Abstract
This study examined student success, failure, withdrawal, and satisfaction in online public relations courses based on instructor–student interaction, student–student interaction, and instructor presence. Student passing rates, D/F rates, withdrawal rates, and evaluations of instruction were compiled from fifty-one online PR courses run over the course of two years. The results from the study suggest that student–student interaction and self-discipline are the strongest predictors of success and satisfaction with online courses. Implications for online instructors are included.
Keywords
In a 1999 report regarding the state of public relations (PR) education, researchers raised concerns regarding PR pedagogy as most instructors reported using overheads, blackboards, and other non-mediated classroom tools as methods of instruction. 1 Today, online PR education (i.e., web-based learning, e-learning, or distance education) represents a specific concern as more universities have begun using hybrid and completely online methods of PR instruction. This has changed significantly in the last twelve years as Coombs and Rybacki stated PR instructors were “slow to utilize new technology”; there was “limited use of new media” in PR courses 2 ; and Stacks, Botan, and VanSlyke Turk reported less than half of PR faculty supported using the Internet for classes, opting instead for lectures, small classes, and seminars. 3 Kruckeberg went on to suggest the future of PR education “revolve[d] around information and how it will be communicated instantaneously through time and space.” 4
Several changes have taken place since these early studies. First, Internet-based educational software such as WebCT or Blackboard make it possible for universities to put more courses online. Second, more universities see online education as a way to increase revenue. Third, online courses provide greater access to education for “distance” students and reduce impediments to timely graduation for “on campus” students. Finally, online courses are a way universities can be viewed as innovators. 5
In 2010, the number of students taking online courses rose 17 percent, resulting in an estimated 4.6 million students taking online courses (82 percent of these were undergraduate students). 6 To meet these changes, a number of universities have begun offering online PR courses, minors, and degrees. Prior to the growth of e-learning, Coombs and Rybacki suggested PR instructional delivery techniques should be “engaging, organized, and delivered with enthusiasm.” 7 Moreover, they proposed “directly involv[ing] students in the learning process, making them partners in their own education.” 8 Nowhere are these recommendations more relevant than in the online PR course where students must read and process material on their own, attempt assignments on their own, and take part in asynchronous discussions of course material. 9
Researchers differ on whether online students require more interaction (both with other students and with instructors) 10 or can be successful with less interaction. 11 A recent study by Waters and Bortree indicated millennial students prefer online (web-based or email) communication with instructors. 12 However, the question remains: How does this translate to a completely online PR learning environment? When faced with a learning experience wherein students do not receive face-to-face interaction with instructors or other students, will online communication–interaction help them succeed? And, will they rate their online learning as effective?
To date, research regarding online PR course effectiveness has been particularly deficient. The study examines student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, and instructor presence effects on student success in online PR courses. The courses examined in this study meet the 2011 guidelines for Certification in Education for Public Relations (CEPR) established by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), specifically, that the courses examined here are the suggested curriculum for undergraduate PR education: campaigns/case studies, experiential learning, principles, research, and writing. 13
This study also examines how changing the level of instructor–student interaction influences student evaluations of the course and instructor effectiveness. This research represents important baseline research in PR education as the number of online PR courses has increased in recent years and little research currently exists for educators to reference regarding successful online PR instruction. Future research will examine success of students and attitudes of students in each of the online PR courses to see if entry-level versus upper level PR courses are better suited for online delivery.
Literature Review
Asynchronous Learning and Social Learning Theory
Asynchronous learning environments employed by the online courses used in this study—wherein students and faculty are separated in time—have been shown to be as effective as synchronous or traditional classroom learning environments. 14 However, there is great debate as to what level of interaction needs to take place for an asynchronous learning environment to be effective. Furthermore, there is debate regarding what makes an online course effective.
