Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses

1. Examining the Trust Factor in Online Instructor-Led College Courses Shalin Hai-Jew, Ed.D. Kansas State University (KSU), Office of Mediated Education (OME) April 22, 2006, Seattle Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) “Learning and Technology: Implications for Liberal Education and the Disciplines”

2. Introduction: Online Learning Online learners “meet” for 10 weeks in an academic quarter in high-interactive instructor-led online college classrooms. They interact with each other as virtual peers (on virtual teams) through Web-based courseware. Andragogy and constructivism assume inter-relationships as bases for adult learning.

3. Introduction (cont.) Often, human interactions online are asynchronous. Learners and instructors interact through a non-human technology through mostly text and occasionally graphics. There’s often no face-to-face time. There are no body language or tonal cues. The emotional affect tends to be flat. Emotions are conveyed through words and emoticons. 

4. Initial Questions • What is the role of trust in such a virtual circumstance? • How is trust (a multi-dimensional construct) operationalized and manifested in such online classrooms? • Is trust important for effective learning in such an online classroom situation? • How may trust be enhanced in this circumstance?

5. Purposes of the Study Define the roles of trust in the following online relationships: • Student to instructor (reciprocal) • Student to student (reciprocal) • Student to curriculum (one-way) • Student to oversight organizations (reciprocal) • Student to technology (one way)

6. Operationalizing “Trust” Trust (trŭst) n. 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing. 2. Custody; care. 3. Something committed into the care of another; charge. 4. a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one. B. One in which confidence is placed. 5. Reliance on something in the future; hope. 6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay for in the future; credit.

7. Theoretical Underpinnings: Trust and Distance Learning / eLearning(Literature Review) • Trust is an essential part of human relations and cooperation as a “key enabler.” Trust allows for risk-taking, a necessary component in learning. Trust enables people to make changes. Trust promotes sharing and mutual learning, under the relational constructivist model.

8. Theoretical Underpinnings: Trust and “DL”(cont.) • Trust appears as a construct in law, psychology, sociology, political science, economics, business, religion studies, philosophy, anthropology, history, computer science, sociobiology, organizational development, education, management literature, and others. It has been studied in interdisciplinary ways, too.

9. Theoretical Underpinnings of Trust and DL (cont.) • Trust has a moral dimension—of ethically justifiable behavior as expectations. [General trusters tend to have a higher ethical sensibility (Uslaner, 2000 – 01, p. 579) ] • “Swift trust” tends to be unstable, fragile. High initial trust has been linked to mitigating the effects of later disappointment (as a positive construct). • Three-Part Relation to Trust: (1) truster properties; (2) person being trusted, (3) specific context (Hardin, 1992, as cited by Kramer, 1999, p. 574)

10. Ways to Conceptualize Trust • Individual attribute • Behavior • Situational feature • Institutional arrangement (Sitkin and Roth, 1993, as cited by Bigley and Pearce, July 1998, p. 405) • Trust is seen as a “cultural construct.” • Trust represents “choice behavior.” It is based on cognition and emotion.

11. Three Types of Trust • Calculus-based trust—based on mutual calculations on what each party may gain from the other (also deterrence-from-risk based trust, transactional trust) • Knowledge-based trust—based on mutual interactions and experiences (also cognition-based trust) • Identification-based trust—based on similarity and agreement between individuals, shared values, also affective-based trust (Dibben, Harris and Wheeler, Apr. 2003, p. 6; Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970)

12. (Another) Three Types of Trust • Personal trust—”honesty, ethics, follow-through, intentions, handling of confidential information, straightforwardness” • Expertise trust—a person’s standing in his/her field, datedness of knowledge, credible information use to support ideas, application of expertise to situations • Structural trust—based on a person’s role and responsibilities (Joni, March 2004, pp. 84 – 85)

13. Ambiguity Caution Deceit Editing or screening Limiting channels Secrecy Indirection Gimmicks Hostile humor Lack of emotion (Harvey, 1983, as cited by Fairholm, 1994, p. 139) Absence of faith in others(Mirowsky and Ross, 1983, as cited by Ross, Mirowsky & Pribesh, Aug. 2001, p. 568) Not a necessarily negative valence (Lewicki, Mcallister, & Bies, 1998, p. 455) Factors that Lead to Mistrust

14. Current DL Challenges • Whole student learning • Retention • Academic dishonesty • Technological challenges, standardization • Personalization (vs. standardization, automation, AI, simulations, “boxed courses”)

15. Statement of the Problem The virtual aspects of high-interactive, instructor-led online learning may impede or preclude the building of trust between individuals. Trust is a crucial social glue that allows people to take risks and to build learning, make changes, essential components of constructivism, which is said to guide the andragogy of online learning.

16. Five Research Questions • How is trust manifested in an online classroom? • What does a high-trust online learning classroom and community look like? • What factors contribute to ‘trust’ or ‘mistrust,’ and how are these elements related?

17. Five Research Questions (cont.) • How can trust as an asset be protected and leveraged in a virtual learning environment? • Is there a relationship between high-trust and the effectiveness of student online learning (as measured by the proxies of student retention/persistence, course grades, and student perceptions)?

18. Research Methodology • Literature review (“Trust,” DL, virtual teaming) • Initial informal survey of online learners • Creation of Online Trust Student Survey (OTSS) using Likert-type measures of both the importance of the item and student experienced measure of that item in their online classroom

19. Research Methodology (cont.) • Pre-testing of OTSS survey on subgroup (DL students, faculty and administrators) for construct validity; survey revision • Online launch of survey for quantitative analysis (N = 630): factoral analysis, comparisons between means, ANOVA and MANOVA of descriptive factors with output component variables, regressions, and correlations • Collection of post-survey interview data for qualitative analysis from online learners (both high-trust and low-trust), online instructors and distance learning administrators

20. Null Hypothesis • There is no correlation at the p < .05 level between learners’ trust level in an online instructor-led classroom and their effective learning.

21. Population and Sample • 630 WAOL learners per quarter for freshman and sophomore-level courses • Fully online learning via Blackboard™ courseware technologies • Random sample from online learners who opt-in to take part in a 20-minute online survey in Winter 2005 via Perennial Survey

22. WashingtonOnline Virtual Campus (WAOL-VC) • WashingtonOnline Virtual Campus represents a consortium of the 34 community colleges of Washington State. It offers some 21,000 FTEs of credits annually to learners from around the U.S. and the world. • The courses are built by Washington state community colleges instructors, who work as teams (lead instructor and two supporting instructors) to develop courses. The lead instructor creates the courses, and other instructors may teach them.

23. Perennial Survey Screen Shot

24. There were nine categories of trust factors (47 items): Individual trust propensities Communications Instructor Organizations Peer-to-peer relations Policy macro-structure Student empowerment Curriculum Technologies Survey Instrument (OTSS)

25. Post-Survey DL Administrator Interview • How do you influence how instructors teach in the program? • How do you influence the online curriculum? • How important is trust between a student and an instructor in an online learning environment? Why? • How important is trust between a student and other students in an online learning environment? Why? • How important is trust between a student and the curriculum in an online learning environment? Why? • How important is trust between a student and courseware technologies in an online learning environment? Why? • What aspects of leadership in administration contribute to learner trust?

26. Post-survey Online Instructor Interview • Is trust an important factor in successful online learning? If so, how? If not, why not? • How important is trust between a college student and instructor in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested? • How important is trust between college students (peers) in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested? • How important is trust between student and curriculum in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested?

27. Online Instructor Interview (cont.) • How important is trust between student and courseware technologies in an online learning environment? Why? How do you see this trust manifested? • Is there a certain time when trust “solidifies” in an online classroom? If so, when? If never, why? • What aspects of the online classroom contribute to building trust? • What aspects of the online classroom contribute to creating distrust? • In a case of mistrust, how can a class reestablish trust?

