Understanding the Needs of Online Learners for Successful Outcome

Abstract

Online learning represents a departure from the normal face-to-face teaching, and hence, it presents unique challenges for institutions, instructors, and online learners. Successful outcome for learners engaged in the e-learning process is not guaranteed, so an understanding of the factors that drive success is critical. This chapter outlines the important factors required by online learners to help in providing the foundation for successful outcome from the e-learning environment. Factors regarded as crucial for successful outcome include instructor characteristics, learner characteristics, institutional support, course structure and design, and finally, the need to build a class community. Any failure by the dominant parties driving the e-learning process, that is, the institutions and the instructors, to fully understand their responsibilities will negatively affect the successful outcome from the e-learning engagement.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a significant and most likely permanent change to the teaching/learning process. Schools, colleges, and universities were forced to transition to an e-learning platform to continue their operations of educating students with little or no prior notice. This transition to an e-learning model presented major challenges to both learners and institutions. Institutions struggled with the problem of arriving at an e-learning platform that is most effective for its learners, while learners, most of whom had no prior experience navigating an e-learning architecture, found themselves trying to understand and make sense of a system that could at times be described as impersonal and difficult to comprehend depending on learners’ unique characteristics.

E-learning has now become a way of life for most schools, colleges, and universities, and it is conceivable that the teaching/learning methodology will never return to that of the pre-COVID-19 pandemic model. Given this fact, institutions have begun to market themselves in terms of comparative advantage with respect to their e-learning platform and design features. Institutions offering e-learning need to be cognizant that successful outcome of the e-learning engagement requires more than just a well-designed e-learning platform. Successful outcome as defined by the learners’ ability to understand the material and achieve and maintain their academic performance as they would in a face-to-face teaching/learning environment requires a complex interplay of several factors. The transition from face-to-face instruction to the virtual classroom was made possible by the use of applications such as ZOOM, Moodle, Google Classroom, and Blackboard [1].

Some studies [1, 2, 3, 4] have looked at aspects of e-learning and have highlighted how e-learners can be assisted during the e-learning engagement. One of the deficiencies of those prior studies is that they fail to present a comprehensive discussion of what are the critical factors that must be examined to ensure the success of e-learners. It is this missing link that has motivated the writing of this chapter. It is the hope that this chapter will be a reference point to provide guidance for all parties engaged in the e-learning environment. This chapter provides an outline of some of the key factors that institutions offering e-learning as an alternative to face-to-face instructions, or a combination of both, need to be aware of as prerequisites for successful outcome for online learners. The chapter is organized under major headings, each explaining why a failure to incorporate specific key success factors can significantly affect learners’ ability to achieve successful outcomes in their course of study. It is the hope that a better understanding of the needs of online learners from the institutional perspective will lead to a course design and delivery paradigm that is geared toward the success of online learners. Any failure on the part of institutions to embrace, appreciate, and ultimately incorporate the recommendations outlined in this chapter in their e-learning model will be a disservice to the students they are trying to serve. Let us now examine some of the key success factors.

2. Learner characteristics

The success of an e-learning engagement goes beyond institutions providing excellent learning management system (LMS), ensuring high-speed internet availability to students, and even providing access to the use of their computer devices. The ultimate success is underpinned by a thorough understanding of the unique characteristics that are innate to the online learner. Each learner brings to the e-learning environment his or her own set of learner characteristics, which have a significant bearing on whether the learner will be successful in achieving the objectives as outlined in the course schedule.

Learner characteristics represent a complex interplay of factors that schools, colleges, and universities need to be aware of. While institutions may not have direct control over all these characteristics, they should nonetheless strive to gain a better understanding of these learner characteristics and the role they play in contributing to a successful outcome of the e-learning engagement. The learner characteristics that have been identified as relevant to the successful outcome for online learners include: the level of technical or computer skill of the learner, the learner’s preparedness or readiness for undertaking online learning, the learner’s prior experience with online LMS, the age of the learner, and finally, how motivated is the online learner. Learner characteristics therefore represent concerns that need in-depth focus and understanding.

