Printer Friendly

Comparison of levels of satisfaction with distance education and on-campus programs.

Structured Abstract: Introduction: The study compared the level of satisfaction of 101 graduates with a distance education versus an on-campus program. Methods: A self-administered anonymous survey was used to gather information about satisfaction from the recent graduates of a university personnel preparation program in visual impairments (response rate = 57.7%). The survey measured graduates' satisfaction with their programs in six subareas: (1) faculty-student interaction, (2) student-student interaction, (3) fairness of evaluations, (4) organization of courses, (5) adequacy of the difficulty of courses, and (6) practicum or internship experience. Results: The program modality was not a significant predictor of overall satisfaction with a program once we controlled for the confounding variables, including age, program area, and presence of visual impairments (-.277 -.226, 95% CI). However, it was a significant independent predictor of faculty-student interaction (-.616 - -.012, 95% CI) and student-student interaction (-.875 - -.073, 95% CI). Discussion: There was no significant difference in the two groups of graduates' overall satisfaction with the program, but although the findings are preliminary in nature, the graduates from the on-campus program indicated a higher level of faculty-student and student-student interactions. Implications for practitioners: Given the findings of this study, prospective students who are interested in university personnel preparation programs in visual impairments may consider distance education programs an option that may satisfy them. Similarly, these programs may consider continuing their distance education programs as a satisfactory option for many students. However, the lower level of faculty-student and student-student interactions perceived by the distance education graduates may suggest a need to ensure a mechanism that facilitates such interactions more effectively.

**********

Distance education with a variety of instructional designs (correspondence courses, broadcasting courses via radio or television, and so forth) has been used for many decades by students in rural areas and those who cannot afford to leave their jobs, homes, or families (Howard, Ault, Knowlton, & Swall, 1992; Ludlow & Lombardi, 1992). With the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and a series of technological innovations such as online discussion boards, audio and video conferencing, and streaming videos, an increasing body of literature in higher education has discussed the need to use distance education for personnel preparation in a wide variety of curricular areas (Bullock, Gable, & Mohr, 2008; Gallagher & McCormick, 1999; McDonnell et al., 2011).

The academic performance of traditional and distance education students has been examined in a number of studies. Comparisons of the two instructional models have produced mixed results. Some studies have indicated that the students in distance education programs performed better academically than did those in traditional face-to-face programs (Iverson, Colky, & Cyboran, 2005; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000; Williams, 2006), while others have reported no significant difference in the academic performance of the two groups of students (Haynes & Dillon, 1992; McDonnell et al., 2011; Woo & Kimmick, 2000). With respect to satisfaction, the majority of the studies reported that there was no significant difference in satisfaction between students in traditional and distance education programs (Abdous & Yen, 2010; Skylar et al., 2005; Thurmond, Wambach, & Connors, 2002).

The shortage of professionals who are trained to meet the needs of individuals with visual impairments (Kirchner & Diament, 1999), coupled with the capability of distance education to reach students in broader geographic areas (Howard et al., 1992; Ludlow & Lombardi, 1992), has spurred university personnel preparation programs in visual impairments to offer online and other types of distance education courses since the late 1990s (DeMario & Heinze, 2001). The surveys of these personnel preparation programs reported that more than 100 programs offered some form of distance education in 2008 and used several different models of distance education as well as a variety of online tools (Ambrose-Zaken & Bozeman, 2010; Silberman, Ambrose-Zaken, Corn, & Trief, 2004). For example, although most of the distance education programs continued to require on-campus sessions during the summer semester, some programs used online learning platforms simply to supplement the instruction that was provided mainly on campus. In addition, these programs used a wide array of distance education tools, including WebCT, streaming video, EDNET, personal webcams, and e-mail.

A few studies have attempted to document the effectiveness of distance education in personnel preparation programs in visual impairments. Koenig and Robinson (2001) reported that an online braille course allowed for high-quality instruction in braille code skills when the students had adequate technology and independent learning skills. Ajuwon and Craig (2007) stated that the self-assessed competencies of eight participants who took the courses online (except for the "blindfold course," which was taken face to face) showed significant gains in key competencies for teaching children with visual impairments and orientation and mobility (O&M). In addition, McLinden, McCall, Hinton, and Weston (2010) reported that even though few of the participants had prior experience using WebCT or a similar online learning platform, most of them found WebCT's discussion board adequate for completing case scenario activities that require specific role-playing.

