2007). Perceptions of online course communications and collaboration. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(4). Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/�distance/ojdla/ winter104/barnard104.html

Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and val- idation of the Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS). The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41–65. doi:10.19173/irrodl. v13i3.1171

Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors influ- encing student satisfaction with online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67.

Boston, W., Ice, P., & Burgess, M. (2012). Assessing student retention in online learning environments: A longitudinal study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga. edu/�distance/ojdla/summer152/boston_ice_burgess152. html

Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18–35. Retrieved from https:// onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/journal-issues

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quanti- tative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190–193.

Dyer, T., Aroz, J., & Larson, E. (2018). Proximity in the online classroom: Engagement, relationships, and person- alization. Journal of Instructional Research, 7(1), 108–118. doi:10.9743/JIR.2018.10

Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., … Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412–433. doi:10.1111/j. 1083-6101.2007.00331.x

Exter, M. E., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N. M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2009). Sense of community within a fully online program: Perspectives of graduate students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 177–194.

Finn, C. (2018). Examining the relationship between the non- traditional learner and sense of connectedness in an online learning environment at a for-profit college (Doctoral dis- sertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10790591).

Ford, S. (2015). The effects of written and video/audio com- munication on learners’ perceived feelings of connectedness, course satisfaction, participation, and achievement in an online community college algebra course (Doctoral disser- tation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/62362

Frand, J. L. (2000). The Information-age mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 14–20.

Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, aca- demic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463–476.

Gaytan, J. (2013). Factors affecting student retention in online courses: Overcoming this critical problem. Career and Technical Education Research, 38(2), 145–155. doi:10. 5328/cter38.2.147

Glazer, H. R., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2011). Connection to the academic community: Perceptions of students in online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 55–62.

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 487–510. doi:10.1007/s11423-009- 9120-2

Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8535.2010.01107.x

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 285

Knowlton, D. S. (2003). Evaluating college students’ efforts in asynchronous discussion: A systematic process. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(1), 31–41.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educa- tional practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32. doi:10.1080/ 00091380309604090

LaBarbera, R. (2013). The relationship between students’ perceived sense of connectedness to the instructor and satisfaction in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 209–220.

Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course drop- out research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618. doi:10.1007/s11423-010- 9177-y

Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e- learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185–204. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.004

Liebowitz, J. (2013). A comparative study of emerging tech- nologies for online courses. Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–11.

Liu, X. (2006). The socio-cultural factors affecting the success of an online MBA course: A case study viewed from activ- ity theory perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10790591).

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student percep- tion of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of commu- nity: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601) 14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I

Melkun, C. H. (2012). Nontraditional students online: Composition, collaboration, and community. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 33–39. doi:10. 1080/07377363.2012.649128

Moody, J. (2004). Distance Education: Why are the attrition rates so high? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(3), 205–210.

Moore, M. J. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. John, & D. Keegan (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 19–24). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ngozi, A., Ada, O., & Christy, O. (2010). An assessment of students’ connectedness in tertiary institutions in Anambra state of Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(2), 90–98.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. doi: 10.1080/02602930701293231

O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving stu- dent retention. College Student Journal, 47(4), 605–613.

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(4), 207–217.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller, C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online learning envi- ronments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 256–297. doi:10.19173/ irrodl.v16i3.2123

Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a dis- tance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48. doi:10.1007/bf02504946

Rovai, A. P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discus- sions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 89–107. doi:10. 1007/bf02940854

Rovai, A. P., & Baker, J. D. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 31–44.

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with trad- itional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1–13. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192

Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/highered. html

Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of commu- nity in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 228–249. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1339

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning com- munity in online environments. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35–44. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/ read/journal-issues

Shin, N. (2002). Beyond Interaction: The relational con- struct of ‘Transactional Presence’. Open Learning, 17(2), 121–137. doi:10.1080/02680510220146887

Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical pre- dictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86. doi:10.1080/01587910303048

Simon, D., Jackson, K., & Maxwell, K. (2013). Traditional versus online instruction: Faculty resources impact strat- egies for course delivery. Business Education & Accreditation, 5(1), 107–116. Retrieved from https:// www.theibfr.com/business-education-and-accreditation- past-issues

Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Mims, C., & Russell, J. D. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Smart, K. L., Witt, C., & Scott, J. P. (2012). Toward learner- centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 392–403. doi:10.1177/ 1080569912459752

286 T. E. JAMISON AND D. U. BOLLIGER

Summers, J. J., Svinicki, M. D., Gorin, J. S., & Sullivan, T. A. (2002). Student feelings of connection to the cam- pus and openness to diversity and challenge at a large research university: Evidence of progress? Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64. doi:10.1023/ A:1020420507339

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchron- ous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. doi:10.1080/0158791010220208

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theor- etical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19. doi:10.2190/ 4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W

U.S. News & World Report (2019a). Best online graduate business programs. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.

com/education/online-education/business/search?pro- gram=business&online-program-type=online&mode=list

U.S. News & World Report. (2019b). Best online MBA pro- grams. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/educa- tion/online-education/mba/search?program=mba&online- program-type=online&mode=list

Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and val- idation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289–308. doi:10.1007/ s10984-005-1568-3

Waugh, M., & Su-Searle, J. (2014). Student persistence and attrition in an online M.S. program: Implications for pro- gram design. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(1), 101–121.

Yuzer, T. V., & Eby, G. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of research on emerging priorities and trends in distance education: Communication, pedagogy, and technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 287