Students’ expectations of instructors in face-to-face and online learning environments at a Chinese university

Abstract

With the fast development of technology and the prevalent use of high-speed internet across campus, online courses have become a necessary option for course delivery in many universities in China. A sample group of 158 university students participated in this study. We examined differences in their expectations of instructors between face-to-face and online course settings. Results indicated that Chinese students expect their instructors to have some overlap characteristics in both sets, including being knowledgeable about the subject, building class rapport, having realistic expectations of students, and providing fair testing and grading. Specifically, Chinese students expect instructors who teach online courses to be more confident, creative, interesting, and humble. Chinese students also hope online instructors actively motivate class discussion and promote critical thinking, and are intellectually stimulating.

Keywords

Face-to-face course online course students’ expectations of instructors higher education Chinese college students

Introduction

With the fast development of technology standards for broadband cellular networks (e.g., 5G) and implementation of high-speed internet across campus, online learning has been integrated into Chinese universities, but usually in a blended-course format. For example, Wang et al. (2019) designed a blended English course for 1604 undergraduate students at one Chinese university. Students in the class were required to learn by using online learning resources, including online readings and videos. They also interacted with their instructor and peers by way of an online discussion board. Along with that, they attended interactive learning activities via a face-to-face flipped learner-centered classroom, completed group projects out of the classroom, and completed a presentation in the classroom. This study demonstrated that this blended-course design creates an efficient English language learning environment for students.

Similarly, Tao et al. (2020) developed a blended English course for 843 undergraduate students at a northern Chinese university. During the 16 weeks, students first attended a weekly 2-hour face-to-face lecture. They then participated in self-regulated learning via an online learning management system (LMS) where students could access online resources including the reading materials, lecture slides, tutorial recordings, and discussion boards. Results showed that this blended teaching format could significantly enhance students’ understanding of the English language. Instructors have also integrated a blended approach into STEM subjects. For instance, Sun et al. (2017) offered a blended course in information engineering with 78 enrolled Chinese college students for one semester. Students in this course first participated in a face-to-face lecture, and then used Moodle, the online learning platform, to work on the assigned tasks in online groups. Findings indicated that students developed deeper learning through collaboration and interaction within the blended course setting.

However, for years, online teaching was only used to supplement face-to-face teaching in Chinese universities. In other words, although a blended teaching approach was approved to be an efficient strategy that enhanced students’ understanding of course material, and facilitated deep learning (Sun et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2020), face-to-face instruction was used as the predominate course delivery method. At the end of 2019, universities in China shut down campuses in response to COVID-19. All universities moved in-person courses to online courses in early February 2020, as required by the government. It was the first time that universities offered fully online courses across the nation. It may also have been the first time that many Chinese college students participated in fully online courses. Therefore, their expectations of instructors in online learning environments may have varied compared to expectations when taking courses in a face-to-face setting. As a result, this study investigated (1) Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the face-to-face course setting, (2) Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the online course setting, and (3) the differences of Chinese students’ expectations of instructors between the face-to-face and online course settings.

Literature review

Face-to-face learning

Instructors often teach face-to-face courses meeting with students synchronously in a physical classroom. Face-to-face learning occurs when the instructor teaches course contents and provides learning materials to students in person. This type of course setting has several benefits. Firstly, synchronous teaching is a primary advantage of face-to-face courses that offer real-time communication and interaction in class (Raes et al., 2020; Soffer and Nachmias, 2018). In other words, face-to-face learning allows synchronous communication with immediate and direct interaction between the instructor, students, and peers (Ebner and Gegenfurtner, 2019; Gelles et al., 2020). Meanwhile, students’ immediate feedback and reaction allow the instructor to quickly ascertain their understanding of the material and adjust the course progress accordingly (Ebner and Gegenfurtner, 2019). Another factor to consider is discussion that takes place in the physical classroom usually improves student learning. Students have fewer difficulties communicating, interacting, and collaborating with others while participating in conversation and group work in a face-to-face learning environment as opposed to an online learning environment (Bakir et al., 2020; Burns and Myhill, 2004; Chang and Kang, 2016).

Secondly, students attending courses in a face-to-face format often feel less isolated than when taking online courses (Gelles et al., 2020). By engaging in face-to-face learning, students usually have a strong connection with their instructors and peers, which would enhance their course engagement (Pontes and Pontes, 2012). Additionally, face-to-face learning provides a stable environment with lower technical requirements. For example, students do not need to worry about issues related to technology, including Wi-Fi bandwidth or phone data, to ensure the fluency of the class (Gelles et al., 2020). For laboratory courses such as chemistry, only face-to-face learning can provide a stable environment with the necessary equipment for performing experiments. Therefore, many instructors and students prefer face-to-face learning formats due to the difficulty of mastering the use of some specialized software (Maher, 2020; Shah et al., 2020).

However, challenges exist when taking face-to-face courses. For instance, it would be impossible for students who live in different time zones to attend face-to-face courses; in a physical classroom (Dung, 2020). Scholars (Ebner and Gegenfurtner, 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2008) further indicated that students may not often access as many educational resources in face-to-face courses as in online courses. They may also have less flexible learning hours and fewer opportunities for self-paced study.

Online learning

Online learning is defined as a version of distance learning that improves access to educational opportunities for students (Benson, 2002; Conrad, 2002; Moore et al., 2011). It also provides connectivity and flexibility, promoting varied interactions (Ally, 2004; Hiltz and Turoff, 2005; Morre et al., 2011; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005). Generally, when learning online, students often engaged in synchronous, asynchronous, or a blend of synchronous and asynchronous course formats (Shoepe et al., 2020).

Synchronous online learning refers to a learning activity in which students and the instructor simultaneously use audio or video conferencing (Ruiz et al., 2006). Similar to the face-to-face setting, students usually interact with their instructor in real-time in this learning environment (Lowenthal et al., 2020). Students can also develop a strong feeling of community as they experience a connection to their instructor and peers, and they are highly engaged in classroom activities (Yamagata-Lynch, 2014). In other words, the real-time discussion and immediate feedback could shorten students’ feelings of distance from others, and thus lead to a strong sense of community (Francescucci and Rohani, 2019). However, synchronous online courses may involve long lectures, which can demotivate, and lead to multitasking and distraction (Lederman, 2020). Such courses are also challenging for all students to attend at a specific time due to the often conflicting student schedules (Schulman, 2020).

