1. STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICS IN THE ONLINE MEDIUM Keith Nabb Moraine Valley Community College October 2007

2. GENERAL CONCERNS  Failure and withdrawal rates are causing educational leaders to make difficult decisions (IHEP, 1999; Kember, 1989; MacGregor, 2002; Ryan, 2002; Weems, 2002)  Problems with quality control (related to challenges in defining distance education) (Keegan, 1996)  Student views are mixed (Hillstock, 2005; Li & Akins, 2005; Marland et al., 1984)

3. WHY PERCEPTIONS?  Online and in-class formats differ in a number of ways, one being the student role (Keegan, 1996; Holmberg, 1989)  Students may have increased responsibilities in distance education settings (Johnson et al., 1999)  The student voice, even when heard, is often ignored (Young, 2006; Tricker et al., 2001)

4. AN ILLUSTRATION

5. RESEARCH QUESTION Is there an association between students’ perceptions of mathematics taught at a distance to achievement and/or satisfaction? Online Mathematics Teaching & Learning Perceptions AchievementSatisfaction

6. INSTRUMENTS  Perception Inventory for Online Mathematics (PIOM)  Satisfaction Survey  Average across three Unit Exams

7. METHODS  Regression?  Limitations in Likert scale (PIOM & Satisfaction Survey)  Analysis by individual questions (interpretation is clearer and more meaningful)  Mann-Whitney U test

8. PARTICIPANTS Two Online Math Classes (n = 50) Calculus (n = 18) Algebra (n = 32)

9. Two online math courses (n = 25) Calculus (n = 12) Algebra (n = 13) 68% lost from withdrawal 12% forgot their code 8% incomplete data 8% problems with self-reporting 4% not willing to reveal grades

10. THE “R” STUDENT  What is the definition of an “R” student?  Do these students have different perceptions of online mathematics?  Why are they taking this course?  Are these students using online courses as a framework for “familiar learning” instead of “new learning”?

11. R STUDENTS RepeatingNonrepeatingTotal Calculus8412 Intermediate Algebra7613

12. PIOM ITEMS PIOM1 I expect the workload in this class to be lighter in comparison to math taught in the traditional format (face-to-face with a teacher). PIOM2 I feel that this class should be easier than the same class taught in the traditional format. PIOM3 I will probably spend less time studying/learning the material in this class than I would in a traditional math class. PIOM4 I feel that online learning of mathematics is better than the traditional format.

13. SATISFACTION SURVEY S1Overall, I was satisfied with this course. S2I would recommend this class to a friend. S3 Given the opportunity, I would take another mathematics course in the online format.

14. (n = 25) 1 = Strongly Agree............ 5 = Strongly Disagree I feel that this class should be easier than the same class taught in the traditional format. (n = 25) 1 = Strongly Agree............ 5 = Strongly Disagree

15. 1 = Strongly Agree............ 5 = Strongly Disagree I feel that online learning of mathematics is better than the traditional format. (n = 25) 1 = Strongly Agree............ 5 = Strongly Disagree

16. Class 1 (Calculus) and Class 2 (Algebra) comparison on PIOM3 Class 1 (Calculus) and Class 2 (Algebra) comparison on PIOM3 Mann-Whitney Test Ranks ClassNMean RankSum of Ranks PIOM31129.29111.50 21316.42213.50 Total25 Test Statistics(b) PIOM3 Mann-Whitney U33.500 Wilcoxon W111.500 Z-2.492 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed).013 Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)].014(a) a Not corrected for ties. b Grouping Variable: Class I will probably spend less time studying/learning the material in this class than I would in a traditional math class.

17. Class 1 (R students) and Class 2 (Non-R students) comparison on PIOM1 Mann-Whitney Test Ranks RepeatNMean RankSum of Ranks PIOM11159.73146.00 21017.90179.00 Total25 Test Statistics(b) PIOM1 Mann-Whitney U26.000 Wilcoxon W146.000 Z-2.786 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed).005 Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)].005(a) a Not corrected for ties. b Grouping Variable: Repeat I expect the workload in this class to be lighter in comparison to math taught in the traditional format (face-to-face with a teacher).

18. R Students vs. Non-R Students Test Summary Variable of interestp-valueSignificant? PIOM10.005yes PIOM20.000yes PIOM30.013yes PIOM40.447no S10.008yes S20.016yes S30.015yes

19. Class 1 (R Students) and Class 2 (Non-R Students) comparison on Achievement RepeatNMeanStd. Deviation Std. Error Mean A1 1553.400015.54165 4.01284 2 1086.000011.155473.52767 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means FSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference LowerUpper AEqual variances assumed.086.772-5.70823.000-32.600005.71142-44.41497 -20.78503 Equal variances not assumed -6.10122.809.000-32.600005.34297-43.65788-21.54212

20. CONCLUSIONS/THOUGHTS  Can we build a portrait of the “successful” or “unsuccessful” online student?  Is it possible/plausible to predict online learning achievement? (Bernard et al., 2004)  Should we step away from causal/comparative studies and look within DE for the answers?  Is the distance ed audience noticeably different from the FTF audience? If so, what can practitioners do to prepare for this unique audience?  Where is the theoretical framework? (IHEP, 1999)

21. BUILDING THEORY: Topics at the crossroads of student perceptions of mathematics taught at a distance Epistemologica l Beliefs Perceptions & Attitudes Dropout & Withdrawal Rates Quality in DE Student Satisfaction Misconceptions Student Achievement Defining DE Student Voice Self-Efficacy & Learning Styles Student Perceptions of Math taught at a distance

22. Thanks for listening! nabb@morainevalley.edu