Achieving quality enhancement program (QEP) objectives: impact of on-line and on-ground course characteristics by undergraduate student personality traits.
Anitsal, M. Meral ; Anitsal, Ismet ; Barger, Bonita 等
INTRODUCTION
With technology progressing at a rapid rate, and the advent of more
and more sophisticated interactivity programs, the field of on-line
education has experienced enormous growth in recent years. The
literature dealing with on-line education is extensive and varied. The
focus of this discussion is the personal characteristics of on-line
students; the types of students that are more successful in on-line
education; and the differences between on-line students and traditional
students.
On-line students demonstrate a greater level of comfort with, and
use of, computers (Maki and Maki 2000). The notion of successful on-line
students being adept at using computers is intuitive (Maki and Maki
2000; Maki and Maki 2002; Shany and Nachmias 2002). Successful online
students are technologically capable, but this conclusion is less than
revelatory. What other characteristics do successful on-line students
possess? Some research has shown that introverted students are more
successful in on-line courses, as are students high in intellect and
imagination (Maki and Maki 2003). The research was unclear, however, if
these traits were predictive of success for on-line students especially
or for all students. Shany and Nachmias (2002) identified students with
a "liberal" thinking style (i.e. student goes beyond existing
rules and procedures, to maximize change, and to seek out situations
that are somewhat ambiguous) as the most successful on-line students.
But within that study, the most significant predictor was not a
personality characteristic/trait at all, but prior experience with
information and communication technology, which was consistent with
prior research (Maki and Maki 2000; Maki and Maki 2002). Other research
has shown that, for the most part, the only significant personal
differences in on-line students are demographic in nature (e.g., age and
marital status), except for the counterintuitive finding of higher
levels of motivation for on-campus students (Qureshi and Antosz 2002).
In 2008, Bayram, Deniz, and Erdogan found that the personality traits of
achievement, counseling readiness, and ideal self were significant
predictors of academic success for e-MBA students in Turkey. The
researchers also positively correlated two of those personality traits
(achievement and ideal self) with a positive attitude toward web-based
education, which itself was the most positive predictor of success in
the courses.
Kim and Schniederjans (2004) offer the most compelling evidence for
a definitive personality aspect of on-line education. The researchers
administered the Personality Characteristics Inventory (PCI) to 140
undergraduate students in "totally web-based education"
courses. They ultimately identified the "ideal totally web-based
education student" as someone who is compliantly cooperative,
considerate, even-tempered, self-confident, a creative thinker, and
committed to work. This student also showed leadership, needed to
achieve, and had a positive learning orientation. Conversely, research
indicates that students who procrastinate may be very ill equipped for
success in on-line education. Elvers, Polzella, and Graetz (2003) found
that while there was no difference in procrastination tendencies between
on-line and lecture students, the on-line students who did procrastinate
were likely to perform more poorly than the lecture student
procrastinators.
As the aforementioned studies show, there is little consistency in
previous findings. Little replication can be found in this particular
field. Despite numerous efforts to identify the traits necessary for
success in on-line education, the research to this point is
inconclusive. Nearly all of the previous studies used at least slightly
different methodology and/or variables, making it nearly impossible to
compare their findings. Future emphasis in the field should be placed on
replicating the findings of previous researchers, to obtain consistent
results.
PERSONALITY
Academic success predictors usually consist of cognitive measures,
pertaining to mental ability or intelligence, and non-cognitive
measures, especially personality traits (Lounsbury and Ridgell 2004). In
the late 1980's personality psychologists came to a general
consensus that five distinct factors of the Five Factor Model (FFM)
could serve as a tool for organizing personality traits (Parkinson and
Taggar 2006). A personality trait is defined as a distinguishing,
relatively enduring way in which one individual differs from another.
Personality trait theory stresses the notion that consistent personality
traits underlie habitual behaviors (Levas, Noel, and Michaels 2003). The
five tenets of FFM represent basic tendencies, characteristic
adaptations, self-concept, objective biography, and external influences.
The belief is that they develop during childhood, remain stable through
adulthood, and influence patterns of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors
(Farley and Sumerson 2007). The elements of the FFM are as follows:
Extroverts are assertive, active, sociable, and talkative. Introverts,
on the other hand, tend to be reserved, even paced, and independent.
Individuals who score high on emotional stability (sometimes called
neuroticism) tend to experience effects such as fear, sadness,
embossment, disgust, anger, and guilt. Those who score low in this
dimension are usually calm, relaxed, and even tempered. Agreeable
individuals are sympathetic to others, cooperative, and expect others to
be accommodating in return. Disagreeable individuals are egocentric,
competitive, and skeptical of other's intentions. Conscientious
people are determined, strong-willed, reliable, punctual, and good at
consolidation. A low score on this dimension suggests that the
individual is spontaneous, less precise in applying moral principles and
less directed when working toward goals. High scores on openness to
experience mean that the individual is original, has an active
imagination, enjoys variety, is attentive to inner feelings, and
demonstrates intellectual curiosity. Those who score low on openness to
experience tend to act more conventionally and have a more conservative
outlook. These factors are often studied in relation to various
outcomes, and research has found several Big Five predictors of academic
success: agreeableness and conscientiousness (Fritzche, McIntrie and
Yost 2002); conscientiousness (Busato, Prins, Elshout and Hamaker 2000;
Musgrave-Marquart, Bomley and Dalley 1997; Paunonen and Aston 2001); and
openness (Paunonen and Aston 2001). The main purpose of this research
was to find, if possible, if there is a concrete difference in the
personality frameworks of those who choose to take on-line courses
versus traditional courses.