2.1 Learner readiness for online learning

There is the general misconception that because we are all operating in what is called the “digital age,” it is assumed that all learners enter the e-learning environment in a state of readiness. E-learning readiness can best be defined as skill, knowledge, affective, social, and psychological characteristics and physical opportunities that are required for learners to make optimum use of e-learning engagements [5, 6]. Understanding the concept of e-learning readiness from the learners’ perspective is a major factor in determining the success of the e-learning engagement. A learner’s e-learning readiness embodies the learner’s total orientation to e-learning. Questions such as what is the learner’s understanding of e-learning, was the learner socialized in an environment that sees e-learning as an alternative to face-to-face instructions, what are the expectations of instructors in an e-learning engagement, and how does the learner make sense of a learning engagement that is impersonal and isolated must be examined.

Institutional understanding of e-learning readiness plays a significant role in explaining the extent to which learners are ready to participate in and accept the e-learning model as an alternative to face-to-face instruction. One of the problems that schools, colleges, and universities that offer online instructions struggle with is the low participation rate of their learners. Generally, learners enroll into a course and as the course progresses, there is tapering-off the course participation and course access by the learners; sometimes students are missing for a week or two. This tapering-off in terms of course involvement and course contact is normally a sign that there are underlying problems regarding the learner’s state of e-learning readiness. A frequent complaint by students is that the e-learning environment places additional demands on them, in terms of their need for motivation, time management, and organizational skills. Given the importance of the learners’ e-learning readiness state, the task at hand is: how does an institution assess the e-learning readiness of its learners? The evidence has shown that most institutions have embraced the false notion that once learners are technologically savvy, they are ready to participate in the e-learning engagement. A better approach would be for schools, colleges, and universities to engage their learners prior to the implementation of an e-learning engagement, to solicit responses as to the learners’ general understanding of the requirements of an e-learning engagement, and the additional demands such an engagement would place on them. Institutions could use the students’ feedback to construct an e-learning readiness hierarchy that could be used as a scale to determine the extent to which a student is ready for the e-learning process.

2.2 Is the learner adequately motivated?

To achieve an objective without being coerced is possible only when one has the inner drive; this is what is loosely referred to as motivation. Learner motivation is a key factor in determining the outcome of an e-learning engagement. The e-learning environment presents numerous unexpected challenges for the learner. The learner is suddenly placed in an environment where he/she is isolated from both friends and the instructor, class interaction becomes difficult, and the learner, depending on his/her level of cognitive maturity, must embrace this learning model, which now requires time management and organizational skills. This new learning model now places additional stress on the learner, and the extent to which the learner can overcome these challenges and achieve a successful outcome depends on the learner’s level of motivation. It is this intrinsic drive that will allow learners to overcome their challenges and achieve their course objectives. Learners who are adequately motivated will be able to be engaged in self-regulated activities, without external direction, that help them to achieve their goals [7].

Motivated learners are more inclined to spend more time being engaged with the LMS, and their level of course participation tends to be very high [8, 9]. Those students who neither are adequately motivated nor possess the innate self-regulatory skills required for the e-learning engagement may require more time to complete assignments, which are normally late and of poor quality [10]. Motivated learners are self-driven; they require little or no external encouragement to be fully engaged in the e-learning process. However, those learners who are not adequately motivated view the e-learning environment as a burden, and most times, they struggle to keep pace with the course schedule, which results in late submission of assignments, missed exams, and ultimately poor course performance.

The issue that institutions must now address is what can be done to help motivate online learners. The fact is that institutions tend not to see this as a requirement on their part when considering e-learning instruction. Interestingly, the design of an e-learning course should be viewed as one similar to the budgeting process in an organization. Organizational budgets require the input of line staff in arriving at attainable departmental objectives. This level of involvement from line staff and departmental heads is necessary for ownership of the budget, meaning the workers see the objectives as goals they help to set; hence they are prepared to work toward achieving these goals, as against having unattainable targets imposed on them from the top management. Schools, colleges, and universities need to find creative ways of getting students’ input in the design and structure of online courses. This input from learners would result in them having a pseudo-ownership of their courses, and they would be more motivated to be engaged with the e-learning process.