On the other hand, asynchronous online learning refers to learning activities that do not happen in real time. The instructor uses emails and online discussion boards to encourage course interaction (Ruiz et al., 2006). This learning format is the most common online learning approach, and allows students to engage in learning at their own pace (Hrastinski, 2008; Kim et al., 2016; Pang and Jen, 2018). Additionally, this format provides students with the flexibility to reflect on learning content and refine their contributions, as they have more time to fully express their thoughts in an asynchronous online discussion board (Brierton et al., 2016; Hrastinski, 2008). However, the real-time interaction is limited which may result in feelings of frustration due to a lack of immediate response or timely support (Frimming and Bordelon, 2016). Therefore, students usually experience a sense of isolation and loneliness that may further increase the online course dropout rate (Ali and Smith, 2015; Bowers and Kumar, 2015).

A blend of synchronous and asynchronous online teaching is considered an efficient online learning delivery method (Gregory, 2003). This combination format brings various benefits to student learning. On the one hand, asynchronous learning allows the instructor to provide content exposure to students who need extra time without slowing down the class; while, on the other hand, synchronous learning allows the instructor to read students’ body language to determine whether or not they understand the content, and then provide corresponding assistance (Horvitz et al., 2019). Yet, challenges exist in conducting these courses, including students’ time conflicts (Clinefelter and Aslanian, 2015) and technology issues (e.g., audio and video troubleshooting) (Finol, 2020), faced by both the instructor and the students when participating in synchronous courses.

However, no matter which course format is used, the instructor plays an essential role in establishing a supportive learning environment, encouraging students’ learning and motivation, and developing efficient ways of presenting subject matter (Bullock et al., 2002; Sher, 2009).

Characteristics of a good instructor

Generally, previous studies concluded various characteristics of a good instructor, including being approachable (Ford, 2020; Johnson and LaBelle, 2017; Millares, 2019), confident (Ford, 2020; Goldman et al., 2017), authoritative (Raufelder et al., 2016), creative, and interesting (Badrolhisam et al., 2019; Heo et al., 2020; Perera et al., 2020). Additional characteristics were that the instructor encourages and cares for students (Ford, 2020; Johnson and LaBelle, 2017), is an effective communicator (Said, 2018), enthusiastic about teaching (Trammell, Aldrich, 2016), flexible and open-minded (Goldman et al., 2017; Perera et al., 2020), and is a good listener (Barretti, 2009; Perera et al., 2020). Specifically, a vital characteristic of an excellent online instructor is the ability to provide a variety of ways for students to learn (Keetch, 2014; Tonsing-Meyer, 2012). For example, online instructors should design video transcripts or related methods to enrich students’ visual learning. Secondly, they should make full use of auditory materials for students to learn at their convenience. Additionally, online instructors should look for ways to engage students whose learning style is kinesthetic in much the same fashion as would occur in a face-to-face classroom by providing learning approaches that would involve this learning style. It is crucial to design breaks into the schedule that include physical activities such as standing up and stretching during the learning process (Keetch, 2014; Tonsing-Meyer, 2012). Another core characteristic of online instructors is whether they can provide opportunities for students to engage in higher-order thinking (Kentnor, 2015). Specifically, online instructors should use strategies to promote students’ “critical, reflective, metacognitive, creative, and logical thinking” (King et al., 1998: 1). Online instructors should also provide timely feedback. Timely feedback can encourage development of a sense of online classroom community (Borel, 2013). Finally, online instructors should provide sufficient support, including technical, resource, and administrative, essential for online learning (Borel, 2013; Kentnor, 2015; Poe-Greskamp, 2010).

Students’ expectations of instructors

Students’ expectations of instructors influence their reactions and classroom communication. These expectations usually impact how they interpret the message and their subsequent behaviors (Burgoon and Hale, 1988; Frymier and Weser, 2001). For example, Gigliotti (1987) examined whether meeting student expectations of their instructor in a sociology course would affect the course and instructor evaluations. Results showed that if students’ expectations of the instructor (e.g., using examples, speaking ability, lecture organization, ability to answer questions) were met or exceeded, they were more likely to hold a higher level of satisfaction with the course, to be more willing to take additional classes with this instructor, and to continue majoring in sociology. Trammell and Aldrich, (2016) further noted that if instructors understand their students’ expectations, they can adjust their teaching flexibility based on students’ needs. Therefore, as students’ expectations of their instructor relate to their learning, it is significant for the instructor to understand and meet students’ expectations to enhance their learning.

Specifically, students usually expect their instructors to have characteristics related to both their personality and profession. For example, Heo and colleagues (2020) explored 332 students’ expectations of their instructors in a business laboratory class, and they found that students often expect instructors to be humorous, enthusiastic, and entertaining. Some students expect their instructors to prepare more class content and to interact often with them. Johnson and LaBelle (2017) investigated 297 college students’ expectations of instructor authenticity and revealed that students confirmed five sets of authentic qualities: approachable, enthusiastic, focused, capable, and knowledgeable. They further concluded that students’ perceptions of this course would be largely affected if they found that their instructor makes efforts to engage with them, care for them, and be friendly. Using the Teacher Behaviors Checklist (Buskist et al., 2002), Ford (2020) explored the excellent teaching qualities that first-year student pharmacists expect their instructors to have. Among the 204 students, the top 10 excellent teaching qualities were approachable/personable (78.9%), knowledgeable about subject matter (65.7%), effective communicator (63.7%), set realistic expectations (57.4%), respectful (54.9%), accessible (53.9%), enthusiastic about teaching/topic (49%), understanding (48%), encourages/cares for students (47.5%), confident (44.6%), and prepared (44.6%). Similarly, Perera et al. (2020) examined students’ evaluations of instructors’ effectiveness among 270 medical students by ranking the good qualities they expected for their instructors. The top 10 good qualities from the highest rank to lowest rank are: (1) knowledge towards a subject, (2) enthusiasm regarding teaching and subject, (3) exhibits good communication skills, (4) approachability, (5) good sense of humor, (6) past publication/research, (7) caring nature/empathy, (8) pleasant personality, (9) inspirational/motivational, and (10) conveys constructive criticism.