The body of work addressing the role of personality in on-line
education is currently very small, and, when considered in combination
with other studies of the relationships between personality, computer
use, and computer literacy, it is difficult at this point to generate
clear predictions about what the influences of personality traits on
choice of on-line education might be (Mattes, Nanney and Coussons-Read
2003). Several of the research papers consulted to complete this review
of the literature had very different results. In most cases the research
from one paper to another seemed quite contradictory. One study found
that introverts in particular found the asynchronous
"anonymous" environment a comfortable space in which to
express their personal opinions. The asynchronous on-line space was more
conducive to presenting their voice, which often goes unheard in a
face-to-face environment. However, introverts can be overwhelmed when
there are too many participants in one group. The same study found that
extroverts tend to prefer a face-to-face environment (Russell 2002).
Another study of 146 students taking on-line and in-class introductory
courses indicated that extroverts, rather than introverts, showed a
stronger preference for the ways in which information is presented in
on-line courses. The extroverts liked the involvement of the chat rooms,
threaded discussion, and e-mail correspondences of the on-line courses.
The introverts, by contrast, had little participation in chatting or
threaded discussions, though they did participate in e-mail more than
any of the other participatory activities (Daughenbaugh, Daughenbaugh,
Surry and Islam 2002). A separate study, however, found that academic
extroverts think most effectively when interacting with others because
they become aware of what they are thinking when they are verbalizing,
suggesting that extroverts are better suited to traditional classes.
This study also suggested that academic introverts focus their energy on
reflection of ideas without the need for interaction with others,
alluding to the idea that introverts would be better suited for on-line
classes (Lin and Overbaugh 2007). A separate study suggests that more
conscientious students may be drawn to on-line classes because of their
structure and the way they allow the students to express themselves. The
study stated that on-line discussions provide students with the
opportunity to analyze a conversation before they post a comment for
others to read, thus resulting in a reduced level of anxiety (Mattes,
Nanney, and Coussons-Read 2003). Another study supports the premise that
more conscientious students might prefer on-line courses because, in the
distance-learning environment, learners must be motivated to direct
their own learning process, since the teachers and students are
physically separated. A high degree of self-discipline,
self-organization, and self-planning are essential elements for distance
learners (Hsu and Shiue, 2005). An additional study supports the idea
that conscientious students might perform better in on-line classes due
to the time constraints and need for self-efficacy created by this
unique learning environment. In this study Kelly (2003) developed the
Time Use Efficiency Scale (TUES) to better study time use efficiency.
Kelly reported that higher scores on the scale correlated with less
procrastination, a greater sense of purpose in time use, more use of
routines and time structure, use of time management behaviors, setting
goals and priorities, self-efficacy, less stress, and an internal locus
of control. TUES scores strongly, positively correlated with
conscientiousness scores (Johnson and Kelly, 2005).
With all of these conflicting results, it makes sense to assume
that there might be another cause for why some students opt to take
on-line classes rather than traditional classes. The explosion of
technology-based education provides a unique opportunity to address the
role of personality in adapting to new learning situations. A group of
researchers at the University of Colorado wanted to look further into
what little research there is about personality and its links to on-line
versus on-ground choice of classes. They found that it might not be the
link between personality and the method of delivery (on-line versus
on-ground classes), but rather a link between personality and the medium
in which it is delivered. Their research found that high scores on the
personality dimension of introversion are associated with the choice of
a computer-programming career, but not with performance (Pocius 1991).
Pocius (1991) concluded, "Personality facets not only affect human
computer interaction at the task level, but may determine whether
individuals will choose to use the computer to accomplish a task."
In addition, the introverted personality style correlates positively
with computer aptitude and achievement (Pocius 1991). These, and other,
study results support the rationale that different types of people are
drawn to a computer based environment (MacGregor 2002). Interestingly,
studies on the impact of introversion and extroversion in on-line
courses have not shown a difference in levels of participation in
on-line class discussion between individuals with either personality
type (Dewar and Whittington 2000). Literature on the psychological
correlates of successful computer assisted instruction (CAI) show that
student characteristics such as high overall academic performance and
cognitive style are related to high success with CAI (Mattes, Nanney and
Coussons-Read 2003).
Several other studies suggest that the link between personality and
academic success in online courses or traditional courses may not be as
relevant as other factors, such as general intelligence and work drive.