2.3 Learner prior interaction with online LMS

Most learners encountered the e-learning environment for the first time when schools, colleges, and universities made the rapid transition from face-to-face instruction to online instruction because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is true that most institutions never had the time to carefully consider the impact this hasty transition would have on learners. The COVID-19 pandemic is now behind us, and the evidence shows that institutions have now adopted a strategy to reinforce and embolden their online LMS. This attempt by institutions to strengthen their e-learning architecture is being undertaken without any meaningful consideration (in most cases) as to how successful the learners will be in navigating the e-learning environment.

Learners are expected to quickly navigate the e-learning system and become competent in using the system in minimum time. Problems and challenges arise for learners who have no prior experience with an online system. The challenges that learners who have no prior experience with online systems face can determine to extent to which they are successful in their e-learning engagements. The time taken for an inexperienced learner to navigate the system to a point of comfort normally results in the learner struggling to keep up with the class schedule and with the other students who have prior experience with online learning systems. A frequent complaint advanced by non-traditional students (adult working students who may have been away from the educational system for a few years) is that they experience great difficulty in understanding and navigating the online learning management system.

Some learners simply lack the level of technical skills required to function effectively in an e-learning environment, which makes acceptance of the technology difficult [11, 12]. Institutions therefore need to understand that successful outcome from the learners’ perspective will be dependent to a large extent on learners’ prior experience with online systems and the level of their technical skill. To resolve this problem requires institutional creativity. It is very unlikely that a learner will be offered a course for the first time at the advanced level; most courses or subjects begin with a lower-level introductory course or subject, then move to the intermediate and finally the advanced level. A similar approach could be adopted by institutions, whereby they offer an introductory course on the basics of online learning. This introductory course would be institution specific, based on the LMS in use at the institution. The aim of this course would be to ensure that all learners would understand the LMS before they are required to be engaged with the system in a formal e-learning program. This course could be made available to all learners via a YouTube link. The significant role that learners’ prior experience with online LMS have on the successful outcome of an e-learning engagement cannot be over-emphasized.

3. Instructor characteristics

One of the most important variables in the e-learning success equation is the instructor. Most institutions fail to appreciate the significant role instructors play in determining the success of learners and ultimately the retention of learners in an e-learning engagement. While the list of instructor characteristics may include several items, the following are some key ones that need to be examined:

• Instructor availability to learners

• Level of interaction with learners

• Timely response to learners’ concerns

• The level of experience of the instructor regarding online teaching

• Instructor’s flexibility to accommodate learners’ unique problems such as illness or other emergencies

• Instructor’s attitude toward online learning: does the instructor willingly embrace online teaching or resist it because it is seen as a burden?

The discussion of these factors is critical to an understanding of the role instructor characteristics play in determining successful outcome for online learners.

3.1 Instructor availability and level of interaction

Face-to-face teaching presents little or no problem in terms of instructor interacting with learners and the availability of the instructor. Significant challenges regarding instructor availability and the level of instructor-learner interaction can now be experienced when the face-to-face learning has transitioned to an e-learning environment. Learner–instructor interaction can be defined as the interaction that exists between the instructor and the student, which includes activities such as visiting the instructor during office hours and obtaining help for subject-specific problems [13]. The challenge in an e-learning environment is for the instructor to devise an instructor-learner interaction model, which will ensure that his/her presence will be maintained during the e-learning engagement. Online learning can be lonely and isolated for the learner, and the last thing online learners would want to experience is a feeling of abandonment by their instructors.

Learner abandonment by instructor, which is a state of feeling experienced by the learner when the e-learning instructor is periodically absent from the e-learning engagement and re-appears after a few days or weeks, can negatively affect learners’ connection with the course and ultimately a successful outcome. Each instructor must develop an instructor-learner interaction model for his/her online course. The instructor-learner interaction model must be one that allows the instructor to maintain a high level of visibility and presence during the e-learning engagement. The instructor-learner interaction model should be designed to address the issue of instructor availability to online learners.