We found only one published study that directly compared the perceptions (quality of course experiences) between distance education and traditional classroom students who were enrolled in personnel preparation programs in visual impairments. Trief, Decker, and Ryan (2004) examined differences in the level of satisfaction between the on-site students at a main university campus and those who took the same courses on O&M and visual impairments via video teleconferencing. Within the sample of 24 students, 67% of the students who took the courses via video teleconferencing reported technical difficulties as an interfering factor in their learning, while none of the on-site students did. However, a similar percentage of students (83% for the on-site courses and 75% for teleconferencing) reported that they had the opportunity to participate in discussions as much as they wanted.

Although Trief et al.'s (2004) study allowed us to get a glimpse of how satisfied distance education students were compared to traditional on-campus students, it was a purely descriptive study with no inference to the corresponding population. Furthermore, in the absence of controls for possible confounding variables, such as students' characteristics, the findings of Trief et al. (2004) should be considered tentative. Given such a paucity of research on students' level of satisfaction with distance education programs compared to their level of satisfaction with traditional on-campus programs in visual impairments, the study presented here investigated whether there is a difference in the level of satisfaction between the graduates of a distance education program and those of a traditional on-campus program. Additional efforts were made to control for some of the possible confounding variables to identify independent predictors of satisfaction with the programs.

Method

PARTICIPANTS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMS

As part of a program assessment effort by Western Michigan University's (WMU) Department of Blindness and Low Vision Studies, questionnaires (called the Graduate Survey) with postage-paid return envelopes were mailed to the individuals who graduated from one of the programs offered by the department between the fall of 2004 and the summer of 2009. All the surveys were mailed in print format initially, but they were also provided in an alternative format on request. The survey participants included individuals who graduated from the on-campus program, as well as those who graduated from the distance education program. The on-campus students took all the courses face to face, while the distance education students took the majority of the courses online (approximately 70% of the required credit hours) but took hands-on courses (such as blindfold courses and the low vision lab) face to face during one or two intensive six-week on-campus summer sessions.

Blackboard Vista was the online learning platform used in all the online courses. Recorded lectures were embedded in Blackboard Vista as streaming videos or provided to the students as DVDs. Although there was a small synchronous component (such as a chat room), the platform was designed for the predominantly asynchronous delivery of information. The majority of the online courses included at least two conference calls with the students during the semester, but the frequency of such calls varied widely from course to course. Although Blackboard Vista was available in some courses, its use by the on-campus students was minimal. The same instructors who taught the on-campus courses also taught the corresponding distance education courses, albeit with occasional exceptions.

Of the 241 surveys that were mailed, 139 were returned; 101 of these surveys were complete and were used for analyses (a response rate of 57.7%, according to the standard definitions by American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2009). The response rate for the distance education graduates was 60.7%, while that for the on-campus graduates was 53.5%. In addition, recent graduates (2007-09) responded at a higher rate (62.4%) than did those who graduated earlier (52.3%). The study was approved by the university's Human Subjects Institutional Review Board.

MEASURES

The survey included questions on the general program, the core program, and the course of study, along with some demographic questions. Only the responses to the relevant questions on the general program were examined in this study. The questionnaire items were developed and pilot-tested on the basis of the existing standardized instruments on higher education instructional and program evaluations (Cashin, 1992; Centra, 1993).

Demographic information, including age, gender, and the presence of a disability (none, visual, other disability), was collected. The questionnaire also asked (1) whether the participant was enrolled in an on-campus or distance education program, (2) whether the participant was employed after graduation in a position that provided service in the program area for which he or she was most recently prepared (yes or no), and (3) the name of the program that the participant most recently completed at WMU (O&M for Children, Teaching Children with Visual Impairments, a dual concentration in O&M and Teaching Children with Visual Impairments, O&M for Adults and Vision Rehabilitation Therapy, a dual concentration in Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling, and other). These program areas were grouped into the following three categories for analyses on the basis of the similarities and differences in their courses: (1) O&M for Children or Teaching Children with Visual Impairments or both, (2) Rehabilitation Counseling or Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling, and (3) O&M for Adults.