Social Learning Theory developed by Bandura suggests “most human behavior is learned through modeling.” 15 Assumptions of the Social Learning approach are as follows: (1) Learners can learn through observation; (2) learners should get reinforcement in terms of pride, satisfaction, and sense of accomplishment from learning; (3) learners can learn new information without changing behaviors. Social Learning requires that learners attend, retain, and reproduce information but that they must be motivated by either reinforcement or punishment to successfully learn something. 16 In an online setting, interaction between students and instructors is a necessary component of an effective Social Learning environment. Students must observe one another’s behaviors; observe the instructor praise, reinforce, or correct behaviors; and observe that changing their behaviors will lead to future rewards.
Student–Instructor Interaction and Presence
Tu noted that when it comes to Social Learning Theory, social presence is necessary as, “in the on-line environment, if models and learners do not talk appropriately . . . there is little to no social presence and the learner’s attention is not captured.” 17 In many studies, students have indicated they feel the level of interaction in online courses greatly exceeds that of a traditional environment. 18 A study by Dennen, Darabi, and Smith indicated students ranked response to student inquiries, provision of timely feedback, and posting to discussion boards as the most important things an instructor can do in a course. 19 In an examination of PR courses and importance of out-of-class communication, Waters and Bortree pointed out email and web-based communication were preferred by millennial students—as opposed to traditional face-to-face interaction. 20
Instructor presence versus instructor interaction
Dennen identified initial instructor presence (i.e., amount of posts without directly addressing an individual student) as an important determinant of student expectations for the course. 21 Furthermore, Russo and Campbell indicated students felt instructor presence was more important than other student presence. 22 Johnson and Aragon indicated that “quality of interaction” was more important than quantity. 23 Conversely, other distance education researchers indicate quantity is more important suggesting faculty be online frequently, provide more structure and feedback, and be more responsive to students. In addition, case studies indicate there is a “heavy commitment both in time and effort that is required of the lecturer to facilitate [online] discussion groups,” 24 but these studies do not indicate specifically what level of interaction is necessary—or if mere instructor presence without individual attention is adequate.
Student interaction
Moore identified three types of student interaction: learner–content, learner–instructor and learner–learner. 25 Mere student presence constitutes participation in an online course but does not constitute interaction. As noted by Hranstinski, “the concept of ‘vicarious learning’ recognizes the fact that learning may occur through observation of other learners.” However, the many-to-many communication characteristic of online courses, where interactions using posts and electronic bulletin boards take place, require students to interact with one another. Online courses make it possible for students to learn more from peer interactions than from readings alone. 26 It is not enough for them to merely write posts to the instructor but to take part and join in the online dialogue with their peers. 27 Thus, as noted by Wegner, online interaction requires “doing, talking, thinking, feeling and belonging.” 28
Presence and Online Course Success or Failure
Online course interaction has been shown to be a significant predictor of a wide range of learning outcomes including perceived learning, final grades, and assessments of quality of assignments and learning outcomes. 29 Davies and Graff indicated students who interacted less frequently in online course were more likely to fail those courses. 30 In addition, Michinov and colleagues found students who interacted more performed better in online courses. 31 This led to the following research questions:
Interaction and Withdrawal/Retention
Interaction was also noted as an important determinant of retention in online courses: “if learners are satisfied with the results of their online experience, they are more likely to stay in the course.” 32 This research suggested the more comfortable students feel in a course—with comfort often made possible through personal interaction with instructors and other students (i.e., feelings of online community)—the more likely students will be to successfully complete the course. Research by Doherty suggested procrastination and time management issues were the main reasons students drop out of online courses. 33 Furthermore, formal withdrawal from a course as well as informal withdrawal (via lack of participation inevitably resulting in failing grades) is often affected by satisfaction with the online experience. 34 This led to the following research question:
Interaction and Satisfaction
Coombs and Rybacki indicated that in PR courses, online discussions should “facilitate student-to-teacher and student-to-student interaction.” 35 Studies have shown students indicated greater instructor interaction led to greater perceived learning, 36 greater sense of community, 37 satisfaction with online courses, 38 satisfaction with learning, 39 and student retention in the course. 40
Marsh 41 posits that although “there is no single criterion of effective teaching,” student evaluations are (1) indicative of instruction given in a course (2) multidimensional, (3) reliable and stable, (4) unaffected by biases, (5) valid indicators of effective teaching. In terms of student satisfaction, Marsh 42 goes on to suggest “students are able to differentiate between distinct components of effective teaching” and that student evaluations of instruction (SEIs) often indicate enjoyment, liking, and approval for instruction given.