Scholars also investigated students’ expectations of instructors using qualitative studies. For instance, Said (2018) explored ten vocational students’ expectations of effective instructors’ characteristics utilizing interviews. Results showed that first-year students expected their instructors to possess qualities such as approachability and charisma. In contrast, the final-year students pay more attention to instructors’ knowledge because they prefer professional industrial experience rather than personal qualities. Millares (2019) highlighted several characteristics identified as important instructor traits noted during interviews from 17 undergraduate students. Firstly, approachability was an influential instructor characteristic which could be identified in instructors’ traits, including “connections with students,” “friendliness,” “availability outside class time,” and capacity to be humble and show a sense of humor.” To be specific, these students felt encouraged if they had connections with their instructors, primarily when they were known by name or identified by the instructor in front of the class. Although they preferred a friendly instructor, they also expected the instructor to push them to excel. Furthermore, they mentioned that office hours was an effective time in which to approach the instructor. Secondly, clear communication was reported to be significant, which includes instructors “explaining the topic,” “being easy to understand,” “setting a good pace,” and demonstrating they are “good at presenting by using interesting examples and changing tonation rather than monotone”. Additionally, “being knowledgeable” and “being an expert” were characteristics mentioned, indicating that students expected their instructors to be knowledgeable in their field and to provide essential information that supported their academic development. Millares (2019) also states that “support” was one of the greatest expectations from students, as they looked for their instructors to show care, encourage them, and understand them. Finally, students expected their instructors to be passionate about the subject and motivate them to become interested in learning.

Students’ expectations of online instructors

With an increasing online course enrollment in higher education (Allen and Seaman, 2013; Allen et al., 2016), students’ expectations of online instructors cannot be overlooked. Welch and colleagues (2015) investigated 1480 students’ expectations and teaching dispositions of online instructors, and they found that pedagogy was considered the essential characteristic. Interestingly, students ranked expertise as the lowest characteristic. Similarly, Kara and Can (2019) looked at graduate students’ expectations of excellent online instructors’ characteristics using a mixed research method. Findings showed that students expected most of their online instructors to explain concepts clearly, be available, offer support, and exhibit friendliness and knowledge. Trammell and Aldrich, (2016) investigated 132 undergraduate students’ perspectives toward their instructors in entirely online, hybrid, and face-to-face courses. Results demonstrated that these students had a high expectation of their instructors to be approachable, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and friendly. They also hope their instructors respond quickly, and master good teaching skills. Yet, their study found no significant difference in students’ expectations of their instructors between online and face-to-face courses. Overall, students hold a high expectation of their instructors’ interpersonal qualities regardless of whether the course is taught online or face-to-face. Specifically, they usually focus on an online instructor's practical course delivery skills. They also expect the instructor to be available for communication, and be supportive in an online learning environment.

Chinese classroom and Chinese instructors

Different than Western cultures, Chinese culture is generally considered a “collectivistic, large power distance, and high-context culture” (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, cited in Zhang, 2005: 110), which would lead to a stereotype of Chinese people being “silent, shy, taciturn, introverted, and subservient to authority” (Myers et al., 1998, cited in Zhang, 2005: 111). Specifically, traditional Chinese culture is dominated by collectivism, with considerable distance, while Western culture is characterized by individualism and a small power distance. Due to its unique culture, indirect communication between people is preferred to keep the harmony of a group in Chinese society, while people in Western countries usually prefer direct expression (Holmes, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 2005). These cultural traits also extend into the classroom.

Culture plays a significant role in interpreting and evaluating classroom management and communication, teaching and learning styles, and teacher-student relationships (Ho, 2001; Holmes, 2005). Influenced by Confucianism, Chinese instructors are usually perceived as the authority and transmitter of knowledge (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997). For example, Zhang (2005) describes that Chinese instructors are “expected to exert authority and enforce strictness and punishment over students” (111). That is, instructors’ authority and strictness in Chinese culture are appropriate, and this style is considered as a way of caring and nurturing their students (Biggs and Watkins, 1996). Scholars (Salili, 2001; Zhang, 2005) further noted that Chinese instructors often create a distance on purpose to make students afraid of them by keeping a straight face, avoiding small talk, and trying not to smile unnecessarily at students.

Further, Chinese instructors and students usually engage in little in-class interaction because of the unique Chinese teaching and learning style. Students’ reticence is considered an expression of showing their respect to the instructor (Ho, 2001; Holmes, 2005). Moreover, Chinese students often use attentive listening, assiduous note-taking, and mechanical memorization (Biggs and Watkins, 1996; Hu and Grove, 1999; Watkins and Biggs, 2001). Therefore, the traditional Chinese classroom is usually teacher-centered with less interaction and participation. In summary, the Chinese pedagogy prefers an authoritarian, antisocial, and dialectic approach, which is often test-oriented, information-packed, and holism-based, stressing verbatim memorization, and conformity (Ho, 2001; Holmes, 2005).

The current study

Concluded from previous studies, students, usually in Western countries, often expect several common characteristics of an instructor in either online or face-to-face courses, such as being supportive, communicating effectively, and demonstrating knowledgeability. With its unique culture in that the instructors are often the authority in a classroom in China, students may have different expectations of their instructors compared to students in Western countries. Moreover, Chinese universities had offered face-to-face courses until the outburst of COVID-19. Although some instructors implemented blended courses, face-to-face instruction was used as the predominant delivery approach. Students may hold particular expectations of their instructors’ behaviors in an online learning environment when transferring to fully online courses. However, as aforementioned, face-to-face instruction was the primary course delivery method in Chinese universities. No study was found to investigate students’ expectations of their instructors when courses are provided entirely online. This study explores Chinese college students’ expectations of instructors in face-to-face and online course settings to fill this research gap. It also compares the differences in students’ expectations of instructors between the face-to-face and online course settings. Research questions include:

1. What are Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the face-to-face course setting?

2. What are Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the online course setting?

3. What are the differences in Chinese students’ expectations of instructors between the face-to-face and online course settings?

It is expected that this study would help Chinese higher education professionals to understand college students’ expectations of instructors in both face-to-face and online course settings.

Methods

A convenience sampling procedure was used to recruit participants. Undergraduate students in one university in northeast China were invited. An invitation email with the link to the survey was sent and available for 1 week. A total number of 210 invitation emails were sent, and 180 responses were received. After using the listwise deletion methods, 158 responses were used in this study (usable rate equals 75.2%). Among the students who completed the survey, 71 (44.9%) were male, and 87 (55.1%) were female. Most of the participants were between 18 and 21 (91.2%), in their sophomore year (69.6%). Forty-five (28.5%) were freshmen, with only 3 (1.9%) juniors. Additionally, the majority of participants were enrolled as liberal arts majors (93.7%). All the participants took online courses in the synchronous, asynchronous, and blended formats during the spring academic semester of 2020. In terms of their previous online learning experiences, 81 (51.3%) indicated they had taken online courses before, while 77 (48.7%) identified themselves as first-time online learners.

Instrument

The instrument examining students’ expectations of instructors was adopted from Buskist and colleagues’ (2002) Teacher Behaviors Checklist (TBC) (see Table 1). This inventory that consists of 28 items defines personality qualities in terms of teacher’s behaviors. Buskist et al. (2002) asked participants to rate the top 10 qualities and behaviors from the 28 items. Keeley and colleagues (2006) later used TBC by adding a set of instructions and a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequent), with a midpoint of 3 (I have no opinion).