The participants' satisfaction with the program was assessed in six main areas: (1) faculty-student interaction, (2) student-student interaction, (3) organization of the courses, (4) students' performance evaluation, (5) difficulty of the courses, and (6) practicum or internship experience. A Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used for the assessment, from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

The participants' perception of faculty-student interaction was measured by the responses to the following two statements: "There was sufficient interaction between faculty and students" and "I was able to ask questions and receive answers from faculty members." In addition, responses to the following two statements were used to assess the participants' perception of student-student interaction: "There was sufficient interaction between students" and "There were effective mechanisms to facilitate interaction with other students."

Answers to the following three statements were used to assess how well the courses were organized and delivered: "Faculty members were well organized in the delivery of their courses," "Faculty members were well prepared for their courses," and "The faculty exhibited excellent scholarly and professional standards." Data on the fairness of evaluations were collected through the responses to the following two questionnaire items: "I was evaluated fairly" and "The evaluation tools were fair."

Responses to the following two statements were used to assess the difficulty of the courses: "The program was intellectually stimulating" and "The program was adequately challenging." Finally, the perceived quality of the practicum or internship experience was measured by the answers to the following three statements: "The internship provided new learning experiences," "The variety of assignments and activities on internship was instrumental in helping with preparation for practice," and "Local supervision on the internship was helpful."

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Frequencies were run on the participants' overall level of satisfaction as well as the questionnaire's six subareas. Once we conducted confirmatory analyses to test the study's primary hypotheses on the overall level of satisfaction, we performed exploratory analyses to examine the scores in the six subareas. We reported uncorrected p values for the results of the exploratory analyses in deference to their widespread use in such analyses in the social sciences. Therefore, the results of our exploratory analyses should be interpreted as preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential interpretation (Schochet, 2008).

Following conventional practice in the social sciences, we treated composite Likert scale scores as interval scale data, although the scores were actually measured on the ordinal scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Our sample size, coupled with the central limit theorem, allowed us to analyze the data using parametric procedures (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Independent-measures t tests were conducted for preliminary comparisons of satisfaction between the distance education and the on-campus graduates. Subsequently, multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of satisfaction with the programs. The model was built with the forced entry method. All the variables that were significantly associated with program satisfaction from the bivariate analysis (p <. 10) were first included, and then the nonsignificant variables were removed in backwards fashion, albeit with exceptions based on their potential significance in assessing the programs. The a priori statistical power of the primary t test was .67 when a medium effect size (d = .5) was assumed (Cohen, 1988; Erdfelder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). The a priori statistical power of the primary multiple regression procedure was .80 when a medium effect size and six predictors in the final model were assumed (Green, 1991). All the statistical analyses, except for the power analyses (G * Power version 3.0.10), were conducted with SPSS version 16.0.

Results

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 101 graduates, 88% of whom were female. The participants ranged in age from 23 to 62 (median = 33.0). Of the 101 participants, 12% had visual impairments, 5% had other disabilities, and the rest had no disabilities. In addition, 63% obtained their degrees via distance education, while the rest completed their degrees on campus. All but 9 participants were employed in a position that provided service in the program area for which they were most recently prepared. The most recently completed degrees of the participants were as follows: O&M for Children (18%), Teaching Children with Visual Impairments (14%), a dual degree in O&M for Children and Teaching Children With Visual Impairments (14%), O&M for Adults (18%), Vision Rehabilitation Therapy (27%), a dual degree in Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling (4%), and other (1%).

COMPARISON OF PROGRAM MODALITIES

As is shown in Table 1, the overall satisfaction score was significantly higher for the participants who graduated from the on-campus program (M = 4.51, SD = .48) than for those who graduated from the distance education program (M = 4.25, SD = .49), t(99) = 2.551, p = .012. The subsequent exploratory analyses showed that the on-campus graduates rated their programs significantly higher than did the distance education graduates in the following three subareas: (1) faculty-student interaction: on-campus group, M = 4.72, SD = .47; distance education group, M = 4.24, SD = .62, t(99) = 4.052, p < .001; (2) student-student interaction: on-campus group, M = 4.53, SD = .54; distance education group, M = 3.91, SD = .86, t(99) = 4.445, p < .001; and (3) practicum or internship experience: on-campus group, M = 4.64, SD = .49; distance education group, M = 4.26, SD = .77, t(99) = 3.052, p = .003. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the fairness of evaluations (p = .150), organization of the courses (p = .981), and adequacy of the difficulty of the courses (p = .779).