This may be why satisfaction with online learning is suggested to be the largest determinant of online course success. 43 Keegan posited student attitudes are a very important indicator of the quality of an online program. 44 Online learning environments are often foreign to students making evaluations of the learning process, and outcomes reflect unfamiliar instructional methods and asynchronous communications instead of actual learning. 45 Subsequent studies have suggested that satisfaction with online courses can signify learning outcomes and objectives have been achieved 46 ; there has been fairness in grades, procedures, and interactions, 47 and values including attainment, intrinsic, utility, and cost have been met. 48 This led to the following research question:
Changing Amount of Interaction
Studies have shown the extent to which online courses develop interactivity between students and instructors influences the effectiveness of learning. 49 In some cases, the lack of face-to-face communication has led to students feeling “lost” and “unconnected” with the course and the instructor. 50 Desai and colleagues posited that “high levels of interaction typically need to be present for learners to have a positive attitude and greater satisfaction.” 51 In addition, findings by Boling and colleagues indicated courses with little student–student or student–instructor interaction resulted in lower levels of student satisfaction. 52 However, Battle suggested high interaction between students and instructors was not in itself important but instead course quality, student performance, and development of community with fellow students may be more important. 53 This leads to the final research questions:
Method
Design
The method used in this study was secondary data analysis. Data were compiled from 51 online undergraduate PR courses conducted by a large Mid-Atlantic university from summer 2009 (courses n = 23, students n = 408) to fall 2010 (courses n = 28, students n = 402). A total of seventeen adjuncts (none were graduate students) and six full-time faculty taught the following online courses: introduction to PR (nine sections), PR writing (eighteen sections), applied PR (twelve sections), capstone in PR (twelve sections). There were twelve online instructors in 2009 (some taught multiple sections) and fourteen in 2010. Only seven of the 2009 instructors returned meaning there were seven new instructors in 2010. The majority of the returning instructors (n = 6) taught the same course as the year previous. Each instructor taught a maximum of two courses per semester (including summer semesters). Each section of the courses had identical weekly notes, readings, written assignments, and discussion topics. The only differences between courses were the instructors and students.
Data sources used for evaluation of courses were total student, instructor, and instructor–student online discussion board comments/announcements, end-of-term course pass/D/F/withdrawal rates, and student electronic evaluations of instruction. The university Institutional Review Board (IRB) gave the researcher permission to use student and instructor data as existing data sources two semesters after the courses had been taught, and thus, no permission or informed consent was required. In addition, the IRB asked that data be stripped of identifying information before given to the researcher. This was accomplished by having a department executive assistant de-individualize all data prior to analysis.
Independent Variables
Instructor–student interaction
In 2009, there were no rules regarding the level of instructor activity within online courses. Beginning in 2010, instructors were required to interact in the weekly discussions with a minimum of two students. Independent samples t tests were conducted to ensure there was a significant difference between the two years. Results showed there is a significant difference in number of comments from 2009 to 2010, t(45.24) = −4.14, p < .001. There were significantly fewer instructor–student comments in 2009 (M = 18.30, SD = 13.51) than in 2010 (M = 39.39, SD = 22.47). Discussion board posts were examined for each class and the total number of instructor–student interactions was recorded. Each represented instructor–student communication.
Student–student interaction
Each week of the courses, students were required to post to the discussion question and respond to a minimum of two classmates’ posts. The total of student-to-student communications was recorded.
Instructor presence
The total of instructor comments posted on the main announcements page as well as instructor posts within weekly discussions that were not posted as a communication to an individual student but instead posted as a “separate thread” to all students was recorded.
Dependent Variables
Pass/fail/withdraw
Student success/pass (measured by A, B, or C final grades), failure (measured by D and F final grades), and total withdrawal numbers were provided by the university for each online PR course. The grades were not given in individual categories (e.g., 5As, 5Bs, 6Cs, etc.) but as category totals. For example, in a class of twenty students, sixteen were in the passed category (A, B, or C), two in the failed category (D or F), and two in the withdrawal category.