Table 1.

Variations of the teacher behaviors checklist (Buskist et al., 2002).

Item teacher qualities and corresponding behaviors
1 Accessible (posts office hours, gives out phone number and email information)
2 approachable/Personable (smiles, greets students, initiates conversations, invites questions, responds respectfully to student comments)
3 Authoritative (establishes clear course rules; maintains classroom order; speaks in a loud, strong voice)
4 confident (speaks clearly, makes eye contact, and answers questions correctly)
5 creative and interesting (experiments with teaching methods; uses technological devices to support and enhance lectures; uses interesting, relevant, and personal examples; not monotone)
6 effective communicator (speaks clearly/loudly; uses precise English; gives clear, compelling examples)
7 encourages and cares for students (provides praise for good student work, helps students who need it, offers bonus points and extra credit, and knows student names)
8 enthusiastic About teaching and About topic (smiles during class, prepares interesting class activities, uses gestures and expressions of emotion to emphasize important points, and arrives on time for class)
9 establishes daily and Academic term goals (prepares/follows the syllabus and has goals for each class)
10 Flexible/Open-Minded (changes calendar of course events when necessary, will meet outside of office hours, pays attention to students when they state their opinions, accepts criticism from others, and allows students to do make-up work when appropriate)
11 good listener (Doesn’t interrupt students while they are talking, maintains eye contact, and asks questions about points that students are making)
12 happy/Positive attitude/Humorous (tells jokes and funny stories, laughs with students)
13 humble (admits mistakes, never brags, and doesn’t take credit for others’ successes)
14 knowledgeable About subject matter (easily answers students’ questions, does not read straight from the book or notes, and uses clear and understandable examples)
15 prepared (brings necessary materials to class, is never late for class, and provides outlines of class discussion)
16 presents current information (relates topic to current, real-life situations; uses recent videos, magazines, and newspapers to demonstrate points; talks about current topics; and uses new or recent texts)
17 professional (dresses nicely [neat and clean shoes, slacks, blouses, dresses, shirts, ties] and no profanity)
18 promotes class discussion (asks controversial or challenging questions during class, gives points for class participation, and involves students in group activities during class)
19 promotes critical thinking/Intellectually stimulating (asks thoughtful questions during class, uses essay questions on tests and quizzes, assigns homework, and holds group discussions/activities)
20 provides constructive feedback (writes comments on returned work, answers students’ questions, and gives advice on test-taking)
21 punctuality/Manages class time (Arrives to class on time/early, dismisses class on time, presents relevant materials in class, leaves time for questions, keeps appointments, and returns work in a timely way)
22 rapport (makes class laugh through jokes and funny stories, initiates and maintains class discussions, knows student names, and interacts with students before and after class)
23 realistic expectations of students/Fair testing and grading (covers material to be tested during class, writes relevant test questions, does not overload students with reading, teaches at an appropriate level for the majority of students in the course, and curves grades when appropriate)
24 respectful (does not humiliate or embarrass students in class, is polite to students [says thank you and please, etc.], does not interrupt students while they are talking, and does not talk down to students)
25 sensitive and persistent (makes sure students understand material before moving to new material, holds extra study sessions, repeats information when necessary, and asks questions to check student understanding)
26 strives to Be a better teacher (requests feedback on his/her teaching ability from students, continues learning [attends workshops, etc. on teaching], and uses new teaching methods)
27 technologically competent (knows how to use a computer, knows how to use email with students, knows how to use overheads during class, and has a web page for classes)
28 understanding (Accepts legitimate excuses for missing class or coursework, is available before/after class to answer questions, doesn’t lose temper at students, and takes extra time to discuss difficult concepts)

This study aimed to investigate students’ expectations of instructors’ behaviors in two different course settings (online vs face-to-face). Therefore, participants answered the same questionnaire twice toward specific course setting conditions, and each survey with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important), with a midpoint of 3 (neutral). A higher score indicates that students consider a specific behavior more critical in a particular classroom setting. The Cronbach’s alpha for online and face-to-face course settings was 0.843 (ranges from 0.829 to 0.863) and 0.829 (ranges from 0.813 to 0.853), respectively.

Procedure

Students clicked on the survey link provided in the invitation email, read the informed consent, and decided whether they were willing to participate in the study. The survey was anonymous and took approximately 8–10 minutes to complete. Students were able to withdraw from the study anytime by closing the website. The original items were in English and needed to be translated into Chinese. We used a standard translation and back-translation procedure to guarantee the validity of the Chinese version of the measure (Hambleton and Patsula, 1998).

Data analysis

The listwise deletion method was used in this study, and data were analyzed via SPSS version 27. Descriptive statistics were used to examine students’ expectations of instructors in online and face-to-face classrooms. A paired t-test was conducted to compare students’ expectations between the online and face-to-face course settings. The alpha level was set at 0.05.

Results

Research question 1: What are Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the face-to-face course setting?

Descriptive statistics show that in the face-to-face course setting, the top 10 characteristics that students often expect from their instructors are: (1) being knowledgeable about subject matter (M = 4.27, SD = 0.76), (2) having good rapport (M = 4.27, SD = 0.85), (3) having realistic expectations of students/demonstrating fair testing and grading (M = 4.27, SD = 0.81), (4) being respectful to students (M = 4.26, SD = 0.85), (5) being understanding (M = 4.26, SD = 0.80), (6) showing happy/positive attitude/having a sense of humor (M = 4.23, SD = 86), (7) being a good listener (M = 4.18, SD = 0.83), (8) being punctual/managing class time well (M = 4.18, SD = 0.84), (9) being enthusiastic about teaching and about topic (M = 4.16, SD = 0.84), and (10) being flexible/open-minded (M = 4.13, SD = 94). In other words, students considered being knowledgeable about the subject, having good rapport, and having realistic expectations of students/practicing fair testing and grading the most important qualities and behaviors for instructors, followed by being respectful, and being understanding (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Students’ expectations of instructors in face-to-face course setting.