REGRESSION ANALYSES

To control for possible confounding variables, we conducted linear multiple regression analyses. For each analysis, outliers were first identified (standardized residual values greater than 2); then the Cook's statistic and standardized DFBeta values were checked to determine whether there were unduly influential cases. In addition, VIF values for all the predictors were checked to determine whether the level of multicolinearity between the predictors was acceptable. No unduly influential cases or unacceptable level of multicolinearity were observed in any of the linear multiple regression models that we constructed.

As is shown in Table 2, the program modality did not turn out to be a significant predictor of overall satisfaction with the program once we controlled for the confounding variables, including age, program area, and the presence of visual impairments (-.277 - .226, 95% CI). Age was a significant independent predictor of overall satisfaction. That is, the rating of the program was lowered by .01 for each year of a graduate's age (-.020 - -.001, 95% CI). A graduate's program area was also a significant independent predictor of the outcome. Specifically, the O&M for Children-Teaching Children with Visual Impairments group rated the program .35 lower than did the O&M for Adults group (-.621 - -.082, 95% CI).

We subsequently conducted exploratory regression analyses for each subarea of overall satisfaction with the program. The program modality turned out to be a significant independent predictor for faculty-student interaction (p = .042) and student-student interaction (p = .021) (see Tables 3 and 4). However, it was not a significant independent predictor for the remaining composite areas, including the fairness of evaluations (p = .880), organization of the courses (p = .192), adequacy of the difficulty of courses (p = .092), and the practicum or internship experience (p = .833).

Discussion

We found no significant difference in the overall level of satisfaction between the on-campus and distance education graduates once we controlled for some of the confounding variables--age, program area, and presence of a visual impairment. However, although the results are preliminary in nature, even after we controlled for these confounding variables, the individuals who graduated from the on-campus program rated the levels of interaction (faculty-student and student-student) significantly higher than did those who graduated from the distance education program.

INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS

Our finding of no significant difference in the overall level of satisfaction between the graduates from the on-campus program and those from the distance education program is consistent with the findings of similar previous studies across different disciplines (Abdous & Yen, 2010; Skylar et al., 2005; Thurmond et al., 2002). Yet, our secondary finding of a higher level of perceived interaction by the on-campus graduates than the distance education graduates may be a result of less frequent face-to-face interactions experienced by the distance education students. In other words, e-mail communications and online discussions via Blackboard may not have been perceived to be as helpful as face-to-face interactions. We obtained this result even though all the distance education students attended one or two six-week summer sessions held on campus, which provided an opportunity for them to interact with the faculty and other students in person. One possible hypothesis for this result is that ongoing in-person contact throughout a student's program is valued more than the limited time that distance education students spend face to face during their six-week campus experience.

Contrary to anecdotal evidence, the presence of a visual impairment was a significant independent predictor of neither the overall level of satisfaction nor any of its composite area ratings. Although this study was not designed to determine why no significant difference was obtained in this regard, it is possible that the faculty and staff were familiar with the accommodations needed by students who are visually impaired and made adequate efforts to accommodate their needs. It was also interesting to note the significantly lower satisfaction ratings by the older students than by the younger students even after we controlled for the confounding variables. This finding is not consistent with the results of some of the previous surveys on this topic (British Columbia Outcomes Working Group, 2003; McDowell Group, Inc., 2009; Strayhom, 2011). One of the possible explanations may be the lifestyle of younger students, who tend to incorporate computer and Internet-related technologies extensively into their everyday lives and who were more comfortable with the technologies used for online learning than their older counterparts. It is also possible that older students tend to have more responsibilities (jobs and families), which often result in less time available for studying and consequent cramming-induced stress.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Given the findings of this study, prospective students who are interested in university personnel preparation programs in visual impairments may consider distance education programs as an option that may satisfy them, particularly if they are already working in a related field. Similarly, these programs may consider continuing their distance education programs as a satisfactory option for many students. However, the lower level of faculty-student and student-student interactions perceived by the distance education graduates may suggest the need to ensure a mechanism that facilitates such interactions more effectively. Although purely anecdotal, the well-planned incorporation of rapidly advanced synchronous communication technologies, such as web conferencing tools (like Adobe Connect and Elluminate) may promote easier and more effective faculty-student and student-student interactions in many online courses.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