Student evaluations
Electronic Student Evaluations of Instruction (eSEI) reports provided data regarding course evaluations. Course evaluation measures were determined based on two different types of Likert scales. A total of fifteen items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = rarely, 2 = seldom, 3 = usually, 4 = frequently, 5 = always) measured student perceptions of course/instructor effectiveness. A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded three factors (course components and learning, α .94; online class effectiveness, α .99; instructor effort, α .70) that together accounted for 77.06 percent of the variance. An additional measure with six items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = good, 5 = excellent) examined overall evaluation of the course. A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded one factor (overall evaluation, α .95) that accounted for 71.00 percent of the variance (see Table 1).
Student Evaluation Factors, Loadings, and Cronbach’s Alphas for Dependent Variables.
Results
The research was guided by four sets of research questions regarding how instructor–student interaction, student–student interaction, and instructor presence would influence student success rates (passing grades), failures (D/F) grades, withdrawals, and evaluations of online PR courses. To address these research questions, data were analyzed with separate multiple regressions using stepwise selection. Stepwise selection was used in the regression model so that variables not significantly influencing R square were removed from the model. The final two research questions examined how changes in the PR instructor comment requirements might affect student pass/fail/withdrawal rates and electronic course evaluations. Independent samples t tests were conducted to examine mean differences between the two years of comments.
Successful Completion of Online PR Courses
Multiple regression analysis using stepwise selection was used to examine how well student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, or instructor presence predicted whether students successfully completed (i.e., passed the class with an A, B, or C grade) online PR courses. Results indicated student–student interaction (R2 adj = .135) and instructor presence (R2 adj = .05) together accounted for 19 percent of the variance in successful completion (R2 adj = .19), F(2,48) = 6.86, p < .01. Student–student interaction was a significant predictor of successful completion of the online PR courses, t(50) = 3.25, p < .01. As student–student interaction increased, successful completion increased by .01 (95% CI [.003, .01]; β = .42). Instructor presence was also a significant predictor of successful completion of the online PR courses, t(50) = −2.07, p < .05. As instructor presence increased successful completion decreased by .06 (95% CI [−.12, −.002]; β = −.26). Instructor–student interaction was not a significant predictor of successful completion of the online PR courses.
Failure in Online PR Courses
Multiple regression analysis using stepwise selection was used to examine how well student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, or instructor presence predicted whether students failed (i.e., received D or F grades) online PR courses. Results indicated student–student interaction (R2 adj = .11) and instructor presence (R2 adj = .06) together accounted for 17 percent of the variance in course failure (R2 adj = .17), F(2, 48) = 6.16, p < .01. Student–student interaction was a significant predictor of failure in online PR courses, t(50) = 2.28, p < .05. As student–student interaction increased, failure increased by .002 (95% CI [−.000, .003]; β = .30). As the instructor presence increased, failure increased by .05 (95% CI [.003, .10]; β = .28). Instructor–student interaction was not significant predictor of failure in online PR courses.
Withdrawal from Online PR Courses
Multiple regression analysis using stepwise selection was used to examine how well student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, or instructor presence predicted whether students withdrew from online PR courses. Results indicated student–student interaction accounted for 21 percent of the variance in course withdrawal (R2 adj = .21), F(1,50) = 14.01, p < .001. Student–student interaction was a significant predictor of withdrawal from online PR courses, t(50) = 3.74, p < .001. As student–student interaction increased, withdrawal rates increased by .003 (95% CI [.001, .004]; β = .47). Instructor presence and instructor–student interaction were not significant predictors of withdrawal from online PR courses.
Evaluation of Online PR Courses
The fourth set of research questions addressed if student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, or instructor presence influenced number of students taking part in the eSEIs. Multiple regression analysis using stepwise selection was used to examine how well student–student interaction, instructor–student interaction, or instructor presence predicted evaluations of online courses. Each set of predictors was run on separate dependent variables: components of learning, online effectiveness, instructor effort, and overall evaluation.