A study of 186 subjects showed that the correlations between openness to
experience and academic success and conscientiousness and academic
success were high, but not as high as the correlation of a high SAT
score and academic success (Farley and Sumerson 2007). In a study
analyzing the influences of work drive, general intelligence, and the
Big Five traits on GPA and course success, researchers found that work
drive and general intelligence have much stronger correlations with
course success than any of the Big Five personality traits (Lounsbury
and Ridgell 2004). In a study consisting of 305 undergraduate business
students that examined the relationship between GPA and success and the
traits of the FFM and success, researchers found that GPA was a better
indicator of a student's potential success. The study focused on
conscientiousness (but also examined the other factors) and found that,
contrary to the researchers' hypothesis, conscientiousness was
negatively correlated with the students who scored on problem
identification. Although there were no other expectations for the other
traits, some significant relationships were found. Openness to
experience was positively correlated with problem identification
(Parkinson and Taggar 2006). Because of the contradictory nature of
these studies, and the research now available, there is no evidence of a
tangible link between personality and preference for, or success in,
on-line versus traditional classes.
Studies of learning outcomes for both face-to-face and distance
education classes have repeatedly shown that distance education students
are not at a disadvantage when it comes to learning (MacGregor 2002).
Information about student's personality is important, however, to
both the instructor and the student for several reasons. First,
completing a task that does not fit the nature of an individual can be
stressful. Information about personality can help instructors become
more sensitive to the differences that students bring to the classroom,
and can assist instructors in working with poorly prepared or new
students, since the highest drop-out rates occur with these groups.
Second, instructors with an understanding of their students'
personalities are better able to adapt their teaching methods
appropriately. Third, students who learn about their own personalities
become better learners; they achieve higher grades and have more
positive attitudes about their studies, display greater self-confidence,
and possess more skill in applying their knowledge in courses (Parkinson
and Taggar 2006).
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (QEP) OBJECTIVES
"The Quality Enhancement Plan is a five-year university
initiative to improve the quality of student learning. The plan is
designed to improve students' critical thinking/real-world problem
solving using active learning strategies. The QEP is part of the
University's Strategic Plan and a component of the Accreditation
Process (Adapted from the University Website). The implementation of QEP
emphasizes improvements on creativity, teamwork, critical thinking, and
real life problem solving abilities of students at the end of a course.
Towards this end, faculty (researchers) from STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Math), management and marketing disciplines
meet together to collaborate. They exchange information on course design
and delivery approaches in on-line and on-ground environments, as well
as evaluating course achievement of QEP objectives. Even though these
disciplines can be viewed as drastically different from course
requirements to curriculum, each objective of QEP--namely creativity,
teamwork, critical thinking, and real life problem solving--have been
incorporated carefully into both on-line and on-ground course designs.
As a result, this collaborative work enables the faculty (researchers)
to investigate how personality traits of students influence the
successful achievement of QEP objectives in both on-line and on-ground
delivery environments.
Creativity
In the management courses, creativity is encouraged throughout the
semester. Class norms make explicit that "creativity is
expected," and the 360-degree survey asks students to assess the
"creativity of the products." In the marketing courses,
creativity is encouraged on multiple fronts, from discussions and
teamwork to presentations. Rather than concentrating on only
"previously known solutions" in discussing real life marketing
problems, students are encouraged to understand multiple viewpoints not
only for critical thinking but also for "creative thinking"
(Stein 2006).
In the management courses, creativity is encouraged throughout the
semester. Class norms make explicit that "creativity is
expected," and the 360-degree survey asks students to assess the
"creativity of the products." In the on-ground courses,
students present their research through role-playing and enacting
cultural rituals associated with business transactions and management
practices. This "hot" communication, accompanied by artifacts,
food, and traditions from the culture, enhances the perception of
creativity and student engagement. While the asynchronous on-line
classes are devoid of "hot" communication, students are
challenged to present their research using methods beyond the
conventional tools offered by Desire to Learn (chat, e-mail, and
discussion threads). For example, teams create game show formats and
award prizes to winning members.
In the marketing courses, creativity is encouraged on multiple
fronts, from discussions and teamwork to presentations. Rather than
concentrating on only "previously known solutions" in
discussing real life marketing problems, students are encouraged to
understand multiple viewpoints not only for critical thinking but also
for "creative thinking" (Stein 2006).
In the STEM courses creativity is encouraged through hands-on term
projects. Student groups are formed in the middle of the semester; their
task is to work on a solution to an industrial problem. The solutions
are simulated and prototyped. In an on-ground course the final product
is demonstrated to the entire class through oral presentations.
On-ground students use almost all available labs, from the welding lab
to the foundry. In an on-line course, the solution is presented via a
PowerPoint presentation in Desire to Learn. On-line student teams
extensively use the remote rapid prototyping laboratory for their part
production in on-line CAD for Technology and Rapid Prototyping courses.
Teamwork
In the management courses, teamwork is essential. Thirty-five to
forty-five percent of each student's final grade is based on a
3600-degree assessment of a team product. Each team presents its work
during one week in which it "takes over and teaches" the
course. These "weeks of team management" become competitive,
with teams attempting to surpass prior team presentations.
In the marketing courses, teamwork provides many opportunities to
students to engage in active learning efforts that make up 35 to 50
percent of their final grade. Students in marketing classes participate
in two to three teamwork activities a week; these include in-class
applications, team presentations, and team projects. Every student has
an opportunity to evaluate and rate their teammates' overall
performance during the semester, as well as students on competing teams
that presented projects.