To our knowledge, this study was the first attempt to compare the level of satisfaction of on-campus and distance education modalities in university personnel preparation programs in visual impairments with an effort to control for some of the possible confounding variables. One of the limitations of the study is related to the use of the survey instrument that had not been systematically validated. Although the survey items were developed on the basis of the existing standardized instruments, the survey instrument used in this study had not been validated against a gold standard. Another limitation of the study was the failure to include some of the additional predictor variables that may be closely related to graduates' level of satisfaction with their programs, including the level of proficiency in computer technology, previous work experience, and previous experience with online courses. In addition, the generalizability of the findings may be limited because the sample consisted of the graduates of a single university. In particular, the findings may not generalize to other programs that use different distance education models and technologies. Last, although this study's overall response rate of 57.7% is generally considered to be acceptable for mail surveys in the social sciences (Babbie, 1995), a possible bias because of the less-than-desired response rate might have affected the results.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The inclusion of additional variables related to satisfaction with the programs may allow us to identify independent predictors of such satisfaction with more confidence. In addition, an examination of the scores on the certification examination and pass rates may provide an objective measure of the effectiveness of the programs. Furthermore, identifying specific courses that are particularly unsatisfactory may help university personnel preparation programs address the underlying issues in those courses. Last, to determine whether university personnel preparation programs have succeeded in their goal of producing qualified teachers and rehabilitation professionals in the field of visual impairments, it is necessary to investigate how the graduates' employers rate the graduates with respect to their job preparedness.

[check] EARN CEUs ONLINE by answering questions on this article. For more information, visit: <http://jvib.org/CEUs>.

References

Abdous, M., & Yen, C. (2010). A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 248-257.

Ajuwon, P. M., & Craig, C. J. (2007). Distance education in the preparation of teachers of the visually impaired and orientation and mobility specialists: Profile of a new training paradigm. RE:view, 39, 3-14. Ambrose-Zaken, G., & Bozeman, L. (2010).

Profile of personnel preparation programs in visual impairment and their faculty. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 148-169.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Retrieved from Babbie, E. R. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

British Columbia Outcomes Working Group. (2003, Autumn). Understanding student satisfaction. BC College & Institute Student Outcomes. Retrieved from http://admin. selkirk.bc.ca/research/documents/issue_satisfaction%5B1%5D.pdf

Bullock, L. M., Gable, R. A., & Mohr, J. D. (2008). Technology-mediated instruction in distance education and teacher preparation in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31, 229-242.

Cashin, W. E. (1992). Student ratings: The need for comparative data. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development, 12, 1-6.

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DeMario, N. C., & Heinze, T. (2001). The status of distance education in personnel preparation programs in visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 525-532.

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). Gpower: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(1), 1-11.

Gallagher, P. A., & McCormick, K. (1999). Student satisfaction with two-way interactive distance learning for delivery of early childhood special education coursework. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14, 32-47.

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioural Research, 26, 499-510.

Haynes, K. J., & Dillon, C. (1992). Distance education: Learning outcomes, interaction, and attitudes. Journal of Education for Library and Information Studies, 33, 32-42.

Howard, S. W., Ault, M. M., Knowlton, H. E., & Swall, R. A. (1992). Teacher education and special education. Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 15, 275-283.

Iverson, K. M., Colky, D. L., & Cyboran, V. L. (2005). E-learning takes the lead: An empirical investigation of learner differences in online and classroom delivery. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18, 5-18.

Kirchner, C., & Diament, S. (1999). Estimates of the number of visually impaired students, their teachers, and orientation and mobility specialists: Part 1. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93, 600-606.

Koenig, A. J., & Robinson, M. C. (2001). Online instruction in braille code skills for preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 543-557.

Ludlow, B. L., & Lombardi, T. P. (1992). Special education in the year 2000: Current trends and future developments. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 147-162.