28. Post-Survey Online Student Interview (High-trust group, Low-trust group) • What personality indicators do you use to know whether or not to “trust” an instructor? • How can an instructor come across as “real” in an online space? Please give some from-life examples. • Do you consciously build others’ (students’ and instructors’) trust in you when you participate in an online class? If so, how? If not, why not? • Have you ever felt like your trust was violated in an online class by an instructor? Please explain what happened. Please share as many experiences as possible. • Have you ever felt like your trust was violated in an online class by a fellow student? Please explain what happened. Please share as many experiences as possible.

29. Descriptors of Survey Respondents(Frequency and Percentage Distribution) • Frequency Percentage • OTSS Respondents • 630 100% • Gender • Female 520 83% • Male 110 16% • Year in College • Freshman 174 27% • Sophomore298 47% • Junior 90 14% • Senior 22 3% • Fifth Year+46 7% • Age Range • 15 – 19 103 16% • 20 – 29 266 42% • 30 – 39 125 19% • 40 – 49 102 16% • 50 – 59 32 4% • 60 – 69 2 - -% • 70 – 79 0 0% • 80+ 0 0%

30. Descriptors of Respondents (cont.) • Cumulative GPAs: A’s (50%), B’s (45%), C’s (3%), D’s (0% but there were a few in number), and F’s (0% with none) • Racial Breakdown: 84% Caucasian, 3% Hispanic American, 2% Asian American, 1% African American, 1% Native American, 5% as other, 1% Unknown

31. Descriptors of Respondents (cont.) Reasons for Taking an Online Course • Academic schedule (24%) • Convenience (23%) • Work (18%) • Family (13%) • Commute (9%) • Other (4%) • Health, academic advisor suggestion, course reputation, and instructor reputation (1% each)

32. Attitudes Towards Online Learning at the Beginning of a Course • Positive expectations (39%) • Enthusiastic (16%) • Neutral attitude (25%) • Negative (2%) • Skeptical (16%)

33. Prior Experiences with Online Courses • 1-5 prior online courses (50%) • 0 prior online courses (37%) • 6-10 prior online courses (8%) • 11 – 15 prior online courses (1%) • 16 – 20 prior online courses (1%) • 66% was said the prior online learning was effective; 30% had mixed results, and 4% found the online learning ineffective

34. 47% had no prior experience from either high school or college in the subject matter of the course about which they were describing 21% had had a quarter’s worth 13% had had two quarters of experience 8% had an academic year’s worth of experience 2% had four quarters worth 1% had five quarters worth of experience 2% had six quarters worth 2% had 7 quarters or more of prior experience Familiarity with Subject Matter of Analyzed WAOL Course

35. Factor Analysis ResultsLevel of Importance to Online Learning • PROSOLID—Level of professionalism of oversight organizations, solidity of the curriculum • AUTHEN—Authenticity of learning, instructor supportiveness • INSPRES—Instructor ethics, presence, boundary-setting • PEERINT—Peer interactions, full expressiveness • PROBRES—Timely resolution of learner problems

36. Factor Analysis ResultsLevel of Agreement with the Student as a Learner • INSEFFET—Instructor effectiveness • STRUINTE—Structural integrity of overseeing organizations • TECHNORE—Technological responsiveness and stability • STUDEMPO—Student empowerment • INFOVALI—Informational validity • SOCLIFE—Social life of online learners • REALHON—Reality in simulations, honesty in co-learning, real-world learning

37. Survey Respondent Descriptors and Variables(ANOVA and MANOVA) • For the MANOVAs, the year in college showed a high frequency on the TECHNORE (technological responsiveness) factor (F = 3.158, p = .014). • The age descriptor connected with STRUINTE (structural integrity) with an F = 3.273, p = .006. Gender and age interacted for a statistically significant F = 6.312 and p = .000 with STRUINTE as well. • No other statistically significant issues were surfaced through the MANOVA between these descriptor variables and these four factors based on learner responses to the OTSS 47 variables about their online learning experiences related to trust.

38. Survey Respondent Descriptors and Variables (ANOVA and MANOVA) • In terms of gender differences, in a test between subjects, high Fs existed for STRUINTE (structural integrity) (F = 21.437, with a p = .000). STUDEMP (student empowerment) also showed a significant difference (F = 10.565, p = .001). Lesser differences were observed for INSEFFECT (instructor effectiveness) with F = 8.787, p = .003, and TECHNORE (technological responsiveness) with F = 6.685, p = .010). This said, the statistical imbalance between females to males (N = 520 to N = 110) should be considered.