In both on-ground and on-line STEM courses, teamwork is an
essential component. A comprehensive term project is required for both
on-line and on-ground STEM courses. Teams are formed in the middle of
the semester, and project topics are identified; team sessions are
scheduled in every class. Teams report their findings and
accomplishments every two weeks. Team members report their timelines,
task to-do lists, document the mechanisms they use for communication,
the amount of time they spend in each meeting, and their
findings/accomplishments. In an on-ground course, the project time and
documented work are presented during the last class of the semester. In
an on-line course student teams present their work in a PowerPoint file.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking in management courses challenges the teams to
solve business related problems in real time, current situations. The
on-line delivery of cases enhances this QEP objective; introverted
students have more time to think, process the information, and respond
via discussion threads. Often in on-ground courses, extroverted students
dominate the conversation and solutions. In marketing courses, team
members in class applications and individuals in interactive class
discussions approach unique cases from the marketing world from
different viewpoints that represent multiple stakeholders in the same
context. Sometimes team members act as managers of a local company;
other times they act as consumers or consumer advocates. To enhance
critical thinking, students are encouraged to use different players in
the marketing network such as suppliers, distributors, and competitors.
In STEM courses, students participate in and converse about
frequent discussion board postings/topics related to course learning
objectives. Students also complete various homework assignments related
to material and process selection, design changes, and cost estimations.
"What-if" scenarios help students grasp the challenges in the
variations of design, process, and final product. In final semester
projects, student teams report their practices, approaches, and
solutions.
Real Life Problem Solving
Management assignments focus on assessment of "real life
business problems" through the use of assessing a company, culture,
case, and country. Focus is on application and knowledge of managing
global business practices and the environment, knowledge of the
influences of national culture on the internal arrangements of a
company, and the influence of internal arrangements on the strategy of a
company. In addition, emphasis is placed on applying International Human
Resource Management issues in making the company strategy work under
cross-cultural negotiations and communication. Students receive
experience in interviewing and interacting with people from other
countries and cultures. After secondary and primary research, teams
present their work in an on-line or on-ground week of management or
one-hour presentation; their directive is to "bring to life"
their findings in an interactive, engaging manner.
In marketing classes (such as marketing research), students act as
market researchers and investigate a real-life marketing problem
provided by a local company. The students then design research to solve
the managerial problem, collect both qualitative and quantitative data,
and recommend a course of action for the company. In junior level
marketing courses, students actively learn, interpret, and discuss the
many facets of current marketing issues.
In the STEM courses, problems faced in the manufacturing,
automation and design industries were the core subject student teams.
After consulting with the course instructor, the teams select one final
problem as the topic for the final course project. Based on the cost,
size, quality, and resource constraints, a final product is developed as
a prototype or real piece. Product implementation is presented as either
simulation or real/mock-up product. If there is no cost constraint,
students usually come up with an actual final product. This same
procedure is followed in both on-line and on-ground CAD for Technology
and Rapid Prototyping courses.
The information exchange among researchers indicated that they used
extensively the tools offered by the Desire to Learn (D2L) program to
implement QEP objectives. An investigation of all offered courses by
researchers revealed that courses could be classified as fully on-line
if there was no opportunity for face-to-face interaction among students
and faculty. If students and faculty did communicate face-to-face, but
they used D2L for further virtual interaction, the course could be
classified as on-ground with on-line elements. If the course was taught
without using D2L for any interaction or objective, it was classified as
fully on-ground. However, whether and how QEP objectives were implanted
in any course, as designed by the faculty, was independent of the
delivery system.
METHODOLOGY
Data for this research was collected in undergraduate management,
marketing, and STEM courses offered by a southern university during
Summer-2007 to Fall-2008 semesters. This research is an outcome of a
multidisciplinary, collaborative effort of instructors teaching on-line,
on-ground courses and using the Desire-to-Learn (D2L) program to
facilitate teaching efforts. At the end of each semester, instructors
invited students to take an anonymous survey about the course for extra
credit. Students from 21 courses were approached for this purpose. The
survey was completed by 355 undergraduate students. The data can be
divided by students of completely on-line courses (n= 65), students of
completely on-ground courses (n=37), and students of on-ground courses
with online elements (extensive use of D2L software including on-line
exams, team and class discussion boards, on-line access to course slides
and grades, etc. n=254).
Measurement items have acceptable scale validity and reliabilities.
Principle Component Analysis and Quartimax rotation were used to
investigate convergent and divergent validities of the personality
scales. Factor loadings for need for cognition, self-sufficiency, and
the five factor model of personality (extraversion, neuroticism, open to
experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness) indicate that
measurement items load into proposed measures and therefore provide
evidence about the existence of validity. Cronbach's alpha values
for each measure ranged between 0.531 and 0.790, indicating sufficient
reliability.
FINDINGS
The first step in the analysis of results was to evaluate the
degree of achievement towards QEP objectives. Students from 21 courses
were asked their perceived development of real life problem solving,
teamwork, creativity, and critical thinking skills at the end of each
course and using a 5-point Likert scale. The means values for each
objective for the total sample were considerably high, (real life
problem solving = 4.12, team work = 4.15, creativity = 3.85, and
critical thinking= 3.96) indicating successful QEP implementation.
However, comparison of means of the four QEP objectives on three
delivery methods revealed some significant differences (Table 1-A, B,
C). Teamwork is an important differentiating factor that is
statistically significant at 0.05 level not only for comparing fully
on-line courses with fully on-ground courses, but also for comparing
fully on-ground courses with on-ground courses with on-line elements.
Specifically, fully on-line courses have a higher means on teamwork
component than fully on-ground courses; likewise do on-ground courses
with on-line elements than fully on-ground courses. Another QEP
objective, creativity, is also statistically significant at 0.10 level,
where fully on-line courses have slightly higher mean value than
on-ground courses with online elements.
The second step of analysis was the comparison of personality trait
difference among the students. For this purpose, personality
characteristics of students of fully on-line courses, students of fully
on-ground courses, and students of on-ground courses with on-line
elements were compared and contrasted.
In terms of need for cognition, students in fully on-ground courses
prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones. They also
prefer to do something that requires little thought than something that
is sure to challenge their thinking abilities. Students in both fully
on-line courses and students in on-ground courses with on-line elements
seem to enjoy challenges to their thinking. Moreover, it seems that
students in fully on-ground courses feel relief rather than satisfaction
after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort. On the
contrary, students in fully on-line courses seem to find that learning
new ways to think is more exciting than students in fully on-ground
courses. Students in both fully on-line courses and students in
on-ground courses with online elements share a similar level of
excitement about thinking (Table 2).
The self-sufficiency concept reveals interesting findings. Students
in on-ground courses with on-line elements say more often that they like
to take responsibility for making decisions, and are more capable than
other people, than do students in fully on-line courses. Similarly,
students in fully on-ground courses, compared to students in fully
on-line courses, seem to feel that they can live their lives in any way
they want to (Table 3). These self-perceptions of students attending
on-ground courses with on-line elements or fully on-ground courses seem
to need a reality check. Based on the findings from Table 1, students in
fully on-line courses seem to develop their teamwork abilities better
than those in fully on-ground courses. This may be an indicator of a gap
between perception and implementation. Students in on-ground courses
with on-line elements have a higher mean on teamwork than those in fully
on-line courses, though this difference is statistically insignificant.
That may mean students in on-ground courses with on-line elements may be
able to combine all positive aspects of face-to-face and virtual
teamwork interactions to generate a higher level of performance.
In terms of FFM, students of fully on-line courses score
significantly lower than the students of two other course delivery
methods in introversion (Table 4). They also have higher emotional
stability scores. Fully on-ground course students have the highest level
of neurotic tendencies. Agreeableness was another important element of
FFM that showed significant differences among three groups of students.
Students of fully on-line courses were found to be the least agreeable
group, while students of fully on-ground courses were the most
agreeable. Conscientiousness and openness to experience scales did not
show meaningful differences among the three groups of students.
The final step of analysis was to look at correlates of personality
traits, types of courses, and four objectives of QEP (Tables 5). Among
students of fully on-line courses, agreeableness was the most important
correlate of development in real life problem solving, teamwork, and
creativity skills. Openness to new experiences was the most important
correlate of critical thinking skill development. Need for cognition was
very important for this group of students and significantly associated
with development of real life problem solving, creativity, and critical
thinking skills. Developing higher level of teamwork skill related to
higher levels of self-sufficiency and extraversion characteristics of
students besides agreeableness.
Correlates of personality and achievement of QEP objectives were
found to be drastically different for students of fully on-ground
courses. The driving strong and significant associations were found
between extroversion and teamwork as well as extroversion and creativity
among the students of fully on-ground courses. Conscientiousness highly
correlated with real life problem solving. Need for cognition (in the
form of preference for small daily projects to long-term ones) highly
and negatively correlate with the development of critical thinking
abilities for this group. At a secondary level, correlates of team work,
real life problem solving and creativity provided interesting insights
about this group. Teamwork correlated with self-sufficiency, and
agreeableness. Real life problem solving was related to agreeableness.
Finally, creativity associated with openness to new experiences.
Finally, the most important correlate of achievement of all four
objectives of QEP for students of on-ground courses with on-line
elements was agreeableness. The need for cognition was the secondary
important association of real-life problem solving and critical thinking
skills developments. Self-sufficiency, on the other hand, linked to
developments of real-life problem solving, teamwork, and critical
thinking skills. Unlike the other two groups, openness to new
experiences was related to teamwork and extroversion to creativity for
this group.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Thanks to design elements of on-line courses, students realized
statistically significantly higher levels of improvement in the
development of their team work skills. Apparently on-line delivery
medium when combined with carefully designed course elements to fully
utilize available tools such as discussion boards and chat rooms
enhanced student-to-student interactions. Considering the fact that
on-line students had introvert tendencies, these courses encouraged them
to get out of their comfort zones.
Furthermore, students of fully on-line courses perceived a higher
level of improvement on their creativity skills compared to students of
on-ground courses with on-line elements. This perception might stem from
the personality differences between these two groups of students. Course
designs were almost similar in both groups except face to face
interactions among fellow students and instructor. The correlations of
creativity and personality traits of students of both groups revealed
that the driving force behind creativity for on-line students come from
agreeableness and need for cognition. On the contrary, the driving
forces among students of on-ground courses with on-line elements were
extraversion and agreeableness.
This research provided more evidence to personality differences
among fully on-line and on-ground courses students. In line with the
existing literature (Kim and Schniederjans, 2004), on-ground course
students were more extrovert and agreeable than on-line course students.
Moreover, they were less emotionally stable and less need for cognition.
However, on-ground course students considered themselves more
self-sufficient. Although these findings seemed contradictory in nature,
they explained higher levels of motivation among on-ground course
students in Qureshi and Antosz's research (2002).
It is curious, and warrants further research, that students in
fully on-ground courses feel relief upon project completion, while
students in fully on-line courses find that learning new ways to think
is more exciting than students in fully on-ground courses. In addition,
students in both fully on-line courses and students in on-ground courses
with on-line elements share a similar level of excitement about
thinking.
The findings of this study, on the other hand, deviated from
literature in terms of conscientiousness factor of FFM.
Conscientiousness did not appear to be a differentiating factor of
students' personalities in all three course delivery methods.
Furthermore, it did not appear to be a significant correlate of QEP
objectives. The only significant correlation was found to be real life
problem solving for fully on-ground course students.
Educational goals of QEP in terms of improving students'
skills in real life problem solving, team work, creativity and critical
thinking cannot fully be achieved without taking students'
personalities as well as course delivery mediums into consideration. For
example, neurotic tendencies of students in on-ground courses with on
line elements would have detrimental effects of the development of real
life problem solving and creativity skill developments. While need for
cognition and agreeableness were important for creativity skill
development for students of fully online courses, it was openness to
experiences and extraversion for students of fully on-ground courses
that drove the creativity development. Understanding these personality
traits will help educators fine-tune their course designs and delivery
methods based on their students' needs.
While instructional design may be the key process, what is it in
the media and delivery system on-line that generates enhanced excitement
about thinking? Do the media enhance interactions and generate a higher
level of performance and critical thinking? This analytical study
represents the in-depth research results of the university QEP core
objectives collected from Management, Marketing, Math, and Engineering
courses. Continuous improvement actions on QEP objectives--especially in
teamwork and corrective actions taken in four different majors--will be
reported in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was made possible by the Tennessee Tech
University--Collaborative Research Award provided by the Office of
Research, Quality Enhancement Plan Grant, College of Business, Distance
MBA Program, Department of Mathematics, Center for Energy Systems
Research, and School of Interdisciplinary Studies and Extended
Education.
REFERENCES
Bayram, S., Deniz, L., and Erdogan, Y. (2008), The Role of
Personality Traits in Web Based Education. The Turkish On-line Journal
of Educational Technology, 7 (2), 1-9.
Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J., & Hamaker, C. (2000),
Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement
motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher
education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29 (6), 1057-1068.
Daughenbaugh, Lynda; Richard Daughenbaugh; Daniel Surry and
Mohammed Islam (2002), "Personality Type and Online Versus In-Class
Course Satisfaction," Educause Quarterly, 3, 71-72.
Dewar, T., & Whittington, D.(2002) A strategy for studying
learners using advanced learning technologies. International Workshop on
Advanced Learning Technologies; 2000 Dec 4--Dec 6; Palmerstown North,
New Zealand. Advanced Learning Technologies; 2002 Aug. p. 171-172.
Elvers, G.C., Polzella, D.J., and Graetz, K. (2003),
Procrastination in On-line Courses: Performance and Attitudinal
Differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30 (2), 159-162.
Farley, Frank H. and Joanne B.Sumerson (2007), "Predictors of
College Students Achievement," Academic Exchange Quarterly, Vol.11,
No.2, Summer, 225-230.
Fritzsche, B. A., McIntire, S. A., & Yost, A.P. (2002), Holland
Type as a Moderator of Personality-Performance Predictions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 60 (3), 422-436.
Hsu, Yu-Chiung and Ya-Ming Shiue (2005), "The Effect of
Self-Directed Learning Readiness on Achievement Comparing Face-To-Face
and Two-Way Distance Learning Instruction," International Journal
of Instructional Media, Vol.32, No.2, 143-156.
Johnson, Judith L and. William E. Kelly (2005), "Time Use
Efficiency and the Five-Factor Model of Personality," Education,
Vol.125 No.3: 511-515.
Kim, E.B., and Schniederjans, M.J. (2004), The Role of Personality
in Web-Based Distance Education. Communications of the ACM, 47 (3),
95-98.
Levas, Michael; Mark G. Noel and Chad Michaels (2003), "The
Relationship of Personality Traits and Self-Monitoring Behavior to
Choice of Business Major," Journal of Education for Business,
January/February, 153-157.
Lin, Shin Yi and Richard C. Overbaugh (2007), "The Effect of
Student Choice of On-line Discussion Format on Tiered Achievement and
Student Satisfaction," Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, Vol. 39, No.4, Summer, 399-415.
Lounsbury, John W. and Susan D. Ridgell (2004), "Predicting
Academic Success: General Intelligence, "Big Five" Personality
Traits, and Work Drive," College Student Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5,
December, 399-415.
MacGregor, Cynthia J. (2002), "Personality Differences Between
On-line and Face-to-Face Students," The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, Vol. 50, No. 3, Fall, 14-23.
Maki, R.H., Maki, W.S., Patterson, M., and Whittaker, P.D. (2000),
Evaluation of a Web-Based Introductory Psychology Course: Learning and
Satisfaction in On-line Versus Lecture Courses. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32 (2), 230-239.
Maki, R.H., and Maki, W.S. (2002), Multimedia Comprehension Skill
Predicts Differential Outcomes of Web-Based and Lecture Courses. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8 (2), 85-98.
Maki, R.H., and Maki, W.S. (2003), Prediction of Learning and
Satisfaction in Web-Based and Lecture Courses. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 28 (3), 197-219.
Mattes, Christian; Robert J. Nanney, Robert J. and Mary
Coussons-Read (2003), "The On-line University; Who Are its Students
and How Are They Unique?" Journal of Educational Computing
Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, 89-102.
Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S.P., & Dalley, M. B. (1997),
Personality, Academic Attribution, and Substance Use as Predictors of
Academic Achievement in College Students. Journal of Social Behavior
& Personality, 12 (2), 501-511.
Nachmias, R., and Shany, N. (2002), Learning in Virtual Courses and
Its Relationship to Thinking Styles. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 27 (3), 315-329.
Parkinson, John and Simon Taggar (2006), "Intelligence,
Personality and Performance on Case Studies," Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 3, Spring, 395-408.
Pocius, K. (1991), "Personality Factors in Human-Computer
Interactions," Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 7, 103-135.
Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2001), Big Five Predictors of
Academic Achievement, Journal of Research in Personality, 35 (1), 78-90.
Stein, Barry (2006), "Tennessee Technological University
Quality Enhancement Plan: Improving Critical Thinking and Real-World
Problem Solving Skills,"
M. Meral Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University
Ismet Anitsal, Tennessee Tech University
Bonita Barger, Tennessee Tech University
Ismail Fidan, Tennessee Tech University
Michael R. Allen, Tennessee Tech University
Table 1: Comparison of Means on Qep Objectives
For Undergraduate Courses
TABLE 1-A (a) Fully (b) Fully
On-Line On-Ground
Courses Courses
(n=64) (n=37)
Real Life Problem Solving 4.14 4.11
Teamwork 4.08# 3.76#
Creativity 4.02 3.86
Critical Thinking 3.91 3.95
TABLE 1-B (b) Fully (c) On-
On-Ground Ground
Courses Courses
(n=37) with On-
Line
Elements
(n=254)
Real Life Problem Solving 4.11 4.10
Teamwork 3.76# 4.21#
Creativity 3.86 3.80
Critical Thinking 3.95 3.97
TABLE 1-C (c) On- (a) Fully
Ground On-Line
Courses Courses
with On- (n=64)
Line
Elements
(n=254)
Real Life Problem Solving 4.10 4.14
Teamwork 4.21 4.08
Creativity 3.80~ 4.02~
Critical Thinking 3.97 3.91
Note: Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05 are indicated with #.
Note: Italic = Significant at [alpha] = 0.10 are indicated with ~.
5 Point Likert Scale; 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree
Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05; Italic = Significant at
[alpha] = 0.10
Table 2: Need for Cognition
Items Significance (a) Fully (b) Fully (c) On-
On-Line On-Ground Ground
Course Course Courses
Means Means with
([n.sub.1] ([n.sub.1] OnLine
= 64) = 37) Elements
Means
([n.sub.3]
= 254)
Thinking -/-/- 2.25 2.59 2.33
is not my
idea of
fun.
I would ab#/-/bc# 2.11 2.62 2.14
rather do
something
that
requires
little
thought
than
something
that is
sure to
challenge
my
thinking
abilities.
I prefer ab#/-/bc# 2.94 3.35 2.87
to think
about
small,
daily
projects
to
long-term
ones.
Learning ab/-/bc# 2.16 2.51 2.11
new ways
to think
doesn't
excite me
very much.
I feel ab/-/- 2.60 3.03 2.72
relief
rather
than
satisfaction
after
completing
a task
that
required a
lot of
mental
effort.
Note: Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05 are indicated with #.
Note: Italic = Significant at [alpha] = 0.10 are indicated with ~.
5 Point Likert Scale; 1= Strongly Disagree; 5= Strongly Agree
Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05; Italic = Significant at
[alpha] = 0.10
Table 3: Self-Sufficiency
Items Significance (a) (b) (c) On-
Fully On- Fully On- Ground
Line Ground Courses
Course Course with On-
Means Means Line
([n.sub.1] ([n.sub.2] Elements
= 64) = 37) Means
([n.sub.3]
= 254)
I rarely depend -/-/- 3.54 3.81 3.70
on anyone else
to get things
done.
I like to take ab/ac#/- 3.98 4.27 4.22
responsibility
for making
decisions.
I am more -/ac#/- 3.56 3.73 3.80
capable than
other people.
I can live my ab/-/- 3.73 4.11 3.89
life in any way
I want to.
I always know -/-/- 3.28 3.19 3.30
what I am
doing.
Note: Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05 are indicated with #.
Note: Italic = Significant at [alpha] = 0.10 are indicated with ~
5 Point Likert Scale; 1= Strongly Disagree; 5= Strongly Agree
Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05; Italic = Significant at
[alpha] = 0.10
Table 4: The Five Factor Model of Personality
Items Significance (a) (b) (c)
Fully On- Fully On- On-Ground
Line Ground Courses
Course Course with On-
Means Means Line
([n.sub.1] ([n.sub.2] Elements
=64) =37) Means
([n.sub.3]
=254)
Extraversion
I like to ab#/ac#/- 3.31 3.70 3.59
have a lot
around me.
I really -/-/- 3.47 3.81 3.59
enjoy
talking to
people
even
complete
strangers.
of people
I would -/-/- 3.78 3.83 3.94
rather be
a leader
of others.
Neuroticism
I am not a ab#/ac#/bc# 3.14 2.11 2.78
worrier.
I am -/-/- 3.63 3.35 3.45
seldom sad
or
depressed.
At times I ab#/-/bc# 2.27 3.05 2.31
have been
so ashamed
I just
wanted to
hide.
Open to Experience
I often -/-/- 3.30 3.68 3.52
try new
and
foreign
foods.
I often -/-/bc~ 3.33 3.11 3.45
enjoy
playing
with
theories
or
abstract
ideas.
I am -/-/- 3.59 3.46 3.54
intrigued
by the
patterns
I find in
art and
nature
Agreeableness
I try to ab#/ac#/- 4.14 4.65 4.51
be
courteous
to
everyone I
met.
I would ab#/-/bc# 3.67 4.46 3.73
rather
cooperate
with
others
than
compete
with them.
I don't ab#/-/bc# 3.95 4.43 4.10
like to
get into
arguments
with my
family,
friends
and co-
workers.
Conscientiousness
I am not a ab/-/bc# 2.81 3.14 2.74
very
methodical
person.
I never -/-/- 2.39 2.38 2.28
seem to be
able to
get
organized.
I find it -/-/- 2.33 2.30 2.14
hard to
keep my
belongings
clean and
neat.
I waste a -/-/- 2.94 3.32 3.10
lot of
time
before
settling
down to
work.
Note: Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05 are indicated with #.
Note: Italic = Significant at [alpha] = 0.10 are indicated with ~.
5 Point Likert Scale; 1= Strongly Disagree; 5= Strongly Agree
Bold = Significant at [alpha] = 0.05;
Italic = Significant at [alpha] = 0.10
Table 5: Pearson Correlations for Qep Objectives by Personality
Traits for Three Course Delivery Methods
Personality Type of Course Real Life Teamwork
Traits Problem
Solving
Need for Fully on-Line 0.304 0.271
Cognition Fully on-ground n.a n.a
(reverse On-ground w/ 0.216 n.a.
coded) On-Line E1.
Self- Fully on-Line n.a 0.323
Sufficiency Fully on-ground n.a. 0.352
On-ground w/ 0.203 0.171
On-Line E1.
Extraversion Fully on-Line n.a. 0.298
Fully on-ground n.a. 0.396
On-ground w/ 0.163 n.a.
On-Line E1.
Neuroticism Fully on-Line n.a. 0.266
Fully on-ground n.a. n.a.
On-ground w/ -0.135 n.a
On-Line E1.
Openness to Fully on-Line 0.266 0.28
Experiences Fully on-ground n.a. n.a.
On-ground w/ 0.134 0.185
On-Line E1.
Agreeableness Fully on-Line 0.394 0.457
Fully on-ground 0.343 0.349
On-ground w/ 0.309 0.354
On-Line E1.
Conscientiousness Fully on-Line n.a. n.a.
Fully on-ground 0.375 n.a.
On-ground w/ n.a. 0.125
On-Line E1.
Personality Type of Course Creativity Critical
Traits Thinking
Need for Fully on-Line 0.392 0.525
Cognition Fully on-ground n.a 0.455
(reverse On-ground w/ 0.135 0.149
coded) On-Line E1.
Self- Fully on-Line n.a. 0.288
Sufficiency Fully on-ground 0.348 n.a.
On-ground w/ 0.170 0.123
On-Line E1.
Extraversion Fully on-Line 0.252 0.390
Fully on-ground 0.497 n.a.
On-ground w/ 0.229 n.a.
On-Line E1.
Neuroticism Fully on-Line n.a. n.a.
Fully on-ground n.a. n.a.
On-ground w/ -0.182 n.a.
On-Line E1.
Openness to Fully on-Line n.a. 0.57
Experiences Fully on-ground 0.466 n.a.
On-ground w/ n.a. n.a.
On-Line E1.
Agreeableness Fully on-Line 0.403 0.449
Fully on-ground n.a. n.a.
On-ground w/ 0.288 0.231
On-Line E1.
Conscientiousness Fully on-Line n.a. n.a.
Fully on-ground n.a. n.a.
On-ground w/ n.a. n.a.
On-Line E1.
a) Fully On-line (n=64), (b) Fully On-ground (n=37), (c) On-ground
with On-line Elements (n=254) 5 Point Likert Scale; 1 = Strongly
Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree; All figures are significant at [alpha]
= 0.05 n.a. = no significant correlation