McDonnell, J., Jameson, J. M., Riesen, T., Polychronis, S., Crocket, M. A., & Brown, B. E. (2011). Comparison of on-campus and distance teacher education programs in severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 106-118.

McDowell Group, Inc. (2009). University of Alaska Southeast Student Retention Study. Retrieved from http://www.uas. alaska.edu/student_services/docs/retentionstudy-mcDowell09.pdf

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2010). Developing authentic online problem-based learning case scenarios for teachers of students with visual impairments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 30-42.

Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 15-35.

Schochet, P. Z. (2008). Technical methods report: Guidelines for multiple testing in impact evaluations (NCEE 2008-4018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Silberman, R. K., Ambrose-Zaken, G., Corn, A. L., & Trief, E. (2004). Profile of personnel preparation programs in visual impairments and their faculty: A status report. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 741-756.

Skylar, A. A., Higgins, K., Boone, R., Jones, P., Pierce, T., & Gelfer, J. (2005). Distance education: An exploration of alternative methods and types of instructional media in teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20, 25-33.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Traits, commitments, and college satisfaction among black American community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35, 437-453.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., & Connors, H. R. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169-189.

Trief, E., Decker, L. M., & Ryan, D. J. (2004). Student satisfaction: A distance learning model for training teachers of students with visual impairments in New York State. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 367-372.

Williams, S. L. (2006). The effectiveness of distance education in allied health science programs: A meta-analysis of outcomes. American Journal of Distance Education, 20, 127-141.

Woo, M. A., & Kimmick, J. (2000), Comparison of Internet versus lecture instructional methods for teaching nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16, 132-139.

Dae Shik Kim, Ph.D., assistant professor, Department of Blindness and Low Vision Studies, Western Michigan University, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5218; e-mail: <dae.kim@wmich.edu>. Helen Lee, Ed.D., assistant professor, Department of Blindness and Low Vision Studies, Western Michigan University; e-mail: <helen.lee@wmich.edu>. Annette Skellenger, Ed.D., itinerant teacher of students with visual impairments and O&M specialist, Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind, P.O. Box 85000, Tucson, AZ 85754; e-mail: <annette.skellenger@gmail.com>.
Table 1
Program satisfaction measured by composite area scores for graduates
of the distance education and on-campus programs (N = 101).

                                  On-            Distance
                                 campus          education
                                 program         program
                                 (n = 37)        (n = 64)

Areas of satisfaction              M      SD       M      SD

Faculty-student interaction      4.72    .47     4.24    .62
Student-student interaction      4.53    .54     3.91    .86
Fairness of evaluation           4.50    .60     4.33    .56
Organization of courses          4.28    .64     4.28    .67
Adequacy of the difficulty of
  the courses                    4.44    .78     4.45    .58
Practicum or internship
  experience                     4.64    .49     4.26    .77
Overall satisfaction with the
  program                        4.51    .48     4.25    .49

                                 Effect
                                  size

Areas of satisfaction              d          p

Faculty-student interaction      .84      <.001 (a)
Student-student interaction      .82      <.001 (a)
Fairness of evaluation           .30      .150 (a)
Organization of courses          .00      .981 (a)
Adequacy of the difficulty of
  the courses                    .02      .779 (a)
Practicum or internship
  experience                     .56      .003 (a)
Overall satisfaction with the
  program                        .53      0.012

Note. Independent t tests were conducted to compare the means
for the two groups.

(a) Exploratory analyses were performed to compare six subarea scores
(uncorrected p values were re ported). Therefore, the results of the
exploratory analyses should be interpreted as preliminary and are not
appropriate for inferential interpretation.

Table 2
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with overall
satisfaction with the programs (N = 101).

Variables                                B       SE B    [beta]

Constant                               4.423     .357
Age                                    -.011     .005     -.240
Presence of a visual impairment (a)    -.074     .156     -.049
Distance education modality (b)        -.025     .127      .024
Employed in program area (c)            .313     .168      .178
VRT/RC program (d)                     -.210     .142     -.195
OMC/TCVI program (d)                   -.351     .136     -.349

                                      CI (95%)

Variables                              Lower      Upper

Constant                                3.714     5.132
Age                                     -.020     -.001
Presence of a visual impairment (a)     -.384      .236
Distance education modality (b)         -.277      .226
Employed in program area (c)            -.020      .645
VRT/RC program (d)                      -.493      .072
OMC/TCVI program (d)                    -.621     -.082

Note: [R.sup.2] = .187 (adjusted [R.sup.2] = .136), F (6, 94) = 3.613
(p = .003), Durban-Watson = 2.189. VRT and RC = Vision Rehabilitation
Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC and TCVI = O&M for Children
and Teaching Children with Visual Impairments. All the variables shown
in the table are included in the final model.

