Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 42

Internet Learning Journal – Volume 4, Issue 1 – Spring 2015
There are many researchers who have explored students’ perceptions of quality in
online courses (e.g., Chitkushev, Vodenska, & Zlateva, 2014; Paechter & Maier, 2010;
Robins, Simunich, & Kelly, 2013; Young & Norgard, 2006). The perception of students is
important to consider since student satisfaction is widely linked with various education
outcomes. As reviewed by and cited in Ralston-Berg and Nath’s (2008) research, student
satisfaction has been shown to impact college performance (Bean & Bradley, 1986; Organ,
1977; Schwab & Cummings, 1970), achievement motivation (Donohue & Wong, 1997),
college student achievement (Centra & Rock, 1971; Lavin, 1985), student retention (Tinto,
1993; Astin, 1993), and student attrition (Bean, 1983; Tinto, 1993). Other research projects
examining students’ perceptions of the QM criteria specifically have been sponsored by
Quality Matters (Iyengar, 2006; Mott, 2006; Bowen & Bartoletti, 2009, all as cited in
Shattuck’s (2012) study.
Overall, researchers investigating students’ perceptions of the QM criteria report that
students perceived the elements incorporated in the QM rubric to be important. For example,
You, Hochberg, Ballard, Xiao & Walters (2014). investigated the differences between
students’ and QM peer reviewers’ perceptions of essential (ranked as a 3) QM standards in
online courses, whereby students either did not see or did not value the standard related to
clearly stated learning objectives within the course. While their findings asserted general
similarity between students’ and QM reviewers’ ratings, it was suggested that student
satisfaction with the instructor or with the online course might have affected their
evaluations.
In an earlier study, Ralston-Berg and Nath (2008) found that students valued QM
standards rated as essential (3) and very important (2), but they were not as likely to value
less those standards marked as important (1). They also found that the more students were
satisfied with their online courses, the more likely they were to value all QM standards. A
similar result was confirmed in Ralston-Berg’s (2011) study.
Hixon, Buckenmeyer and Barzcyk’s (2015) study extended the work of Ralston-Berg
(2014) whereby they determined that quality as defined by QM, applies to traditional and
blended courses as well as to online courses. Students generally valued those items ranked
as essential and important by QM. Surprisingly, interaction and collaboration in courses
were not highly valued by students in courses, although QM rates these as essential. While
research confirms the value of these elements in courses, students do not appreciate their
value for learning.
The authors of the current study build on previous research by Ralston-Berg (2014)
and Hixon, Buckenmeyer, and Barczyk (2015) and aim to determine whether the differences
between students’ perceptions of what is valued in a course and QM’s ratings for what is
40!