Components of learning
Results indicated instructor presence, student–student interaction, and instructor–student interaction were not significant predictors of how students evaluated learning components in online PR courses.
Online effectiveness
Results indicated instructor–student interaction accounted for 6 percent of the variance in course withdrawal (R2 adj = .06), F(1,49) = 4.30, p < .05. Instructor–student interaction was a significant predictor of evaluation of the effectiveness of online PR courses, t(50) = −2.07, p < .05. As instructor–student interaction increased, successful student evaluations decreased by −.10, (95% CI [−.20, −.003]; β = −.28). Instructor presence and instructor–student interaction were not significant predictors of evaluation of the effectiveness of online PR courses.
Instructor effort
Results indicated instructor presence, student–student interaction and instructor–student interaction were not significant predictors of how students evaluated instructor effort in online PR courses.
Overall evaluation
Results indicated instructor presence, student–student interaction, and instructor–student interaction were not significant predictors of how students overall evaluated effectiveness of online PR courses.
Comment Increases and Pass/Fail/Withdrawal Rates
The fifth research question asked if changes in instructor–student interaction requirements from 2009–2010 influenced pass/fail/withdrawal rates. As noted earlier, instructors interacted with students less is 2009 (M = 18.30, SD = 13.51) and more in 2010 (M = 39.39, SD = 22.47). Thus, higher means shown below indicate pass/fail/withdraw rates not instructor–student comments.
Independent samples t tests were conducted to examine if increased instructor–student interaction influenced pass/fail/withdrawal rates. Results showed there is a significant difference between successful pass rates from 2009 to 2010, t(49) = 4.01, p < .001. Students in 2009 courses who received fewer instructor–student comments were more likely to pass the course (M = 15.52, SD = 4.20) than those in 2010 who received more instructor–student comments (M = 10.64, SD = 4.41). There was also a significant difference between withdrawal rates from 2009 to 2010, t(40.59) = −3.08, p < .01. Students in 2009 courses who received fewer instructor–student comments were less likely to withdraw from the course (M = 0.56, SD = 0.84) than those in 2010 who received more instructor–student comments (M = 1.71, SD = 1.74). However, there was no significant effect of instructor comments between 2009 and 2010 on D/F rates, t(49) = −0.77, p > .05 between 2009 (M = 1.65, SD = 1.67) and 2010 (M = 2.0, SD = 1.54).
Comment Increases and eSEIs
The sixth research question asked if changes in instructor–student interaction requirements from 2009 to 2010 influenced student evaluations of instruction. As noted earlier, instructors interacted with students less is 2009 (M = 18.30, SD = 13.51) and more in 2010 (M = 39.39, SD = 22.47). Independent samples t tests were conducted to examine if increased instructor interaction influenced student evaluations of instruction. Thus, higher means shown below indicate attitudes regarding evaluations of instruction not instructor–student comments.
Results showed there is a significant difference between online class effectiveness from 2009 to 2010, t(29.27) = 2.44, p < .05. Students in 2009 classes who received fewer instructor–student comments (M = 21.51, SD = 1.87) were more likely to positively evaluate online effectiveness than those in 2010 classes who received more instructor–student comments (M = 16.80, SD = 10.01). There were no significant effects of instructor comments between 2009 and 2010 on course components and learning, t(49) = −0.16, p > .05; instructor effort, t(49) = −0.25, p > .05; or overall evaluation, t(49) = −0.18, p > .05.
Conclusion
Instructor–Student Interaction
Instructor–student interaction did not significantly predict successful completion of, failure in, and withdrawal rates from online PR courses. It appears as though self-disciplined students did not require instructor communication to succeed in online PR courses. These students were capable of actively participating and learning in the online course without instructor interactions. However, undisciplined students who are more likely to fail online courses—as they have a difficult time in asynchronous learning environments where they control their own learning and schedules—also did not benefit from instructor communication. Regardless, it is suggested that PR instructors identify “undisciplined” students early in online courses and actively communicate with those students. Late assignments, inadequate completion of assignments, failure to take part in discussions, and so forth are likely indicators of undisciplined students who will need more instructor interaction.
Social Learning Theory suggested effective online courses depended on interaction between students and instructors as instructors need to praise, reinforce, or correct students within the online classroom to encourage future behaviors. 54 However, when an increase in the quantity of instructor–student interactions was mandated by administration, a surprising phenomenon occurred—instead of increased interactions improving success rates—fewer instructor–student interactions resulted in more students passing the PR courses with A, B, or C grades. In addition, increasing the number of instructor–student interactions increased withdrawal rates. Conversely, changing the quantity of instructor–student interactions did not significantly affect D/F grades. These are surprising findings that contradict earlier findings regarding instructor interaction and retention rates. 55
Also surprising was students who received fewer instructor–student comments positively evaluated online course effectiveness. Meanwhile, instructor–student comment changes (less in 2009 to more in 2010) did not significantly affect eSEI results regarding course components and learning, instructor effort, or overall evaluation of the online PR courses. These findings contradict research that suggests greater interactivity between students and instructors results in greater perceived learning, 56 satisfaction with online courses, 57 and satisfaction with learning. 58
These findings could be due to changes in communication quality, especially if instructors focused more on responding to a certain number of students each week instead of the substance of those interactions. Maor suggested effective online interactions required a heavy time commitment on the part of the instructor. 59 When administration mandated the change in number of communications, the time online PR instructors usually put into communication substance may have switched to communication amount. Future analysis of the quality of comments, both in online discussions and those instructors made on student assignments, should take place to see if this is the case. If changes in quality did take place, it may be necessary to drop number requirements and instead focus on interaction substance.
Student–Student Interaction
Not surprising was that student–student communication significantly increased passing online PR courses. These findings suggest self-disciplined students took it upon themselves to learn and apply the course material, took part in communications with fellow students, and perhaps even formed an online “community” through their communications that encouraged other students to feel connected and stay in the courses. Based on this finding, one of the things PR instructors may want to consider is increasing the student communications requirements within online courses (e.g., more discussion interactions, group assignments, etc.).
More interesting was the effect of student–student interaction on failure and withdrawal rates. The more students interacted with one another, the more students failed or withdrew from the class. This could be because of several issues in online classes: (1) Students gave one another incorrect information about assignments leading some student to fail, (2) students gave one another updates about assignments and some students did not read those updates and failed, (3) increased student comments intimidated some students leading them to detach from the class and fail or withdraw, and/or (4) some students simply did not want to become part of the online “community” via student–student interactions and they chose to fail or withdraw. It is not possible to know which of these is likely the case (or possibly another issue entirely) without interviewing students who failed or withdrew. However, research by Michinov and colleagues indicates that when it comes to Social Learning Theory, procrastination (the largest predictor of students withdrawing from a course) is directly related to self-efficacy. 60 Thus, these students may lack confidence in regulating one’s self in an online environment, see that their peers are doing just fine with self-regulation, and then either set themselves up for failure or choose to withdraw.