The advantage of face-to-face instruction is that the learner can receive immediate on-the-spot response from the instructor, which is not possible in an e-learning environment. Instructors therefore need to understand that their availability to online learners must be underpinned by a timely response to learners’ concerns. The question of what is regarded as timely response is debatable and could be a matter of one’s perception. The benchmark for determining what is a timely response should be viewed against a similar question put forward by a face-to-face learner to the instructor during a class session. For those of us who have spent many years teaching, hardly anyone would agree that a timely response to a face-to-face question would be one where the instructor takes three or more days to provide the learner with an answer or some form of response. The instructor-learner interaction model, when designed properly, should ensure that each learner in the e-learning engagement gets the feeling that he/she is the only learner participating in the e-learning engagement, based on the timely response from the instructor.

Schools, colleges, and universities should assist instructors in developing the instructor-learner interaction model. Training should be provided for instructors who are struggling to maintain acceptable levels of online visibility and interaction with learners. Failure by institutions to recognize the importance of the instructor-learner interaction model will result in dissatisfied and frustrated online learners, and course retention rates will decline.

3.2 Instructor flexibility and attitude toward online learning

The e-learning engagement is a partnership between three parties: the institutions, the instructor, and the learner. Unfortunately, most institutional management focus on only two of the three parties, that is, the institution and the learner, and assume that the instructor is onboard and is a willing participant; this is a dangerous assumption to make. The instructor’s willingness to embrace the e-learning engagement will determine the level of success learners achieve from the e-learning engagement. An instructor who views e-learning as a burden will not be adequately motivated to ensure that learners achieve successful outcome. The instructor who resists the transition to e-learning or participates reluctantly out of a fear of losing his/her job cannot make any meaningful contribution to a positive and rewarding experience of learners in the e-learning engagement.

One of the misconceptions of institutional management is the assumption that all faculty are innately designed or equipped to be involved in the e-learning engagement. This is not correct. There are instructors who would, if given the opportunity, decline to teach in an e-learning environment. These instructors see e-learning as a burden and incongruent with their teaching model; the result is that they participate in the e-learning engagement under duress. Instructors who experience e-learning participation duress (EPD) should be covertly identified and removed from all e-learning engagements. The continued inclusion of instructors suffering from EPD leads to a defective e-learning product and adverse outcome for learners participating in the e-learning engagement.

The online learning community is a complex mix of learners. This mix of learners consists of the traditional learner and the non-traditional learner. It is due to this complex mix of learners that it becomes vitally important for the e-learning instructor to adopt a flexible approach to accommodate the unique problems that the learners may experience during the e-learning engagement. The face-to-face learner has the advantage of speaking directly with the instructor when there is a personal problem. During this face-to-face interaction, the instructor can assess body language and emotions, which are normally considered in arriving at a decision (whether these should be influencing factors or not). Learners engaged in the e-learning environment do not have the opportunity of face-to-face interaction with the instructors; hence, in most cases, they interact by using an email message. It is situations like these that an instructor in the e-learning engagement is required to be flexible in handling learners’ request.

Experience has shown that online learners tend to encounter more problems affecting their study than face-to-face learners. Problems encountered by the online learner are numerous and include issues such as electricity power failure, computer failure, loss of internet service, family-related problems, unexpected illness, and one that I recently encountered, the construction of a building close to the residence of a learner, which prevented the taking of an exam at the specified time due to the excessive noise. It is in instances like these that the flexibility of the online instructor becomes the most important for the successful outcome of the e-learning engagement.

4. Institutional support for learners

The e-learning engagement is a complex interplay between the institution, the instructor, and the learner. It is difficult to determine whose role is more important of the three parties to ensure a successful outcome. One thing is certain, and that is both institutions and instructors directly influence learner outcome. It is my view that institutions are the drivers of the e-learning engagement. Institutions eventually develop and present an e-learning model that includes both instructors and learners. The ultimate product, the e-learning experience that instructors aim to deliver and learners consume, has its genesis with the institutions. Institutions need to understand their role in the e-learning engagement.

It is argued that institutional support is a major factor in the development and implementation of an innovative e-learning system [14]. Institutional support has no end point; once there is an e-learning engagement being offered, the support is required. The preparation and management of the online program is a requirement for institutions to ensure a quality e-learning experience for learners [15]. Institutional support can be observed in many ways. Online learners will experience technical problems, and thus, institutions must have an established and efficient system to respond to the learners’ problems. The e-learning engagement is executed in a tight time schedule; therefore, institutions must have an official response benchmark policy, which is the standard response time for all requests for assistance. This standard response time should be an institutional policy standard, which should be used as one of the performance measures used to evaluate the performance of the institution. Response time should not be based on the availability of technical staff or case load at a particular time. Online learners expect timely and effective institutional support when they are experiencing technical problems. The ease with which learners can get technical support from institutions is vital for successful outcome in an e-learning engagement. Periods of long wait, which at times include days, and the unholy re-routing of calls and emails across departments and personnel are not only frustrating to the e-learner but also an indication that the institution does not have an effective and efficient response model.

Institutional support for e-learners can also be evaluated in terms of the level of training provided by institutions to learners in navigating the LMS. There have been instances where institutions have rolled out upgraded LMS, and after learners have been enrolled into the system, their training sessions are held. Ideally, adequate training in using the system should be provided prior to learners engaging with the system in terms of course delivery. The adequacy of the training will determine the extent to which learners use the LMS. E-learning systems that are perceived by learners as difficult to navigate, which means they have a low ease-of-use index, will be a deterrent to successful outcome for learners engaged in the e-learning environment. In a similar way that institutions need to have an official response mode to address learner request for technical assistance, institutions need to have a structured mechanism designed to provide continuous training for learners engaged in the e-learning environment and potential learners who may subsequently become engaged in the e-learning environment. The opportunity for learners to access continuous technical training is important because there are always new learners entering the e-learning environment at different times during the academic year. One of the ways in which institutions can ensure that access to continuous training is available to all learners, both current and potential, is to provide training videos on their institutions’ websites.

The importance of effective, efficient, and continuous institutional support for learners engaged in the e-learning environment cannot be over-emphasized. Schools, colleges, and universities need to understand that institutional support has a starting point but no end point. Once an e-learning engagement has started, institutions must provide the required resources to maintain a robust support architecture for online learners. Any failure by institutions in proving this level of support will certainly negatively affect the outcome for online learners.

5. Course structure and outline

The structure of the online course has unfortunately received very little attention as a significant factor in determining the level of success e-learners achieve on the e-learning engagement. Individual course structure and outline are a responsibility of the instructor. Instructors have the leverage to structure their courses as they see fit. However, that two- or three-page course outline can determine how successful e-learners will be on the e-learning engagement. Careful thought and planning must be used in developing a good course outline to assist e-learners to achieve their objectives.

Having taught on several e-learning engagements, I have observed that one of the things learners appreciate in a course outline is the dates for all exams and assignments being made available at the start of the course. E-learners use the course outline as a planning tool, as a blueprint to help them organize their personal responsibilities, both job and family obligations, to ensure successful outcome on the e-learning engagement. It is important that instructors understand that not all e-learners are the typical high school students. Most e-learners are non-traditional students with family and job responsibilities; thus, a course outline with exam and assignment dates given at the start of the course allows learners to make the required planning from their end to accommodate these course requirements. Instructors should avoid course outlines that include exams and assignments but no due dates. This approach not only is ineffective but also presents serious problems for learners, especially the non-traditional learners who must juggle both family responsibilities and job commitments. A frequent complaint from non-traditional students is that there are instructors who would make an announcement that there will be an assignment at the end of the week or an exam will be administered in few days. Instructors who adopt this approach, that is, course outline with no exam/assignment due date at the start, should be aware that it presents unnecessary stress for the e-learner and could affect the successful outcome from the e-learning engagement.

Two other course structure-related issues are diversity in assessment and the consistency in the course layout. The layout of the course on the e-learning platform happens to be one of those issues that have not gained much attention, and it is difficult to understand why. The course layout should be consistent as the learner moves from module to module. It should not be that each module or topic has a different layout; this will result in confusion for the learners, especially those for whom the ease-of-use index for the LMS is very low. While it is the norm for instructors to determine their course structure and layout, it may be advisable for the institutions to provide a general oversight as a means of ensuring that instructors adopt a structure that is more friendly for learners.

The e-learning environment is not perfect; institutions try as much as possible to take the face-to-face experience and replicate it via the use of technology to reach multiple learners in remote locations. The successful outcome of the e-learning engagement will be influenced by the assessment method and the types of assessment that the instructor employs. Given the inherent limitations of e-learning, it is recommended that instructors plan their course assessment method carefully. The general recommendation is that there should be diversity in the assessment structure. The course structure should give learners the opportunity to be assessed using a varying combination of assessment types or formats. Learners should not be assessed using a single method because it is convenient for instructors, or the method allows for ease of grading. A mix of assessment methods should be considered by instructors, which would present learners with the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of the material in different ways. The performance of learners engaged in e-learning normally improves when they are given the option to respond to questions in different ways, as against being restricted to communicate their understanding of the course material by using a single method.

The final area critical to achieving successful outcome for online learners is building class community among the learners. Most instructors tend to ignore class community.

6. Creating a class community

The e-learning environment can be a lonely and isolating engagement. Learners attend face-to-face classes not only for the academic information from instructors but also for the in-class interaction with their peers. Without this normal social interaction among learners, the learning process can be negatively affected. It is well documented that one of the major concerns with the e-learning engagement is the feeling of isolation by students, which results in higher dropout rates compared with face-to-face instruction [16]. Creating a class community among e-learners is a very important mechanism, which instructors need to ensure is present in their courses.

The class community is an interacting learning model, where there is constant two-way communication between learners and learners and between instructors and learners. The main objective of the class community is to prevent learners from feeling isolated; in addition, the class community among learners also serves as a means of social network for learners. Online learners can use the class community as a means of creating study groups, where learners are able to meet and discuss course-related material online.

The challenge that instructors face is: how to design their online courses to create an effective class community? Creating a class community involves any activity that allows learners to interact or communicate with each other. Instructors can ask students to introduce themselves at the start of the course and share their areas of interest such as sports or other hobbies. The aim should be to get the students to begin talking, so that no one thinks he or she is the only person taking the course. As the course progresses, instructors can introduce discussion questions. One of the mistakes instructors make is using discussion questions as a means of assessment; this should not necessarily be the case. Remember, the aim of the class community is to allow the learners to experience the feeling of being part of a close social group and prevent the feeling of isolation, which is a real problem for e-learners [17, 18, 19, 20]. Therefore, a discussion question could be one that asks learners to give their views on a typical issue being discussed in the public domain. The format of the discussion should be one where students can give rebuttals to comments made by their peers. Instructors could use this approach to award extra points (and we all know how students like extra points) for those who participate.

Structuring the online course to ensure that it creates a class community requires creativity on the part of instructors. The problem with an effective class community model is that the “community feeling” by online learners must be sustained or experienced for the duration of the e-learning engagement. Class community should not be present at the beginning of the course and should taper off by the middle of the course. Instructors should always encourage learners to form study groups, as one way of ensuring that the class community remains for the duration of the course. Institutional support is useful in helping inexperienced instructors who have no prior involvement in online teaching, to develop a class community interaction model. It is an unfortunate assumption of most institutions that the e-learning instructor is adept in all aspects of e-learning and all that is required is a supercharged LMS to deliver course content. Building an e-learning class community remains a very important factor in determining the success of learners engaged in online learning.

7. Conclusion

E-learning is here to stay. The pre-COVID-19 teaching and learning process has undergone a seismic shift in methodology, with e-learning becoming a main staple of the new teaching/learning model. The quicker we all embrace the inevitability of e-learning, the better it will be for all parties involved in the e-learning engagement, namely, the institutions, the instructors, and the learners.

This chapter has presented an overview of the key factors that determine a successful outcome for learners who are engaged in the e-learning environment. It is important that institutions understand their role in helping to shape the e-learning environment. Institutional responsibility extends far beyond the provision of robust, advanced learning management systems. Instructors also have a critical role to play in ensuring that the e-learning engagement is successful. Instructors are the agents of the institutions, interacting with the online learners, and thus, their effectiveness will determine the success of the institutions in attracting and retaining online students. Learners should also understand their responsibilities in helping to ensure that the e-learning engagement provides the successful outcome they are expecting. It is my hope that this chapter will provide a practical framework for all parties engaged in the e-learning environment, to better understand their role and responsibilities in creating a new paradigm for success in e-learning as we all move forward.