Item	Mean	SD
Knowledgeable about subjective matter	4.27	0.79
Rapport	4.27	0.85
Realistic expectations of students/fair testing and grading	4.27	0.81
Respectful	4.26	0.85
Understanding	4.26	0.80
Happy/positive attitude/humorous	4.23	0.86
Good listener	4.18	0.83
Punctuality/manages class time	4.18	0.84
Enthusiastic about teaching and about topic	4.16	0.84
Flexible/open-minded	4.13	0.94
Prepared	4.13	0.81
Presents current information	4.13	0.81
Provides constructive feedback	4.11	0.85
Sensitive and persistent	4.11	0.83
Strives to be a better teacher	4.09	0.85
Establishes daily and academic team goals	4.01	0.80
Technologically competent	4.01	0.88
Humble	3.98	0.92
Professional	3.98	0.89
Promotes critical thinking/intellectually simulating	3.91	0.94
Promotes class discussion	3.87	0.90
Authoritative	3.67	1.70
Accessible	3.47	1.71
Encourages and cares for students	3.23	1.40
Approachable	3.16	1.36
Effective communicator	3.11	1.41
Confident	3.01	1.34
Creative and interesting	3	1.35

Research question 2: What are Chinese students’ expectations of instructors in the online course setting?

Descriptive statistics results show that in the online course setting, students considered the top 10 characteristics of an ideal instructor to be: (1) having good rapport (M = 4.27, SD = 0.83), (2) being respectful (M = 4.27, SD = 0.86), (3) being knowledgeable about subject matter (M = 4.25, SD = 0.85), (4) understanding (M = 4.25, SD = 0.83), (5) demonstrating realistic expectations of students/fair testing and grading (M = 4.23, SD = 0.87), (6) being a good listener (M = 4.22, SD = 0.81), (7) happy/positive attitude/good sense of humor (M = 4.20, SD = 0.83), (8) being punctual/managing class time well (M = 4.20, SD = 0.83), (9) being sensitive but persistent in pushing students to achieve more (M = 4.18, SD = 0.84), and (10) striving to be a better teacher (M = 4.18, SD = 0.86). That is, students consider having good rapport and being respectful to them the most important qualities and behaviors for instructors, followed by being knowledgeable about subject matter and being understanding (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Students’ expectations of instructors in online course setting.

Item	Mean	SD
Rapport	4.27	0.83
Respectful	4.27	0.86
Knowledgeable about subjective matter	4.25	0.85
Understanding	4.25	0.83
Realistic expectations of students/fair testing and grading	4.23	0.87
Good listener	4.22	0.81
Happy/positive attitude/humorous	4.20	0.83
Punctuality/manages class time	4.20	0.84
Sensitive and persistent	4.18	0.84
Strives to be a better teacher	4.18	0.86
Flexible/open-minded	4.17	0.85
Enthusiastic about teaching and about topic	4.16	0.83
Prepared	4.15	0.83
Humble	4.10	0.87
Provides constructive feedback	4.10	0.85
Presents current information	4.08	0.89
Professional	4.07	0.92
Establishes daily and academic team goals	4.05	0.86
Promotes critical thinking/intellectually simulating	4.04	0.88
Technologically competent	4.04	0.89
Promotes class discussion	4.02	0.89
Accessible	3.57	1.66
Authoritative	3.49	1.58
Creative and interesting	3.33	1.51
Effective communicator	3.28	1.49
Encourages and cares for students	3.27	1.40
Approachable	3.25	1.47
Confident	3.23	1.49

Research question 3: What are the differences in Chinese students’ expectations of instructors between the face-to-face and online course settings?

In terms of the differences of students’ expectations of instructors in the face-to-face and online course settings, the paired t-test results demonstrate that five qualities and behaviors show a significant difference in expectations: confidence (M = −0.23, SD = 1.23, p = 0.021), being creative and interesting (M = −0.33, SD = 1.42, p = 0.004), being humble (M = −0.12, SD = 0.70, p = 0.032), promoting class discussion (M = −0.15, SD = 0.58, p = 0.001), and promoting critical thinking/being intellectually stimulating (M = −0.13, SD = 0.72, p = 0.021). Specifically, students consider these qualities and behaviors the more important characteristics that instructors should demonstrate in the online course setting compared to a face-to-face course setting (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Differences of students’ expectations to instructors of face-to-face and online courses.

Pair item	Mean	SD	t	df	p	Face to face (Mean)	Online (Mean)
Confident	−0.23	1.23	−2.33	157	0.021	3.01	3.23
Creative and interesting	−0.33	1.42	−2.91	157	0.004	3	3.33
Humble	−0.12	0.70	−2.16	157	0.032	3.98	4.10
Promotes class discussion	−0.15	0.58	−3.31	157	0.001	3.87	4.02
Promotes critical thinking/intellectually stimulating	−0.13	0.72	−2.34	157	0.021	3.91	4.04

Discussions

In the face-to-face course setting, the top 10 characteristics that Chinese college students often expect of their instructors are: being knowledgeable about subjective matter, having good rapport, having realistic expectations of students/providing fair testing and grading, being respectful of students, understanding, showing a happy/positive attitude/having a good sense of humor, being a good listener, being punctual/managing class time well, being enthusiastic about teaching and topic, and being flexible/open-minded. This echoes previous conclusions that students believe an ideal instructor should be knowledgeable, have realistic expectations, be respectful, and understanding (Ford, 2020; Johnson and LaBelle, 2017). The current study reveals that Chinese college students consider their instructor to be the expert on the subject. Also, students think having good rapport with the class is significant. They furthermore expect that the instructor should have realistic expectations of students and provide fair tests and grades. In addition to the top three characteristics, students believe that the instructor should be respectful and understanding. Moreover, the instructor should have a happy or positive attitude and be a good listener. Students also expect their instructor to be punctual and manage the class time well. Enthusiasm has been considered one crucial characteristic of a good instructor (Johnson and LaBelle, 2017). Similarly, this study indicates that instructors should be passionate about teaching and the subject, which students highly expect. Finally, an ideal instructor should also be flexible and open-minded.

On the other hand, in the online course setting, Chinese college students considered the top 10 characteristics of an ideal instructor to be: having good rapport, being respectful, being knowledgeable about subject matter, being understanding, having realistic expectations of students/providing fair testing and grading, being a good listener, showing a happy, positive attitude/having a good sense of humor, being punctual/managing class time well, being sensitive and persistent in pushing students to achieve more, and striving to be a better teacher. Like face-to-face courses, students consider having good rapport and being respectful essential characteristics that a good instructor should have. Additionally, they expect the ideal instructor to be knowledgeable about the subject, substantiating the previous conclusion that students expect the most from their online instructors in the way of knowledgeability (Kara and Can, 2019). Similar to the face-to-face course setting, students believe an excellent online instructor should be understanding, have realistic expectations of students, and provide fair tests and grades. Being a good listener and demonstrating a positive attitude are necessary, as well. Students also expect their instructors to be punctual and manage class time well, which are similar characteristics they expect of instructors in the face-to-face setting. Finally, students expect their instructors to be sensitive, persistent in pushing them to achieve more, and always striving to be better teachers.

When comparing the differences of these two course settings, however, unlike previous conclusions that students do not have different expectations of instructors in the online and face-to-face courses (Trammell and Aldrich, 2016), findings of this study reveal that students believe five characteristics to be more significant for instructors in online courses than in face-to-face classes. Specifically, students expect the instructor to be more confident, creative, and humble when offering online courses. They also consider that the online instructor should better promote class discussion and students’ critical thinking.

The findings of this study, in some ways, mirror the previous statement that Chinese instructors are perceived as transmitters of knowledge (Cortazzi and Jin, 1997). Although early studies noted that Chinese instructors usually create a distance to build their authority and strictness, interestingly, today’s Chinese college students hold different attitudes regarding the instructors’ behaviors. To be specific, instead of being afraid of the instructors and not expecting to have a good rapport with them (Ho, 2001; Holmes, 2005; Salili, 2001; Zhang, 2005), Chinese students today prefer to build a good relationship with their instructors, which facilitates good listening on both sides. They expect their instructors to be happy, flexible, open-minded, to listen to them, and demonstrate they care about them. Lastly, although previous literature stated that Chinese students usually practice skills such as attentive listening, diligent note-taking, and mechanical memorization (Biggs and Watkins, 1996; Hu and Grove, 1999; Watkins and Biggs, 2001), this study found that Chinese students today prefer to have more class discussions, especially in the online course setting. These students probably intend to interact often with their instructors and peers to reduce the sense of isolation produced by an online learning environment (Ali and Smith, 2015; Bowers and Kumar, 2015). More research is needed to explore this assumption.

Implications

This study indicates that Chinese college students expect their instructors to be experts in their subject matter in face-to-face and online courses. In other words, the instructor should be well-prepared, be knowledgeable about the subject matter related to the course topic, able to quickly answer students’ questions, not read straight from the book or notes but provide adequate discussion, and use clear and understandable examples when delivering the course content. Additionally, instead of creating a distance on purpose, the instructor should establish a good class rapport and a good relationship with students. For example, the instructor could use jokes and stories to lighten up the classroom atmosphere to initiate and maintain class discussions. The instructor should also try to remember students’ names, and call students by their names, interacting with them before and after classes. Students also expect their instructor to be respectful. Therefore, the instructor should be polite to students and not embarrass them in class by interrupting them when they are sharing their viewpoints.

Additionally, the instructor should have realistic expectations of students. The instructor should not overload students with readings and assignments, and they should cover material the student will be tested on during class, and provide relevant questions. Being an understanding instructor and a good listener is essential. In other words, the instructor should show care and understanding toward students, such as accepting legitimate excuses for missing classes or assignments. They should also allow time to answer or discuss questions with students before or after class. Further, the instructor should keep eye contact when students are talking and not interrupt them. Furthermore, the instructor should make effective use of class time by arriving on time and dismissing class on time, keeping appointments, and returning work in a timely manner. Finally, the instructor should demonstrate a happy and positive attitude.

In addition to having the above characteristics, the instructor should be enthusiastic when teaching in face-to-face courses. In other words, the instructor should prepare enjoyable class activities to engage students in discussions, and use gestures and expressions of emotion to emphasize key points. The instructor should also be flexible and open-minded. That is, the instructor should have the ability to keep a flexible calendar and change course events when necessary, provide hours to meet outside of the office hours, listen to students when they discuss their opinions, accept criticism, and allow students to do make-up work when appropriate.

On the other hand, when teaching online courses, the instructor should be sensitive and persistent. Specifically, the instructor should ensure students understand course materials before moving to new materials, repeat information when necessary, and often check students’ understanding of the learning content by asking questions. An online instructor should also strive to be a better teacher by requesting course feedback from students, and using effective and innovative teaching methods that engage students within the online format. Furthermore, in comparison of the instructor offering face-to-face courses, the online instructor should be more confident when delivering online courses. They should speak clearly when answering questions, ensuring the answers are understood. They should also utilize more creative and exciting technological devices to support and enhance online lectures. Additionally, they should use engaging and relevant examples when delivering online courses to avoid monotone reading from the textbook, or slides. Humility is another essential characteristic that an online instructor should have. Further, the instructor should focus more on promoting class discussions and students’ critical thinking when teaching courses online. In other words, the online instructor could raise challenging and thoughtful questions during the synchronous online lecture or within the asynchronous discussion board. Lastly, the instructor should try to hold group discussions and involve students in group activities to motivate class participation and idea sharing.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations exist in the study. Firstly, participants were recruited in one university with a small sample size (N = 158), which cannot represent all Chinese college students. Therefore, future studies should include recruiting more college students from different universities across the nation. Secondly, results may only present non-STEM students’ expectations of their instructors because most participants of this study were in liberal arts majors. Students who are majoring in STEM (e.g., math, physics) studies as opposed to non-STEM (e.g., English, higher education) studies may have different expectations of the ideal instructor. Consequently, future studies should be conducted to recruit more students enrolled in STEM programs to investigate and compare their expectations of instructors among the students within other majors. Since all students took online courses in synchronous, asynchronous, and blended formats, participants were required to reflect on their overall expectations of instructors in online learning environments. That is, this study investigated students’ expectations of their instructors without dividing the online course formats. Students’ expectations of instructors would be different in synchronous, asynchronous, or blended online courses. Therefore, future studies should involve looking further into the different course formats. Similarly, students’ unique personalities are another significant factor influencing their expectations of instructors (O’Mara et al., 1996), which should also be included for future research. Finally, this study recruited participants from one university located in a well-developed province. Therefore, findings may not represent the experiences of students enrolled in universities located in less developed provinces. As a result, future studies should be conducted in less developed provinces in order to include a more comprehensive study group and conclusions.

Conclusions

In summary, this study investigated Chinese college students’ expectations of instructors in face-to-face and online courses in one Chinese university. It also compared the differences in their expectations of instructors between these two settings. Findings indicated that these Chinese college students expected similar characteristics of an ideal instructor, whether in online or face-to-face courses. Specifically, instructors who teach online courses should be more confident, humble, and possess the ability to deliver compelling and interesting online content. Finally, the online instructor should often involve students in class participation through discussions to promote critical thinking. It has been noted that online learning has been growing steadily worldwide and may become mainstream by 2025 (Palvia et al., 2018). Therefore, with the rapidly increasing online course enrollment in higher education (Allen and Seaman, 2013; Allen et al., 2016), it is expected that this study would provide insights for Chinese higher education professionals toward better understanding of Chinese college students’ expectations of instructors, specifically in the online course setting. It is also expected that the findings of this study would enlighten universities toward best practices in preparing faculty members for both face-to-face and online course instruction by providing training and workshops with specific topics geared toward meeting the above-noted goals, which would further enhance Chinese college students’ learning experiences.

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.

Data availability

Data available on request from the corresponding author.

ORCID iD

Xi Lin

Author Biographies

Xi Lin is an assistant professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Professions at East Carolina University. Her research focuses on student engagement and interaction in online and distance learning and international students and faculty in the US higher education. More information about her can be found at

Mingyu Huang is an assistant professor at the School of Humanities at Beijing Dance Academy. She received her Ph.D. from the College of Education at Auburn University, US. Combining her work and study background, she is dedicated to the study of arts students, especially their learning characteristics and second language development.

Qiuhan Lin is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Linguistics and Translation at the City University of Hong Kong. Her research areas include Higher Education, Second Language Acquisition, and Discourse Analysis. She is interested in exploring students’ needs and expectations in universities, especially in the context of online classes.

References

Ali

Smith

(2015) Issues in informing science and information technology comparing social isolation effects on students’ attrition in online versus face-to-face courses in computer literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 12: 11–20. http://iisit.org/Vol12/IISITv12p011-020Ali1784.pdf

Allen

Seaman

(2013) Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Available at: https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Allen

Seaman

Poulin

, et al. (2016) Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Available at: https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Ally

(2004) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In: Anderson

(ed), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2nd ed. Athabasca University, pp. 3–31.

Badrolhisam

Rashid

Ma’amor

, et al. (2019) Students’ perception, expectation and satisfaction toward the characteristics of female lecturers in higher education. Universal Journal of Educational Research 7(10A): 1–6. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2019.071701.

Bakir

Humpherys

Dana

(2020) Students’ perceptions of challenges and solutions to face-to-face and online group work. Information Systems Education Journal 18(5): 75–88.

Barretti

(2009) Ranking desirable field instructor characteristics: viewing student preferences in context with field and class experience. The Clinical Supervisor 28(1): 47–71. DOI: 10.1080/07325220902855128.

Benson

(2002) Using online learning to meet workforce demand: a case study of stakeholder influence. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3(4): 443–452.

Biggs

Watkins

(1996) The Chinese learner in retrospect. In: Watkins

Biggs

(eds), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences. Comparative Education Research Center, pp. 269–286.

10.

Borel

(2013) The influence of web conferencing on graduate students’ sense of community in an online classroom. PhD Thesis. US: Lamar University—Beaumont.

11.

Bowers

Kumar

(2015) Students’ perceptions of teaching and social presence: a comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT) 10(1): 27–44.

12.

Brierton

Wilson

Kistler

, et al. (2016) A comparison of higher order thinking skills demonstrated in synchronous and asynchronous online college discussion posts. NACTA Journal 60(1): 14–21.

13.

Bullock

LaBella

Clingan

, et al. (2002) Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher 40(9): 535–541. DOI: 10.1119/1.1534821.

14.

Burgoon

Hale

(1988) Nonverbal expectancy violations: model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs 55(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1080/03637758809376158.

15.

Burns

Myhill

(2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole-class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education 34(1): 35–49. DOI: 10.1080/0305764042000183115.

16.

Buskist

Sikorski

Buckley

, et al. (2002) Elements of master teaching. In: Davis

Buskest

(eds), The Teaching of Psychology: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer. Psychology Press, pp. 27–39.

17.

Chang

Kang

(2016) Challenges facing group work online. Distance Education 37(1): 73–88. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2016.1154781.

18.

Clinefelter

Aslanian

(2015) Online College Students 2015: Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences. The Learning House.

19.

Conrad

(2002) Deep in the hearts of learners: insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education 17(1): 1–19.

20.

Cortazzi

Jin

(1997) Communication for learning across cultures. In: McNamara

Harris

(eds), Overseas students in higher education. Routledge, pp. 76–90.

21.

Dung

DTH

(2020) The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education 10(3): 45–48. DOI: 10.9790/7388-1003054548.

22.

Ebner

Gegenfurtner

(2019) Learning and satisfaction in webinar, online, and face-to-face instruction: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education 4(92): 1–14. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00092.

23.

Finol

(2020) Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Learning: A Quick Overview. Available at: https://www.brynmawr.edu/blendedlearning/asynchronous-vs-synchronous-learning-quick-overview

24.

Ford

(2020) Exploring first-year student pharmacists’ expectations in the classroom. Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 12(6): 694–700. DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2020.01.033.

25.

Francescucci

Rohani

(2019) Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education 41(1): 60–69. DOI: 10.1177/0273475318818864.

26.

Frimming

Bordelon

(2016) Physical education students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their distance education courses. Physical Educator 73(2): 340–351.

27.

Frymier

Weser

(2001) The role of student predispositions on student expectations for instructor communication behavior. Communication Education 50(4): 314–326. DOI: 10.1080/03634520109379258.

28.

Gelles

Lord

Hoople

, et al. (2020) Compassionate flexibility and self-discipline: Student adaptation to emergency remote teaching in an integrated engineering energy course during COVID-19. Education Sciences 10(11): 304–327. DOI: 10.3390/educsci10110304.

29.

Gigliotti

(1987) Are they getting what they expect? Teaching, Sociology 15(4): 365–375. DOI: 10.2307/1317992.

30.

Goldman

Cranmer

Sollitto

, et al. (2017) What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics. Communication Education 66(3): 280–298. DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135.

31.

Gregory

(2003) Student perceptions of the effectiveness of web-based distance education. New Library World 104(10): 426–431. DOI: 10.1108/03074800310504366.

32.

Hambleton

Patsula

(1998) Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research 45(1–3): 153–171. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006941729637.

33.

Heo

Park

(2020) Classifying students using an expectation-perception survey about a hospitality laboratory class: empirical research with the finite mixture model. Anatolia 31(1): 50–61. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2019.1697890.

34.

Hiltz

Turoff

(2005) Education goes digital: the evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM 48(10): 59–64. DOI: 10.1145/1089107.1089139.

35.

(2001) Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In: Watkins

Biggs

(eds), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. Comparative Education Research Center, pp. 99–114.

36.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture and organizations. International studies of management & organization 10(4): 15–41.

37.

Hofstede

(1991) Empirical models of cultural differences. In: Bleichrodt

Drenth

PJD

(Eds), Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psychology. (pp. 4–20). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

38.

Holmes

(2005) Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand university. Communication education 54(4): 289–311.

39.

Horvitz

Garcia

Mitchell

, et al. (2019) An examination of instructional approaches in online technical education in community colleges. Online Learning 23(4): 237–252.

40.

Hrastinski

(2008) Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning: a study of asynchronous and synchronous e-learning methods discovered that each supports different purposes. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 31(4): 51–55.

41.

Grove

(1999) Encountering the Chinese: A Guide for Americans. Intercultural Press.

42.

Johnson

LaBelle

(2017) An examination of teacher authenticity in the college classroom. Communication Education 66(4): 423–439. DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2017.1324167.

43.

Kara

Can

(2019) Master’s students’ perceptions and expectations of good tutors and advisors in distance education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 20(2).

44.

Keetch

(2014) An analysis of progressive elements in top-tiered online graduate programs of higher education. PhD Thesis. US: Saint Louis University.

45.

Kentnor

(2015) Investigating and Understanding Student Learning Outcomes in an Online and Face-To-Face Graduate Level Legal Administration Course: An Embedded Mixed Methods Design. PhD Thesis. US: University of Denver.

46.

Kim

Park

Yoon

, et al. (2016) Toward evidence-based learning analytics: using proxy variables to improve asynchronous online discussion environments. The Internet and Higher Education 30: 30–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.002.

47.

King

Goodson

Rohani

(1998) Higher Order Thinking Skills: Definition, Teaching Strategies, Assessment. Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment.

48.

Lederman

(2020) Will Shift to Remote Teaching be Boon or Bane for Online Learning? Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning

49.

Lowenthal

Borup

West

, et al. (2020) Thinking beyond zoom: Using asynchronous video to maintain connection and engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 28(2): 383–391.

50.

Maher

(2020) Video conferencing to support online teaching and learning. In: Ferdig

Baumgartner

Hartshorne

, et al. (eds), Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the Field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, pp. 91–96.

51.

Millares

CAA

(2019) The effects of instructor characteristics and student gender on student expectations of instructor effectiveness. PhD Thesis: A Mixed Methods Study. US: Texas Tech University.

52.

Moore

Dickson-Deane

Galyen

(2011) e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education 14(2): 129–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001.

53.

Myers

Zhong

Guan

(1998) Instructor immediacy in the Chinese college classroom. Communication Studies 49(3): 240–254.

54.

O’Mara

Allen

Long

, et al. (1996) Communication apprehension, nonverbal immediacy, and negative expectations for learning. Communication Research Reports 13(1): 109–128. DOI: 10.1080/08824099609362077.

55.

Oblinger

(2005) Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE.

56.

Palvia

Aeron

Gupta

, et al. (2018) Online education: worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 21(4): 233–241. DOI: 10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262.

57.

Pang

Jen

(2018) Inclusive dyslexia-friendly collaborative online learning environment: Malaysia case study. Education and Information Technologies 23(3): 1023–1042. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-017-9652-8.

58.

Perera

Fong

Balasubramaniam

, et al. (2020) What qualities do medical students expect in an effective teacher: a cross sectional study. Medicine Journal 7(1): 1–11.

59.

Poe-Greskamp

(2010) Pedagogical issues in online nursing graduate courses. PhD Thesis. US: Ball State University.

60.

Pontes

(2012) Enrollment in distance education classes is associated with fewer enrollment gaps among nontraditional undergraduate students in the US. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 16(1): 79–89.

61.

Raes

Detienne

Windey

, et al. (2020) A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research 23(3): 269–290. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z.

62.

Raufelder

Nitsche

Breitmeyer

, et al. (2016) Students’ perception of “good” and “bad” teachers—results of a qualitative thematic analysis with German adolescents. International Journal of Educational Research 75: 31–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.11.004.

63.

Rodriguez

Ooms

Montañez

(2008) Students’ perceptions of online-learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 7(2): 105–125.

64.

Ruiz

Mintzer

Leipzig

(2006) The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine 81(3): 207–212. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002.

65.

Said

(2018) Vocational teaching-learning through the eyes of undergraduate vocational students in Malta: a qualitative exploratory study. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training 5(1): 42–63. DOI: 10.13152/IJRVET.5.1.3.

66.

Salili

(2001) Teacher-student interaction: attributional implications and effectiveness of teachers’ evaluative feedback. In: Watkins

Biggs

(eds), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. Hong Kong University Press, pp. 77–98.

67.

Schulman

(2020) I Used to Shut my Windows to New York’s Noise. Now I Long for A Honking Horn. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/09/new-york-silent-coronavirus/

68.

Shah

Diwan

Kohan

, et al. (2020) The technological impact of COVID-19 on the future of education and health care delivery. Pain Physician 23(4S): S367–S380.

69.

Sher

(2009) Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 8(2): 102–120.

70.

Shoepe

McManus

August

, et al. (2020) Instructor prompts and student engagement in synchronous online nutrition classes. American Journal of Distance Education 34(3): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2020.1726166.

71.

Soffer

Nachmias

(2018) Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face-to-face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 34(5): 534–543. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12258.

72.

Sun

Liu

Luo

, et al. (2017) Exploring collaborative learning effect in blended learning environments. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 33(6): 575–587. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12201.

73.

Tao

Zheng

, et al. (2020) Cluster analysis on Chinese university students’ conceptions of English language learning and their online self-regulation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 36(2): 105–119. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.4844.

74.

Ting-Toomey

(2005) The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In: Gudykunst

(ed), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication. Sage, pp. 71–92.

75.

Tonsing-Meyer

(2012) An examination of online instructional practices based on the learning styles of graduate education students. PhD Thesis. US: Northcentral University.

76.

Trammell

Aldrich

(2016) Undergraduate students’ perspectives of essential instructor qualities. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16(1): 15–30. DOI: 10.14434/josotl.v16i1.19178.

77.

Wang

Chen

Tai

, et al. (2019) Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: Learning environment and learner perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(3): 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1607881.

78.

Watkins

Biggs

(2001) Insights into teaching the Chinese learner. In: Watkins

Biggs

(eds), Teaching the Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives. Hong Kong University Press, pp. 277–298.

79.

Welch

Orso

Doolittle

, et al. (2015) Matching student expectations with instructors’ dispositions: Insight into quality of online teaching. Journal of Effective Teaching 15(2): 5–19.

80.

Yamagata-Lynch

(2014) Blending online asynchronous and synchronous learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15(2): 189–212. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1778.

81.

Zhang

(2005) Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly 53: 109–124. DOI: 10.1080/01463370500056150.