Instructor Presence
Instructor presence, without directed communication toward any one student, negatively influenced success in online PR courses. That is, in courses where instructors did not communicate individually with students, those students were more likely to fail the course. However, instructor presence did not significantly influence withdrawal rates. Based on these findings, it appears as though “non-directed” instructor communication is questionable in online courses. In the traditional classroom (i.e., lectures, small classes, and seminars), PR instructors can speak to the entire class regarding topics, assignments, discussion clarification, or re-direction; however, in the virtual classroom, it seems as though this type of communication is not helpful to all students. This may be because instructor presence comments may have been made in the form of “general” messages praising, reinforcing, or correcting all students. Those students who were paying attention got the message (thus applied the comments and passed) whereas students not paying attention did not get the message (thus did not apply the comments and failed). In accordance with findings in other studies, online students may require more direct interaction or instructor responsiveness. 61 That is, instructors should try to use emails or direct messages praising, reinforcing, or correcting individual students instead of general messages posted toward the class as a whole. Conversely, though previous research suggested instructor presence was more important, results from this study suggest “other” student presence is more important in determining success and satisfaction in online courses. 62
Implications
An understanding of effective instruction in online PR courses is necessary as the rising amount of non-resident “distance” students, the economic downturn, and university focus on decreasing costs, increasing revenues, and improving student access have led to an increase in online undergraduate courses offered online. Early researchers pointed out the changing PR teaching environment and suggested PR instructors find ways to effectively teach and communicate with students via new media and other technologies. 63
This study adds to our knowledge about the importance of communication—instructor–student interaction, student–student interaction, and instructor presence—and its effect on student success and satisfaction in online PR courses. Our results were similar to the results of Battle, which suggested high interaction between students and instructors was not necessarily important. 64 Our results further indicated mere instructor presence was not sufficient. What could be the most important—especially in PR courses where students often need detailed direction regarding how to improve their communication strategies—is the quality of those interactions. In regard to Social Learning Theory, our results mirror those of Gunawardena’s “no interaction—no learning.” 65 In order for social learning to occur, students must be presented with assignments that require them to interact with one another. In addition, instructors must take into account self-efficacy beliefs of students—looking specifically for those who post “later” to discussion boards—as these students are likely procrastinators who will drop out or fail the course if left on their own.
Asynchronous online learning environments require students be self-disciplined and actively enter into communicative relationships with peers. Those students who immediately grasp this seem to have the greatest success in online PR courses. When in a learning experience with no face-to-face interaction, “virtual” communication with peers helps students succeed in the online PR course. The results of our study, as well as those of Coombs and Rybacki, reinforce the notion that to succeed, PR students must be directly engaged in the learning process. 66 It is therefore essential that instructors advise students about this from the onset of online courses and provide recommendations regarding formation of an “online community” within the course.
Limitations and Future Research
This study had several limitations. First of all, the eSEI data only reflects those students who chose to complete course evaluations. These were likely the students who either (1) were self-disciplined and felt it was their responsibility to provide commentary about the courses or (2) were unhappy with the courses. Although available, student comments on evaluations were not examined. A review of these comments may provide insight into what students found to be effective and ineffective in the online PR courses. In addition, to more accurately reflect the effectiveness of both course and instructor, future research should attempt to garner evaluations from all students in the courses.
As noted earlier, future studies should evaluate the quality of PR instructor interactions with students and not just the quantity. It should be noted that of the twelve original online instructors in 2009, only seven returned for 2010. That meant that there were seven old and seven new instructors (total 14) in 2010. This is a possible confounding factor as though materials (notes, discussion questions, assignments) were identical, the instructors were not consistent across years. New instructors may not have taken the time to praise, reinforce, or correct students in their online interactions the way that returning instructors might. Without an understanding of whether communication substance changed from 2009 to 2010, it is not possible to say why many changes reported here occurred. Although this study looked only at discussion interactions, it may be important to evaluate instructor emails to students as well as comments to students posted in assignments to assess communication substance.
Another limitation to this study is that student evaluation measures that address technology separately from course content or instructor evaluations should be used in future studies. As pointed out by Roberts, Irani, Lundy, and Telg, “If students do not have the ability to evaluate the technology separately, they will indicate their attitudes toward the technology with their evaluation of the instructor.” 67 It may be that technology issues (or issues with the online learning environment) were confounded with evaluations of the course and instructor. This could be why no significant results were found between 2009 and 2010 for the dependent measures of course components and learning, instructor effort, or overall evaluation.
Finally, this study looked solely at online PR classes and did not compare them with their traditional face-to-face classroom counterparts. Future research should compare success–passing, failure, withdrawal, and student evaluations between the two to see which students get more out of as well as prefer. It would also be interesting to see what types of PR courses from the CEPR guidelines (i.e., campaigns/case studies, experiential learning, principles, research and writing) are best suited for online teaching. For example, are entry-level courses such as principles and case studies better suited for an online environment whereas upper level courses such as campaigns better suited to the classroom? Furthermore, analysis of the data could provide educators with greater insight into which PR classes work best for e-learning.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.