39. Other Highlights from Findings • INDIVIDUAL TRUST PROPENSITIES: Learners identified their own trust propensities as the most salient of the three factors here and their sense of self-motivation and focus next, followed by the (reverse-phrased) threat to sense of well-being as not important.

40. Main Highlights from Findings • COMMUNICATIONS: Communications with the instructor are critical to learners in terms of their perception of online trust. The instructor’s responses need to be appropriate. His/her sense of ethics has to be strongly expressed, without any apparent conflict of interest and imbued by a sense of good will and flexibility.

41. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • INSTRUCTOR: The instructor needs to follow his/her official role, foremost. Of second importance is his/her respect for learner privacy, then instructor enthusiasm and then professional credentials. The least important aspect was that of extra-role behavior offered by instructors such as letters of recommendation, contacts with professionals in the field, and facilitation of internship opportunities.

42. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • ORGANIZATIONS: Learners find trust of their home institution’s professionalism is more critical than their view of WAOL or their particular academic field. • PEER-TO-PEER RELATIONS: Learner anonymity was defined as the most important factor followed by the perception of the need to learn from peers, the amount of planned interactivity in the online classroom, and the encouragement of all peers to participate. Having shared values with peers was deemed the least important.

43. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • POLICY MACRO-STRUCTURE: WAOL-VC respondents identified the close adherence to stated policy as the most critical, with the timeliness of instructors posting guidelines as the next most important. Having access to the classroom before the quarter started, following a routine and having accurate academic advising about online courses seemed to be less critical to respondents.

44. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • STUDENT EMPOWERMENT: Linking grades to actual learning was a critical factor in student empowerment. Learners also expressed the importance of instructor encouragement of learners to be proactive. Instructor control over student messages and whether learners had control to make changes to the learning in the online classroom both seemed less salient.

45. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • CURRICULUM: This category had many highly-ranked scores. The most critical variable was the need to have complete lectures and course materials. Having real simulations online was important as well as having responsive handling of learning problems. Having clear directions was important as well as knowledge that the curriculum was college-level material. Of lesser importance was the up-to-datedness of curricular materials, clarity that no cheating or plagiarism was occurring in the classroom, and the offering of prior student work examples for perusal.

46. Main Highlights from Findings (cont.) • TECHNOLOGIES: Respondents identified their level of technological trust as the most important of the three variables, with timely solving of technological issues and reliable courseware of high importance as well (albeit at slightly lesser scores based on the factorial analysis).

47. Paired Samples Statistics • Most of the 47 factors showed higher importance of rating than the actual perceived ranking of that particular variable through paired samples statistics. In other words, they valued the factors higher than their perception of the presence of that factor in their actual studies. • Yet, the variations were slight, with small mean differences.

48. Q1: How is trust manifested in an online classroom? • For 47% of respondents, trust develops by the middle of the course. • 41% suggest that trust exists from the beginning as a given, a form of “swift trust.” • 8% suggest that trust “never develops.” • 2% suggest that trust develops at the conclusion of the course.

49. Q1: How is trust manifested in an online classroom? (cont.) • Trust manifests in timely communications; mutual respect among learners; high ethics, fairness, grading transparency and professionalism of the instructor; integrity in educational institutions; “sincere,” substantive, and timely postings by peers; clear and enforced policies; proactive and empowered learners; appropriate comprehensive college-level curriculum and accurate online simulations, and stable technologies with ready 24/7 support.

50. Q2: What does a high-trust online learning classroom and community look like? • 89% of respondents ranked in the high-trust category (defined as those with scores of 5—”Somewhat agree”—and above). The mean score was 6.0155 for this high-trust group. • 10.5% of respondents ranked in the low-trust category (defined as those with scores of below-5—”Neutral” and below). The mean score was 4.4460 for this low-trust group. • Both had low Adjusted R-Squares in regressions but significance in ANOVAs.