(a) The reference group is the graduates with typical vision.

(b) The reference group is those who graduated from the on-campus
program.

(c) The reference group is those who were not employed in the
program area.

(d) The reference group is those who graduated from the O&M for
Adults program.

Table 3
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with perceived
faculty-student interactions (N = 101).

Variables                               B      SE B    [beta]

Constant                               5.029   .429
Age                                    -.007   .006    -.126
Presence of a visual impairment (a)     .091   .188     .050
Distance education modality (b)        -.314   .152    -.250
Employed in program area (c)            .193   .201     .091
VRT/RC program (d)                     -.313   .171    -.240
OMC/TCVI program (d)                   -.288   .163    -.237

                                           CI (95%)

Variables                             Lower    Upper

Constant                              4.177    5.881
Age                                   -.018     .005
Presence of a visual impairment (a)   -.282     .463
Distance education modality (b)       -.616    -.012
Employed in program area (c)          -.207     .593
VRT/RC program (d)                    -.652     .027
OMC/TCVI program (d)                  -.611     .036

Note: [R.sup.2] = .195 (adjusted [R.sup.2] = .143), F (6, 94) = 3.787
(p = .002), Durban-Watson = 2.239. Exploratory analyses were conducted
for each subarea of overall satisfaction with the program, including
faculty-student interaction (uncorrected confidence intervals were
reported). Therefore, the results of these exploratory analyses should
be interpreted as preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential
interpre tation. VRT and RC = Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and
Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC and TCVI - O&M for Children and
Teaching Children with Visual Impairments. All the variables shown in
the table are included in the final model.

(a) The reference group is the graduates with typical vision.

(b) The reference group is those who graduated from the on-campus
program.

(c) The reference group is those who were not employed in the program.

(d) The reference group is those who graduated from the O&M for Adults
program.

Table 4
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with perceived
student-student interactions (N--101).

Variables                               B      SE B      R

Constant                              4.995    .570
Age                                   -.015    .008    -.210
Presence of visual impairment (a)     -.365    .249    -.151
Distance education modality (b)       -.474    .202    -.282
Employed in program area (c)           .286    .267     .100
VRT/RC program (d)                    -.038    .227    -.022
OMC/TCVI program (d)                  -.027    .216    -.017

                                           CI (95%)
Variables                             Lower    Upper

Constant                              3.864   6.126
Age                                   -.030    .001
Presence of visual impairment (a)     -.859    .130
Distance education modality (b)       -.875   -.073
Employed in program area (c)          -.245    .817
VRT/RC program (d)                    -.488    .413
OMC/TCVI program (d)                  -.457    .403

Note. [R.sup.2] = .209 (adjusted [R.sup.2] = .158), F (6, 94) = 4.130
(p = .001), Durban-Watson = 2.137. Exploratory analyses were conducted
for each subarea of overall program satisfaction, including
student-student interaction (uncorrected confidence intervals were
reported). Therefore, the results of these exploratory analyses should
be interpreted as preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential
interpretation. VRT/RC = Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and
Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC/TCVI - O&M for Children and Teaching
Children with Visual Impairments. All the variables shown in the table
are included in the final model.

(a) The reference group is the graduates with typical vision.

(b) The reference group is those who graduated from the on-campus
program.

(c) The reference group is those who were not employed in the program.

(d) The reference group is those who graduated from the O&M for Adults
program.
COPYRIGHT 2012 American Foundation for the Blind
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:CEU Article
Author:Kim, Dae Shik; Lee, Helen; Skellenger, Annette
Publication:Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness
Article Type:Survey
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:May 1, 2012
Words:5680
Previous Article:Barriers to low vision rehabilitation: a qualitative approach.
Next Article:Personality characteristics of South Korean students with visual impairments using the Myers-Briggs type indicator.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters