University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Beliefs and behaviors of online and face-to-face students: evaluating differences in collaboration, help‐seeking, and ethics

(USC Thesis Other)

Beliefs and behaviors of online and face-to-face students: evaluating differences in collaboration, help‐seeking, and ethics

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: EVALUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS

Beliefs and Behaviors of Online and Face-to-Face students: Evaluating differences in
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics

by

Nicole Perrine

_______________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2015

Copyright 2015 Nicole Perrine

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 2

Table of Contents

Abstract 4
Chapter One: Introduction 6
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 9
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 10
Methodology 10
Definition of Terms 10
Organization of the Study 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 13
History of Online Education 13
Types of Online Learning 15
Effective Online Learning 16
Benefits of Online Education 17
Challenges of Online Education 19
Educational Quality 19
Student Learning and Retention 20
Academic Dishonesty 20
Collaboration 21
Types of Collaboration 21
Importance of Collaboration 22
Measuring Collaboration 24
Help-Seeking 26
Importance of Help-Seeking 27
Factors that Influence Help Seeking 27
Measuring Help-Seeking 29
Student Ethical Beliefs and Behaviors 29
Business Students and Ethics 30
Teaching Ethics 32
Measuring Ethical Beliefs and Behaviors 32
Conclusion 34
Chapter Three: Methods 36
Research Questions 36
Research Design 36
Population and Sample 37
Instrumentation 37
Demographic Questions 38
Voluntary peer Collaboration 40
Beliefs 40
Frequency 40
Mode of Contact 41
Help-Seeking 41
Beliefs 41
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 3

Formal versus Informal Help Seeing 41
Frequency 42
Mode of Contact 42
Student Ethics 42
Beliefs 42
Behaviors 43
Procedure and Data Collection 43
Data Analysis 43
Chapter 4: Results 45
Intercorrelations 46
Research Question 1 47
Research Question 2 47
Research Question 3 49
Summary 49
Chapter 5: Discussion 50
Help-Seeking 50
Collaboration 52
Voluntary peer collaboration frequency 52
Use of social media 53
Use of phone and text messaging 54
Ethics 55
Limitations 56
Implications 58
Recommendations for practitioners and other stakeholders 58
Recommendations for further research 60
Conclusions 62
References 64
Appendix A 77

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 4

Abstract
Online education has become a prevalent way for students to complete courses or entire
degrees in higher education. The growth rate of students taking online courses continues
to grow each year and outpace the growth rate of traditional higher education face-to-face
courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013). While more students each year are completing their
higher education in the online format, there is debate as to its effectiveness, specifically,
regarding the differences in beliefs and behaviors of online versus face-to-face students
(Beldarrain , 2006; Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011; Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami,
& Sokolovskaya, 2012; Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Fisher & Baird, 2005;
Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000; Morris & Finnegan, 2009). This
study evaluated the differences in beliefs and behaviors regarding voluntary peer
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics of students in online and face-to-face classes.
Results indicated there is no statistical significance for each of the three research
questions. A positive association was found between a respondent’s age and the
number of ethics courses that had been completed, mean help-seeking and using
formal or informal help-seeking strategies, and between collaboration and
importance of ethics. A significant relationship between course location and in-
person voluntary peer collaboration and the use of phone and text messaging was
found as well. The implications from this study include facilitating and supporting
technological tools such as discussion boards, phone and text, and social media, to
encourage online students to collaborate and seek-help with their peers. It is
recommended that future research focus on a large-scale replication of this study to
obtain generalizable results as well as expanding research in the areas of student
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 5

ethical education beliefs, voluntary peers collaboration, and the use of social media
in the classroom.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 6

Chapter 1: Introduction
Online learning has been influential in the way students are now completing their
higher education. Online learning is defined as the utilization of the Internet to access
course materials as well as to interact with professors and peers in order to acquire
knowledge (Ally, 2004). Institutions are shifting their traditional face-to-face
instructional model to now include fully online programs (Larreamendy-Joerns &
Leinhardt, 2006). Over 62% of higher education institutions are now offering online
programs and year-to-year it has continually outpaced the growth of traditional higher
education (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
The increase in online courses and programs being offered provides students greater
access to quality degrees they may not otherwise be able to pursue (Brey, 2006). Many
obstacles that may have prevented a student from attending college, such as work
obligations, family commitments, and geographical location, are no longer a factor
because of the flexibility online learning provides (Colucci & Koppel, 2010; El Mansour
& Mupinga, 2007; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). The benefits of online
learning have not only been seen by students, but institutions as well, including an
increase in student population (Lei & Gupta, 2010) and financial advantages (El Mansour
& Mupinga, 2007; Lanier, 2006). With the continued growth of online learning and it’s
prevalence in higher education, it is important to understand the differences of the
behaviors and beliefs of this student population compared to students who attend in the
traditional face-to-face environment.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 7

Background of the Problem
Online course enrollments in higher education continue to grow, with the proportion
of college students taking at least one online class at an all time high, coming to a total of
7.1 million students in 2013 (Allen & Seaman, 2014). Despite the growth in enrollment
and the prevalence of online courses and programs, concerns regarding the quality of
online learning exist. The value of online education has been perceived to be less than
what students gain in the traditional face-to-face model (Allen & Seaman, 2010; Castle &
McGuire, 2010; Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010).
Also of concern is the level of online student success compared to those completing
their education in the face-to-face setting. A contributor to student success is the
connection a student feels to their institution and within their class (Bird & Morgan,
2003; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000; Morris & Finnegan,
2009). Online students have reported not feeling as connected to their institution and
classmates as their face-to-face counterparts (Herbert, 2006; Morris & Finnegan, 2009).
With online student retention rates predominantly being lower than those who attend in
the face-to-face model (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Brown, 2013; Picciano, Seaman, &
Allen, 2010; Xu & Jaggers, 2011), it is important to evaluate the aspect of connectedness
to increase online student success, particularly as more students turn to this mode of
education to earn a degree.
Part of creating a connection between students and the institution is collaborating
with peers and professors in the academic setting. Students who collaborate in the
classroom have been found to persist in their education at higher rates than those who do
not collaborate with their peers (Finnegan, Morris, & Lee, 2008). However, research
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 8

conducted on collaboration has primarily focused in regards to student participation on
required course assignments (Agosto, Copeland, & Zach, 2013; Alghamdi, 2013; Lim &
Yoon, 2008; Zach & Agosto, 2009), leaving a gap in knowledge regarding voluntary
collaboration among students in the classroom.
Help-seeking has also been shown to aid in a student’s success (Kumrow, 2007).
However, students in both the online and face-to-face setting avoid seeking assistance
when they encounter academic obstacles (Mahasneh, Sowan, & Nassar, 2012). This help-
seeking avoidance has been shown to negatively affect a student’s overall course grade
(Kumrown, 2007). There is evidence to support however that the online environment may
actually promote help-seeking behaviors in students (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012;
Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Schworm & Gruber, 2012). It is important, that with help-
seeking tied to student success, differences between the help seeking behaviors and
beliefs of students completing classes online and face-to-face are evaluated.
Another area for concern is that of business students’ beliefs and behaviors
regarding ethics. Instances of academic dishonesty have been found to occur at a high
rate in the online setting (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet, 2006; Jones, 2011; Lanier, 2006;
Loschavo & Shatz, 2011). Business students in particular engage in academic dishonesty
at a higher rate than their peers in other majors (Burks & Sellani, 2008; Granitz &
Loewy, 2007; Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008; Lanier, 2006; Lawson, 2004). Research
findings on business students have also found that their beliefs and behaviors regarding
ethics contradict one another (Lawson, 2004). This contradiction is important to
investigate, as this leads to the concern that students may not have the proper academic
knowledge regarding the topic or have a level of ethical self-awareness.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 9

Statement of the Problem
There is a lack of research about beliefs and behaviors, such as voluntary
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics, by mode of delivery among undergraduate
students. While several studies have looked at student behaviors and beliefs in online
courses or face-to-face courses separately (see Beldarrain , 2006; Benshoff & Gibbons,
2011; Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, & Sokolovskaya, 2012; Cheng, Liang, &
Tsai, 2012; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker,
2000; Morris & Finnegan, 2009), few have researched the same course in both delivery
modes to evaluate student behaviors and beliefs, particularly in all three areas of
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess beliefs and behaviors in online versus face-to-
face learning settings among undergraduate students. Specifically, this study looked at
voluntary collaboration, help-seeking, and ethical behaviors and beliefs of undergraduate
business students who took a Leadership and Professional Ethics course that was offered
both online and face-to-face during the same session.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the direction of this study:
1. Is there a difference in student help-seeking behaviors or beliefs by course
delivery method?
2. Is there a difference in student voluntary peer collaboration behaviors or beliefs
by course delivery method?
3. Is there a difference in student ethical beliefs by course delivery method?
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 10

Significance of the Study
The insights obtained through this study provided an understanding regarding the
differences in behaviors and beliefs of online and face-to-face students in the same
course, specifically regarding voluntary collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics. With
collaboration and help-seeking having been tied to student success and retention, the
findings on student beliefs and behaviors in both course modes in this study allow
institutions to provide better guided instruction and student resources. In particular, the
importance of online students utilizing the technology available to them within the
course, such as phone, text, and social media, is discussed. Also, creating a system of
educational support, such as through scaffolding, to assist help-seeking behaviors
and encourage connecting with faculty and peers is highlighted as well.
Methodology
Since the research questions sought to compare beliefs and behaviors in two
different settings, online and on-campus, the researcher adopted a quantitative approach.
The quantitative approach determined whether statistical differences existed between
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics beliefs and behaviors of students in the online and
face-to-face settings. Data was gathered via surveys that included valid and reliable
instruments as well as a series of demographic questions. The survey was administered
online through the survey software Qualtrics. All data was analyzed in SPSS.
Definition of Terms
Asynchronous Learning. Online learning that can be accessed at any time and
does not require students or faculty to participate in the course at a specific time
(Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011).
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 11

Help-seeking. A self-regulation strategy used by students that is proactive in
nature and sets students up to be successful in their course (Karabenick, 1998).
Online Learning. Online learning is the utilization of the Internet to access
course materials as well as to interact with professors and peers in order to acquire
knowledge (Ally, 2004).
Student Ethical Behavior. How a student acts or states they would act when
faced with a situation in the class or the business setting that requires them to make an
ethical decision.
Student Ethical Beliefs. The level of importance a student places on ethics
education, ethics in the business setting, or ethics in their personal decision making.
Synchronous Learning. Online learning that occurs in real-time while not in the
same physical space (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011).
Voluntary Collaboration. When students connect with others outside of required
course participation regarding assignments, discussions, or activities.
Organization of the Study
Chapter one of this study provides an introduction to the topic of distance
education, online learning, and student success. In addition, an overview of the study is
provided as well.
Chapter two provides an in-depth look at distance education, including a typology
and demographic information. This chapter also examines and compares components
that have been found to influence motivational indices between traditional and DE
contexts. These factors include voluntary collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics. In
addition, a number of social cognitive factors such as student-student/student-teacher
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 12

interactions, feedback, scaffolding, and face-to-face environments are examined with
regard to instructional delivery method.
Chapter three describes the methodology used in this study. This chapter
discusses the sample used, instrumentation, research design, and data collection process.
Also described are the type of data analysis that were conducted and as well as the
strengths and weaknesses of this study.
Chapter four is a description of the results from the data analysis. Chapter five is
a discussion of these results, in addition to the limitations of the study and suggestions for
future research.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Online learning has changed the shape of traditional higher education. The
established brick and mortar university structure has shifted to include fully online
programs for the non-traditional student (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Online learning has made a significant impact on higher education and is now a common
option for students to pursue (Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010; Rabe-Hemp, Woollen, &
Humiston, 2009: Xu & Jaggers, 2011). The growth of online learning has also affected
who accesses higher education as well as redefined the college experience (Larreamendy-
Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Higher education leaders have acknowledged that online learning is a major part of
their institutional structure and significant to their success (Allen & Seaman, 2013). With
higher education placing an emphasis on their online programs for their institution’s
success and revenue, it is important to evaluate the current standings and perceptions of
this form of higher education. A history of online education, inconsistencies within the
field, effective online learning strategies, as well as the benefits and challenges of online
learning is covered. Also, a review of collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics in the online
and face-to-face course setting is conducted, including factors influencing student beliefs
and behaviors regarding each of these areas and their importance to student success
History of Online Education
While the impact of online learning has been widely felt in the last decade, it has a
long history in the field of higher education (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Today’s online learning stems from higher education’s involvement in distance education
(Wallace, 2003). Distance education did not come about with the invention of the
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 14

Internet, however. Rather, distance education’s history dates back to the 1890’s, when
schools sought to provide a means to learn outside of the traditional classroom and
students utilized the mail to receive and submit assignments (Wallace, 2003). The
transition from this initial method of distance education to what it is today occurred in the
late 1980’s and early 1990’s with advancements in the Internet and instructional
technologies (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; Wallace, 2003). During this time,
colleges began to offer not only classes but also entire degrees online (Larreamendy-
Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; Wallace, 2003).
Online learning, once a small part of the institutional structure has now shifted to be a
central focus of how higher education institutions are offering their programs
(Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). In 2002, less than half of educational leaders
reported that online learning played a significant role in their institution’s educational
strategy (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Ten years later, in 2012, 69.1% of academic leaders
stating that online education is a strategic and critical aspect of their long-term
institutional plan (Allen & Seaman, 2013). This shift in online learning’s role in higher
education can also be seen in the amount of institutions that offer fully online programs,
with an increase from 34.5% of institutions offering online programs in 2002 to 62.4% in
2010 (Allen & Seaman, 2013). This shift is due in large part to student demand for online
learning. Enrollment in online courses has increased continually from year-to-year, with
2012 posting a growth rate of 9.3% (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Overall, more than 6.7
million students took at least one online course in 2012, an increase of over a half million
students from the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 15

Types of Online Learning
There are diverse types of course offerings within online learning, each varying
significantly from each other in regards to the type of instruction that takes place. Online
courses are most often offered in three predominant ways: synchronous, asynchronous,
and hybrid.
Synchronous online courses are conducted entirely online, however, some portion of
the course is led in real-time (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011). Students in synchronous
courses are required to meet virtually at a specific time, similar to attending a face-to-face
course (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011). This model provides students the ability to converse
with their peers and faculty in an environment that is similar to the traditional classroom.
A second form of online education is the asynchronous model. Asynchronous online
courses do not require the student or the faculty to connect in real-time at any point
during the class (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011). The course may be completely
asynchronous or provide some structure in requiring students to complete assignments by
certain days or times each week. Many online learning courses are asynchronous because
of the flexibility it allows (Benshoff & Gibbons, 2011).
The third most common form of online course is the hybrid model, also referred to as
the blended model. Hybrid education combines both face-to-face instruction with an
online learning component (Colucci & Koppel, 2010; Hall, 2006;). The courses are
typically formatted so that students are introduced to the course material and concepts for
that unit online with face-to-face classroom instruction time to follow (El Mansour &
Mupinga, 2007). This provides a learning format that is a combination of synchronous
and asynchronous learning models. Students have the opportunity to work on the course
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 16

material in an asynchronous format in the days or weeks leading up to the synchronous
class meeting.
In addition to the several forms that online learning can take, the field of online
learning over time has also accumulated many terminological inconsistencies as well
(Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). This has made it challenging to draw cross-
study comparisons concerning online learning and transfer results to practice (Moore,
Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011). The various terms utilized can mean very different
things in regards to the instructional technologies being used, student expectations,
course objectives, and course content (Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyen, 2011). The
literature has referenced e-learning, distributed learning, distance education, virtual
learning, online education and web-based learning all to denote classes that may either be
partially or fully online (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007).
Distance Education was one of the first terms used to describe education where the
professor and student were separated by physical distance (Bernard, et al., 2009; Moore
& Kearsley, 2011;). However, with the shift in courses and programs being offered online
via the Internet, the terms online education or online learning are used to describe the
current state of what was previously called distance education (Smith & Mitry, 2008;
Wallace, 2003).
Effective Online Learning
Those designing online courses must consider design and pedagogy in order to
promote student learning (Crawford-Ferre & Wiest, 2012). Online classes have attempted
to emulate the instruction and experience that takes place in a face-to-face classroom.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 17

However, the physical separation of the student, their classmates, and instructor add a
new dimension that needs to be considered to promote student learning.
Researchers report that online students feel a lack of connectedness with their courses
compared to students who take their classes in the face-to-face model (Herbert, 2006;
Morris & Finnegan, 2009). This lack of connection has been shown to play a role in
student success (Bird & Morgan, 2003; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker,
2000; Morris & Finnegan, 2009). Students who withdrew from their online courses
reported their lack of connectedness and feelings of isolation led them to not persist
through to graduation (Bird & Morgan, 2003).
In addition to promoting connectedness, online courses also need to consider the level
of instructional control students have within the classroom. Research findings show that
an increase in learner control over instruction can actually decrease learning outcomes for
students who do not have prior knowledge in the area they are studying (Clark, 2003).
Rather, decreasing the control the student has in their learning, such as by scaffolding the
learning experience for students to connect new information with previous knowledge
has been shown to promote student learning (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010).
Benefits of Online Education
As institutions embrace online learning as a cornerstone of their long-term strategy,
research has focused on the benefits that online learning provides, and has pushed
institutions to be increasingly accountable to student success. This research has generated
data related to the benefits of online learning not only for the student population, but for
institutions as well.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 18

Online learning has provided access to higher education for those who otherwise may
not be able to pursue a degree at a traditional college (Brey, 2006). The setting allows
students the opportunity to earn a degree while having the flexibility of not having to
attend campus, which may have been a barrier preventing them from higher education
due to their location, work schedule, or family commitments (Colucci & Koppel, 2010;
El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007). Online learning also gives students access to a broader
range of classes and programs that may otherwise have been unavailable due to their
geographical area (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
In regards to achievement, studies have indicated that students achieve the same in
online courses as in face-to-face courses (Brown, 2013; Campbell, Gibson, Hall,
Richards, & Callery, 2008; Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010; Rabe-Hemp &
Wollen, 2009; Zhan & Mei, 2013). The hybrid method, combining both asynchronous
and face-to-face learning has also been shown to have the highest student satisfaction
rates as well as student success rates compared to purely face-to-face instruction
(Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010).
Higher education institutions have also benefited from online learning. First, the
online learning environment has allowed institutions to expand their student population
(Lei & Gupta, 2010). Higher education institutions have seen a financial advantage as
well from an increase in student enrollment while not spending a proportionate amount of
money to increase physical infrastructure (Lanier, 2006). Online learning has allowed
institutions to increase the amount of physical classroom space available on campus
while allowing the institution to reach a broader range of students with their online course
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 19

options, making online learning a cost effective option for institutions (El Mansour &
Mupinga, 2007).
Challenges of Online Education
While research has demonstrated the benefits to online learning, it is not without its
challenges as well. In particular, research findings demonstrate concern in regards to
educational quality, student learning, retention, and academic dishonesty when compared
to the traditional face-to-face learning model.
Educational quality. The standard of educational quality is regarded in higher
education by what students learn and achieve in the traditional classroom setting
(Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). Online learning has been expected to
demonstrate that the learning that takes place virtually is equivalent to the traditional
face-to-face model (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). The response to this has
been varied, with some acknowledging the limitations of online learning while others
challenging the notion that the traditional classroom model should be the standard that we
evaluate education and student learning (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Students, faculty, and university administration have rated the educational quality of
online programs less than what is gained in the traditional face-to-face model (Allen &
Seaman, 2010; Castle & McGuire, 2010; Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010). The
acceptance of the online education model by faculty is also low, with only 30.2%
reporting they accept this type of education as valuable (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Even
institutions that specifically offered fully online programs had a faculty acceptance rate of
only 38.4% (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 20

Student learning and retention. There is also research that challenges the benefit of
multimedia instruction and a lack of evidence that it produces an increase in learning
(Clark & Feldon, 2005; Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010). While learning has been
shown to occur in the online setting, research has not been able to single out the
multimedia variable as the reason for this increase in learning (Clark & Feldon, 2005).
Also related to student learning is retention. Student retention in online education has
been lower than in the traditional face-to-face model (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Brown,
2013; Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010; Xu & Jaggers, 2011). Students have been found
to drop their online courses at higher rates than face-to-face courses (Brown, 2013). The
students that are drawn to online courses tend to be balancing several responsibilities
including careers and families that prevent them from taking courses face-to-face. These
same responsibilities may also contribute to their decision to withdraw (Picciano,
Seaman, & Allen, 2010).
Academic dishonesty. Recent studies have found cheating in the online environment
to be as or more frequent than in a traditional setting (Grijalva, Nowell, & Kerkvliet,
2006; Jones, 2011; Lanier, 2006; Loschavo & Shatz, 2011). Jones (2011) reported that
92% of the students surveyed admitted that they had, or knew someone who had, cheated
in an online college course. Lanier (2006) also discovered a higher rate of cheating in
online courses when directly compared to classes in a traditional lecture based setting.
In summary, online learning has made an impact in higher education within the
last decade. With online student enrollments continuing to grow and outpace traditional
higher education year-to-year, it is important to understand the research that has been
conducted in the field as well as the benefits and challenges it presents. Online learning
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 21

has been shown to help not only students in terms of access to higher education and
learning experience, but institutions have benefited from it as well with increase in
student enrollments without needing to consider or purchase additional structural space.
Online learning is not without its challenges however, as this method of education has
been linked to increase rates in academic dishonesty as well as lower rates in retention
compared to traditional face-to-face classes.
Collaboration
Student collaboration is a focus of those providing and designing courses, especially
in the online setting (Beldarrain, 2006). Collaboration has been defined as when students
connect with others on assignments, discussions, or activities (Zach & Agosto, 2009).
Students have expressed an expectation that they will be able to collaborate in their
classes and enjoyed being able to do so, as they felt this was a skill to be expected of
them in the work setting (Zach & Agosto, 2009).
Building a sense of community through collaboration can promote student success, as
research findings have shown that online students who feel disconnected are less likely to
retain (Bird and Morgan, 2003; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000;
Morris & Finnegan, 2009). With student collaboration being a focus of how courses are
designed, and with the impact that collaboration can have on a student, within this section
the forms that collaboration take in the class setting, its importance to student success,
and challenges in research will be reviewed.
Types of Collaboration
Collaboration in the class setting, whether online or face-to-face, can be seen
primarily between professor and student as well as student to student. Professor-student
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 22

and student-student collaboration focuses on the dialogue between these two groups as it
pertains to course material (Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, & Sokolovskaya,
2012). Students collaborate with their peers through various forums in the classroom,
such as group projects, discussion boards, wiki’s, and blogs (Stewart & Edwards, 2012).
Professor-student collaboration tends to take a different form, primarily revolving around
faculty providing feedback to students on assignments (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008).
Importance of Collaboration
Collaboration is an important component in higher education in promoting student
learning. In regards to collaboration between professors and students, students have
reported that the more involved the professor was in engaging with them, the more they
learned (Zach & Agosto, 2009). When evaluating student-student collaboration, students
who collaborate within the classroom were found to persist at higher rates than those who
did not (Finnegan, Morris, & Lee, 2008) and report being satisfied with the course (So &
Brush, 2008). Also, courses with collaborative assignments have been found to have
higher rates of retention than courses whose assignments did not focus on collaboration
(Fisher & Baird, 2005).
The various tools used in the classroom to promote collaboration among students
have been evaluated for the role they play in student learning. The discussion board or
blog forum within a classroom has been shown to increase student success (Alghamdi,
2013). Students who had a discussion board component in their course were found to
have higher grades at the end of the course than those who did not have access to this as
part of their course (Alghamdi, 2013). Blogging, another form of technology utilized in
the classroom has also been found to positively affect collaboration and learning. In
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 23

particular, it has been found to build a sense of community within the classroom, promote
online interactions, and encourage student-to-student learning in the class (Agosto,
Copeland, & Zach, 2013).
When collaboration takes the form of a group project, this also has a positive effect
on students. In a study where students evaluated collaboration in the team setting, it was
positively related to learning support and perceived level of learning (Lim & Yoon,
2008). Whether the collaboration between students took place one-on-one or in a larger
group setting, students reported that these interactions added to their learning and
increased their ability to think critically (Zach & Agosto, 2009).
While collaboration can be increased by introducing technology to a course, such as
in the form of discussion boards and blogs, simply making it a part of the course will not
encourage collaboration to its fullest extent as found in research conducted by
Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, and Sokolovskaya (2012). Results from this
study indicate that student-student collaborations are most effective when they take place
in an activity that is intentionally designed for students to work collaboratively, and the
collaboration is subsequently supported and promoted by faculty. Assignments that
allowed for student collaboration, but were not promoted, were found to be less effective.
Also, it cannot be expected that the student population in the online setting in particular
know how to collaborate. Butson and Thomson (2014) point out that while there has been
a focus on whether or not online students collaborate, a forgotten area is whether or not
students know how to collaborate in the online setting. In conducting a study on this
particular area, they found that students reported being intimidated to work in the online
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 24

environment and unaware as to how to work collaboratively in this setting (Butson &
Thomson, 2014).
While collaboration has been shown to increase student success and learning, it is an
area that still needs improving, particularly in the online setting. Lewis (2010) found that
students reported wanting additional time to connect with their classmates and professor
outside of the required assignments. While online courses have focused on the
collaborative aspect to make up for the lack of face-to-face interaction, it may not be
enough to satisfy this student population’s needs. Collaboration has also been found to be
less successful when students felt that everyone was not responding or participating
equally (Zach & Agosto, 2009). This emphasizes the importance of not just including
collaborative opportunities in the classroom, such as through discussion boards, but also
the importance of faculty in promoting and encouraging these interactions for students to
gain the most out of the assignment.
Measuring Collaboration
Research conducted on collaboration has produced both qualitative and
quantitative data. Qualitative data (Agosto, Copeland, & Zach, 2013; Grinnell, Sauers,
Appunn, & Mack, 2012; So & Brush, 2008) or a mixed methods approach (Alghamdi,
2013; Esichaikul, Aung, Bechter, & Rehman, 2012; Lewis, 2010; Zhu, 2012) has been
used in several studies. Research that has used observations to gather data has assessed
the content of student postings within discussion forums to evaluate collaboration
(Grinnell, Sauers, Appunn, & Mack, 2012). Also, student blogs and blog content have
been analyzed to measure collaboration as well as to observe performance and
participation of students (Agosto, Copeland, & Zach, 2013; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Zach
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 25

& Agosto, 2009). Face-to-face interviews has been another method relied on to measure
student’s levels of collaborative learning (So & Brush, 2008). While these qualitative
methods of collecting data provide good insight into collaboration, the results are
subjective and leave room for much interpretation by the researcher.
Quantitative data has also been gathered to measure student collaboration
(Alghamdi, 2013; Finnegan, Morris, & Lee, 2008; Lewis, 2010; Lim & Yoon, 2008;
Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). Pre and post-tests have measured collaboration as it relates to
a student’s perceived level of learning (Lewis, 2010; Lim & Yoon, 2008) as well as
student’s perception of community and collaboration (Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006).
Another way quantitative data regarding collaboration has been collected has been
through accessing course data, such as the amount of times material was accessed, to
provide insight as to collaboration’s affect on student learning (Finnegan, Morris, & Lee,
2008).
In summary, collaboration has been shown to be an important aspect in student
success, whether the student is completing their coursework online or face-to-face.
Assignments that promote student collaboration, such as discussion board, wiki’s, blogs,
and group projects do have a positive effect on student learning (Agosto, Copeland, &
Zach, 2013; Alghamdi, 2013; Lim & Yoon, 2008). However, the inclusion of these
assignments that force students to work together, is not enough for collaboration to
impact students to its fullest. Rather, faculty needs to ensure that they are creating an
environment where collaboration is supported consistently throughout the entire class for
it to have its greatest effect on student learning (Borokhovski, Tamim, Bernard, Abrami,
& Sokolovskaya, 2012).
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 26

Help Seeking
Student support is also important for academic success. One form of support is
help-seeking behaviors. Help-seeking is a form of self-regulated learning and is looked
upon as a successful student strategy as opposed to a dependency behavior (Lee, 2007;
Schworm & Gruber, 2012). With this frame of mind, help-seeking has been defined as a
self-regulating strategy that is proactive in nature and sets students up for success
(Karabenick, 1998) as well as a way that students actively cope and stay involved with
the learning components of a course (Nelson-Le Gall & Resnick, 1998).
Help seeking can take several different forms. Cheng, Liang, and Tsai (2012)
identify these forms as information searching, formal query, and informal query.
Information searching is when students search for information through avenues such as
the Internet to solve their question or problem (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012). Whereas
information searching does not involve anyone from the class where the question is
arising from, formal and informal query does. Formal query involves students asking
their professors for assistance within the course through means such as email or in class
discussion boards and informal query is regarded as when students go to their peers for
support (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012).
Help seeking may sound simple, however, it is influenced by multiple factors and
many students in online and face-to-face courses avoided seeking assistance (Lee, 2007;
Mahasneh, Sowan & Nassar, 2012). In the following section, the importance of help-
seeking behaviors in student success as well as factors affecting help-seeking will be
presented. Also, trends in research regarding help-seeking will be discussed.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 27

Importance of Help-Seeking
Help-seeking is an important strategy for students to utilize. Students will encounter a
time where they need assistance within a class in order to continue the learning
assignment and be successful in the course (Masasneh & Nassar, 2012). Within the
higher education setting, the responsibility is on the student to seek and ask for help when
it is needed (Mahnasneh & Nassar, 2012). Help-seeking has been found to be related to a
student’s academic success (Kumrow, 2007). However, research findings show that the
majority of students in online and face-to-face courses avoided asking for assistance
because of their attitude towards asking questions and a desire for autonomy and self-
reliance (Mahasneh, Sowan, & Nassar, 2012).
Students are left to themselves to seek assistance if they encounter a problem in their
course, however, many are not taking the initiative to do so (Mahasneh, Sowan, &
Nassar, 2012). This needs to be addressed, particularly because effective help-seeking
strategies have been tied to a student’s success in a course (Kumrow, 2007). Research on
predictors for student success conducted by Kumrow (2007) indicated that help seeking
was significantly correlated with the grade received at the end of the course in both the
online and blended format. In this same study, those that avoided using help-seeking
behaviors were found to have higher levels of stress and did not perform as well as those
in the course who sought help.
Factors that Influence Help Seeking
Several factors play a role in whether students utilize help-seeking behaviors in a
class. Both individual factors, such as self-regulation, and environmental factors, like the
learning setting, affect the help-seeking process (Lee, 2007). In particular, the class’s
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 28

focus, student’s own perceptions and beliefs, and the professor’s approach and openness
to such inquiries had an effect on whether a student sought help (Kitsantas & Chow,
2007; Sakiz, 2011). Also, the value that students place on a task can also determine
whether they seek-help, with students being more likely to seek help if they place a high
value on an assignment (Lawanto, et al., 2014). Reasons for avoiding asking for help
include the student’s attitude towards asking for help, a need to be self-reliant, the
structure of the learning environment, and the perception that asking for help means a
lack of ability (Mahnasneh & Nassar, 2012).
When evaluating the help-seeking behaviors of online and traditional face-to-face
students, studies indicate that the online setting may actually promote these behaviors
(Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Schworm & Gruber, 2012). The
environment of the online classroom may encourage students to ask for assistance
without being embarrassed as opposed to in front of the professor in a physical class
setting (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012). The online environment may also promote help-
seeking in that social status cues are not present, such as age, sex, and appearance, which
may encourage someone to ask a question as well (Mahasneh, Sowan, & Nassar, 2012).
While the online setting may make students more comfortable to seek-help, it may not be
the best environment for faculty to notice who is in need of assistance. In the face-to-
face environment the faculty can take a more proactive approach and facilitate help-
seeking with a student whereas in the online setting, help-seeking is more reliant on the
student reaching out to begin the process (Thompson, Miller, and Franz, 2013).

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 29

Measuring Help-Seeking
A variety of measurements have been used to capture and measure student help-
seeking behaviors. Several surveys have been created such as the Online Academic Help
Seeking questionnaire by Cheng, Liang, and Tsai (2012), which is used to look at
different types of information seeking strategies of students. The Information
Commitments questionnaire by Wu and Tsai (2005, 2007) has been utilized to look at
different types of information seeking strategies of students. In addition to this, the Self-
Regulated Learning questionnaire by Lee and Tsai (2011) has been used to garner
student’s perceptions of self-regulated learning in the classroom environment. In
addition to these surveys, interviews have also been conducted to gain perspective on
how students deal with academic challenges when they are faced (Clegg, Bradley, &
Smith, 2006).
In summary, help-seeking strategies have been found to lead to student success in
the online and face-to-face setting (Kumrow, 2007). However, many students report not
seeking assistance, whether it is through formal or informal inquiries, due to their
perception of how asking for assistance might make them appear as incapable of learning
the material (Mahasneh, Sowan, & Nassar, 2012). While several factors, including
external and internal, effect whether a student seeks assistance, with the effect it can have
on a student’s success in the classroom, it is important to focus on ensuring help-seeking
strategies are encouraged.
Student Ethical Beliefs and Behaviors
Student ethics and conduct is a concern across college campuses (Jones, 2011).
Several studies have found that a high rate of students have engaged in academic
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 30

misconduct (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013; Kidwell & Kent, 2008; McCabe,
2005; Witherspoon, Maldonado, & Lacey, 2012). This unethical behavior can take
various forms, most common being instances of working on individual assignments with
others, receiving test answers from peers, plagiarism, and falsifying data (Christensen-
Hughes & McCabe, 2006).
Because of the high rate of unethical behavior, universities are taking steps to not
only curb instances of cheating, but to also teach students about ethics (Christensen,
Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier, 2007). Within this section, the importance of
ethics, the responsibility of higher education in teaching ethics, and how effective ethics
education is reviewed. Also, how ethics is measured and challenges in research
conducted on this topic will be considered.
Business Students and Ethics
The concern surrounding student ethical behaviors is warranted, as research
findings illustrate that students are exhibiting unethical behavior at a high rate (Jones,
2011). Higher education institutions must set a standard for academic integrity and better
prepare their students to have the ethical standards needed in the workplace (Jones,
2011). This is particularly true for business students. When researchers have
disaggregated academic misconduct behaviors by major, students in business programs
have been found to cheat at a higher rate than those in other majors (Burks & Sellani,
2008; Granitz & Loewy, 2007; Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008; Lanier, 2006; Lawson,
2004). Business student beliefs and behaviors regarding ethics have also been found to be
contradictory. In a study conducted by Lawson (2004), students within an undergraduate
business program reported disapproving of cheating that occurred by others in the class,
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 31

but also reported that they engaged in unethical behavior themselves. They also reported
they felt they had a good understanding of ethics in the workplace and their importance,
however, they believed that unethical behavior may be necessary in order to advance
their careers (Lawson, 2004). With several instances of unethical behavior by those in the
business programs, and research supporting that unethical behavior in school may
translate to similar practices in the work setting (Abdolmohammadi & Baker, 2007;
Granitz & Lowey, 2007), there is a need for these students to be taught about ethics in the
workplace (Persons, 2009). While there is agreement that students should learn ethical
practices and guidelines, the role that universities should play in the ethical development
of a student is debated (Mayhew, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2010).
Some administrators within higher education feel that ethical education does not
make an impact on students (Dean & Beggs, 2006; Gupta, Cunningham, & Arya, 2009)
or that it is too late to teach ethics to students who are already of college age (Dean &
Beggs, 2006). Others, in response to social and academic pressure surrounding the lack of
ethics in the field of business, have dedicated an entire course on the topic or have
incorporated it into current classes (Gupta, Cunningham, & Arya, 2009). When
institutions have included ethics in their curriculum, the issue of who should teach these
courses then arises. While some institutions have implemented business ethics courses
taught by those within the business field, others have expressed that business professors
do not have the adequate training to teach the material. Rather, the subject should be
taught by professionals whose academic background has focused on this topic, such as by
educators with a background in philosophy (Libby, Angello, & Agnello, 2005).

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 32

Teaching Ethics
Research is inconclusive on the best way for ethics to be taught in higher education.
Instructional interventions conducted in the classroom that discussed ethics were found to
be well received by students in a business course (Baetz et al., 2011; Fletcher-Brown,
Buono, Frederick, Hall, & Sultan, 2012). In a study conducted by May, Luth, and
Schwoerer (2014) they did find that students who completed a business ethics course
ranked higher in moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage than those that
did not. A successful ethics course approach was found in a study conducted by Gu and
Neesham (2014). The researchers applied a two-prong approach to their ethics education
course, focusing on the traditional rule-based teaching and also adding moral identity
theory to the course. At the end of the course, those that received both the rule-based and
moral identify theory teachings reported higher level of ethical decision making as
opposed to the students that were only exposed to the rule-based teachings (Gu and
Neesham, 2014).
Other studies have found that ethical instruction in the classroom has either increased
ethical behavior (Desplaces, Melchar, Beavais, & Bosco, 2007; Jones & Ottaway, 2001)
or had no affect on it at all (Burks & Sellani 2008; Jewe, 2008). Similarly, it has also
been found that instruction on business ethics has had little impact on student
perceptions, behavior, or awareness (Waples, Antes, Murphy, Connelly, & Mumford,
2008).
Measuring Ethical Beliefs and Behaviors
Research regarding ethics in higher education has been conducted for two primary
reasons. First, several studies have been conducted to measure student behavior when it
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 33

comes to ethical situations, with many conducting pre and post-tests to evaluate how
ethics education effects a student’s behavior in ethical situations (Black, Greaser, &
Dawson, 2008; Burkes & Sellani, 2008; Fletcher-Brown, Buono, Frederick, Hall, &
Sultan, 2012; Gupta, Cunningham, & Arya, 2009; Libby, Agnello, & Agnello, 2005;
Persons, 2009).
The second primary research focus regarding ethics has surrounded student
beliefs regarding the importance of ethics and ethics education (Baetz et al., 2011;
Desplaces, Melchar, Bauvais, & Bosco, 2007; Jewe, 2008). The majority of the research
conducted has collected quantitative data (Black, Greaser, & Dawson, 2008; Burkes &
Sellani, 2008; Desplaces, Melchar, Bauvais, & Bosco, 2007; Fletcher-Brown, Buono,
Frederick, Hall, & Sultan, 2012; Gupta, Cunningham, & Arya, 2009; Jewe, 2008;
Persons, 2009; Libby, Agnello, & Agnello, 2005; Shannon & Berl, 1997). While limited
in quantity, qualitative data has also been collected (Baetz et al., 2011; Jones & Ottaway,
2001).
In summary, student’s ethical behavior is a concern among higher education
institutions as a large portion of students have admitted to cheating during their
undergraduate program (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013; Kidwell & Kent, 2008;
McCabe, 2005; Witherspoon, Maldonado, & Lacey, 2012). Concern for business students
in particular is validated as several studies have shown student ethical behaviors to be
less than their peers in other majors (Burks & Sellani, 2008; Granitz & Loewy, 2007;
Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008; Lanier, 2006; Lawson, 2004). While ethics education has
been implemented within business programs, there is little agreement on how and who is
best to address this topic (Mayhew, Seifert, & Pascarella, 2010). Also, of the institutions
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 34

that have implemented ethical education as a part of their program requirements, ethics
education has not been found to consistently create change in a student’s level of ethical
behavior or beliefs (Burks & Sellani 2008; Desplaces, Melchar, Beauvias, & Bosco,
2007; Jewe, 2008; Jones & Ottaway, 2001).
Conclusion
Research regarding online learning has shown that this method of education is
likely to continue to grow and influence more students each year (Allen & Seaman,
2013). With its growing influence on the way higher education is provided to students,
additional research is needed for the field of online learning to have consistent data that
drives online pedagogy and student success.
As for student success, collaboration and student help-seeking strategies have
been found to be influential. While data indicates that student collaboration is a predictor
of student success (Finnegan, Morris, & Lee, 2008), current research focuses on the
amount of times students collaborate within the course, regardless if it is a part of the
course assignment or not. Data is needed regarding how voluntary student collaboration,
beyond what is required in the course, differs between online and face-to-face students.
As for help-seeking, while several factors contributing to a student’s likelihood of
seeking help have been identified (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Lee, 2007; Mahasneh,
Sowan & Nassar, 2012; Sakiz, 2011), as well as the possibility that the online format may
be more conducive to these behaviors (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Kitsantas & Chow,
2007; Schworm & Gruber, 2012), there is a lack of research regarding how the frequency
of help-seeking behaviors and students’ perceived beliefs regarding its importance vary
specifically between online and face-to-face students who are in the same class.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 35

Lastly, student ethics, particularly those earning business degrees, is a concern of
universities as they see the effects unethical behaviors have in the real world setting
(Jones, 2011). While several studies have been conducted to evaluate student’s level of
unethical behavior and their beliefs regarding the importance of ethics in the field of
business (Burks & Sellani, 2008; Granitz & Loewy, 2007; Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008;
Lanier, 2006; Lawson, 2004), there is a lack of data concerning business student’s ethical
beliefs and behaviors within an ethics course. Also, data is lacking in comparing these
beliefs and behaviors regarding ethics between online and face-to-face students who are
taking an ethics course. With this information available, universities will be able to better
design their programs to promote the learning outcomes they desire for students
completing their education in either the online or face-to-face setting.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 36

Chapter 3: Methods
The prevalence of online learning warrants research that looks at the similarities
and differences between students that take their courses in this setting compared to that of
the traditional face-to-face model. While several studies have looked at the behaviors and
beliefs of online or face-to-face students, few have looked at both of these factors in the
same course in both learning models at the same time. Examined within this study were
the beliefs and behaviors of both online and face-to-face students who completed an
upper division Leadership and Professional Ethics course during the same session.
Beliefs and behaviors regarding voluntary peer collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics
were measured. This chapter includes the research questions, the hypotheses, and a
description of the research methodology. The latter includes the sampling procedure and
population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. Is there a difference in student help-seeking behaviors or beliefs by course
delivery method?
2. Is there a difference in student voluntary peer collaboration behaviors or beliefs
by course delivery method?
3. Is there a difference in student ethical beliefs by course delivery method?
Research Design
To evaluate any statistically significant differences between online and face-to-
face students regarding their behaviors and beliefs surrounding voluntary peer
collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics, a quantitative, non-experimental design was used
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 37

to gather correlational data obtained from self-report surveys. The independent variables
for this study were the online and face-to-face course delivery modes. The dependent
variables were the beliefs and behaviors of the students surveyed in the specific areas of
help-seeking, voluntary peer collaboration, and ethics.
Population and Sample
The population used for data collection was students in an upper division
Leadership and Professional ethics course at a private, non-profit, university in Southern
California. The students were either enrolled in the hybrid face-to-face or fully online
version of the class during one of two eight-week sessions in the Fall of 2014. The
course is a requirement for students in the Bachelor of Arts in Applied Studies,
Bachelor’s in Business Administration, and Bachelor of Arts in Organizational
Leadership programs. However, the course is open to undergraduate students outside of
these programs as well. According to the syllabus, the goal of the course is for students to
leave with an understanding of ethical behavior and its effect on organizations, be able to
critically evaluate ethical behavior, identify major theories regarding ethics, and create
their own personal philosophy regarding an ethical framework. The response rate for the
survey was 17.9%, with a total of 34 participants in this study. Of those, 15 were enrolled
in the online course and 19 were enrolled in the face-to-face version of the same course.
Instrumentation
Students in both the online and hybrid sections of the course were asked to
complete a self-report survey. The questionnaire was administered electronically and was
sent to students through their university assigned email address. The survey consisted of
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 38

demographic questions followed by three sections aimed at measuring the beliefs and
behaviors surrounding voluntary peer collaboration, help-seeking, and ethics.
Demographic questions (Appendix A). Sixteen demographic questions were
asked in order to identify possible student characteristics or criteria that may influence
their beliefs or behaviors pertaining to the dependent variables. The main demographic
responses are represented in Table 1. Of those that responded, 20 were male, 13 female,
and one chose not to response. The mean age of the respondents was M=38.8 with a
Standard Deviation of SD=10.8. The race that was predominantly represented was White
at 47.1% followed by Hispanic or Latino at 29.4%, Black or African American, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and two or more races each at 5.9%, and Asian and
“Other” each at 2.9%. Parent education level elicited a wide range of responses, with the
highest percentage being an AA or certificate at 29.4% followed by high school
diploma/GED or some college both at 23.5%, bachelor’s degree at 17.6%, and some high
school or a masters both at 2.9%.
Students were represented well for both the online and face-to-face course modes,
with 55.9% of the students enrolled to complete the course online. When asked why they
chose to take their course online or in the face-to-face format, the most popular reason
was due to scheduling at 55.9%, followed by instructional considerations at 29.4%,
family responsibilities at 26.5%, geographical or family responsibilities both at 11.8%,
and 14.7% responded “other”. The majority of students (61.8%) were taking a full-time
course load and 55.9% were also working full-time as well. While this course is open to
all students, 82.4% of those enrolled in the course were in a program that required the
class for graduation. As it relates to ethics, 42.4% stated they had not taken any ethics
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 39

courses prior while 39.4% had taken between one to two ethics courses, and 18.2% had
taken three or more.
Table 1
Demographic Information

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 40

Voluntary peer collaboration (Appendix A). To measure voluntary peer
collaboration, the thematic dissertation group created a survey as no survey at the time of
this study had been developed that measured student beliefs, frequency, and mode of
contact. To establish validity of this survey, a pilot study was conducted by surveying
graduate students currently in an education course. Through this pilot study, the survey
was determined to have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. At the conclusion of this study the
Cronbach’s alpha was conducted again and determined to be 0.95. Following is specific
information regarding the three ways voluntary peer collaboration were measured:
Beliefs. Beliefs were measured with the Voluntary Peer Collaboration instrument
developed by the thematic dissertation group, as a scale that measured collaboration in a
voluntary context was not known at the time of the study. The instrument contained three
questions relating to beliefs about voluntary peer collaboration including whether
students feel it is important to collaborate with their peers even if it is not required,
whether teaching and learning from each other is important to succeed in their course,
and if they feel it is important to give and receive peer feedback related to work in their
course. All questions used a five point Likert scale with 1 being least important and 5
being very important.
Frequency. How frequent a student voluntarily collaborates with their peers was
measured using the same Voluntary Peer Collaboration instrument created by the
thematic dissertation group. One question regarding frequency was included in the
instrument. Specifically, the students were asked on average how often they collaborate
with their peers in the course. Students either selected not at all, 1-2 times per session,
every other week, once a week, or more than once a week.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 41

Mode of Contact. To measure mode of contact, the same Voluntary Peer
Collaboration instrument was used as created by the thematic dissertation group.
Participants were asked in what ways they voluntarily collaborated in the course. The
response options were not applicable, in person, via phone or text, via email or discussion
board, via social media, via videoconferencing, or other. Participants were able to select
all options that applied to them.
Help-seeking (Appendix A).. Help-seeking was measured in three different ways
for this study:
Beliefs. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was
utilized to measure student beliefs about help-seeking. The MSLQ was developed by
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991). The original questionnaire had four
items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.52, all of which were used in this survey. The
Cronbach’s alpha for this study was 0.89. On a five point Likert scale, participants were
asked questions including whether it was important to ask the instructor to clarify
concepts they did not understand well and if they felt it was important to identify students
in the class whom they could ask for help if necessary.
Formal versus informal help Seeking. The Formal versus Information Help-
Seeking Scale developed by Karabenick (2003) was used to measure the type of help-
seeking strategies used by both online and face-to-face students. The original instrument
had five subscales to measure help-seeking. However, for this study, only the subsection
on formal versus information help-seeking strategies was used due to the study’s focus.
This subscale had three items, all of which were used in this study, and a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.66 (Karabenick, 2003). The Cronbach’s alpha calculated at the conclusion of
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 42

this study for these questions was a 0.75. Questions included if a student were to seek
help in the class if they would ask a teacher rather than another student and whether the
teacher would be better to get help from than would a student.
Frequency. Using one question designed within the thematic dissertation group,
participants were asked how often they sought help from their professor, peer, or other in
their current class. Responses included not at all, 1-2 time per session, every other week,
once a week, or more than once a week.
Mode of contact. The mode in which students sought help were measured with a
scale created within the thematic dissertation group. The students were asked whether
they met in person, by phone, text, email or discussion board when seeking help from
their professor, peer, or other.
Student Ethics. Ethics was measured using a survey deployed by Adkins and
Radtke (2004). A Cronbach’s alpha was not conducted as a part of this study. Rather,
faculty members with knowledge of ethics education were asked to review the items for
relevancy (Adkins & Radtke, 2004). The items used by Adkins and Radtke were derived
from an earlier study conducted by Cohen and Pant (1989) on ethics education and the
perceptions of faculty and students. A Cronbach’s alpha from this original study was not
reported. However, the Cronbach’s alpha calculated from this survey was 0.78. Ethics
was regarded in two ways for this study:
Beliefs. Student beliefs regarding how important ethical practices are in business
courses, their personal decisions, as well as in the workplace were gathered using a
survey developed by Adkins and Radtke (2004). This instrument consisted of three
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 43

questions that pertained to student ethical beliefs. The questions were revised so they may
be answered on a five-point agree-disagree Likert scale.
Behaviors. Student ethical behaviors, both in the personal and workplace setting,
were gathered using the same survey developed by Adkins and Radtke (2004). This
instrument consisted of two questions that pertained to student ethical behaviors. The
questions were revised so they were answered on a five point agree-disagree Likert scale.
Procedure and Data Collection
Approval to administer the survey was obtained through the University of
Southern California’s IRB board as well as through the IRB board at the institution where
the survey was conducted. Approval was also needed and received through the same
institution’s Dean’s committee as well as through the Vice Chancellor’s office of Student
Affairs. The survey was sent to students through their university email address regardless
if their course was located in the hybrid or online format. The students in the hybrid
course were attending any one of the University’s physical campus locations on the west
coast. Due to the physical distance between the researcher’s location and that of the
campuses, it was decided to administer the survey entirely online through Qualtrics. To
encourage participation, students who complete the survey were entered into a raffle to
win a gift certificate.
Data Analysis
The independent variables for this research were the online and face-to-face
course modes. The dependent variables were 1) help-seeking behavior, 2) voluntary peer
collaboration frequency, 3) voluntary peer collaboration behaviors, 4) ethical behaviors,
and 5) ethical beliefs. To determine statistical significance between the dependent
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 44

variables and independent variables, the data collected from the self-report survey was
inputted into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. Using
SPSS, T-tests were conducted to evaluate whether there was a difference in help-seeking
behaviors, frequency in voluntary peer-collaboration, ethical behaviors, and ethical
beliefs between the course delivery methods. Also, a Chi-square test was conducted to
determine if there was a difference in voluntary peer collaboration behaviors utilized by
students in the online and hybrid course methods.
Research
Question
IV(s) Level of
Measurement
DV(s) Level of
Measurement
Statistical
Test
1. Is there a
difference in
student help-
seeking
behavior or
beliefs by
course delivery
method?
Online
or On-
Campus
Nominal Help-seeking
behavior
frequency
Interval T-test
2. Is there a
difference in
student
voluntary peer
collaboration
behaviors or
beliefs by
course delivery
method?

Online
or On-
Campus
Nominal Voluntary
Collaboration
frequency
Beliefs:
Interval

Behaviors:
Nominal
Beliefs: T-
test

Behaviors:
Chi-
square
3. Is there a
difference in
student ethical
beliefs by
course delivery
method?

Online
or On-
Campus
Nominal Ethical
Behaviors
Interval T-test

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 45

Chapter Four: Results
The goal of this study was to determine differences between online and face-to-
face students as it related to their beliefs and behaviors about help-seeking, voluntary
peer collaboration, and ethics. This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the
previously presented research questions:
1. Is there a difference in student help-seeking behaviors or beliefs by course
delivery method?
2. Is there a difference in student voluntary peer collaboration behaviors or beliefs
by course delivery method?
3. Is there a difference in student ethical beliefs by course delivery method?
These research questions were answered by a 45-item metric consisting of three survey
instruments and several demographic questions. The surveys were used to measure online
and face-to-face student’s beliefs and behaviors regarding voluntary peer collaboration
and help-seeking (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) as well as their beliefs
surrounding business ethics (Adkins & Radtke, 2004). Surveys were distributed via email
to fall 1 and fall 2 2014 students who were enrolled in an undergraduate Organizational
Leadership and Ethics OLCU 350 course.
Within this chapter, information regarding the findings of this study are presented.
The first section includes the intercorrelations that were found to be significant. This is
followed by an analysis of each research question. The statistical analyses performed are
described and results of the analyses are provided.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 46

Intercorrelations
Three correlations were found to have significance. First, an inverse relationship
was found between a respondent’s age and the number of ethics courses that had been
completed. The younger the student, the more ethics courses they had taken, r=-.357,
p<0.05. An inverse relationship was also found between mean help seeking and mean
formal and informal help seeking. Those that reported they sought help in their classes
were more likely they were to utilize formal or informal help-seeking strategies, r-
.595**, p<.01. Lastly, a positive relationship was found between mean collaboration and
ethics. Specifically, students who collaborated voluntarily with their peers in the course
were also more likely to find ethics, in the classroom and business setting, important .
These significant correlations are illustrated in Table 1 below.
Table 2

Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Person Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables

SD 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 10.83 0.15 0.24 0.09 -0.36 0.30

2. Mean Help
Seeking 1.05 -- .595** -0.01 -0.16 0.05

3. Mean
Form/Inform
Help Seeking 1.12

-- 0.25 0.00 0.07

4. Mean
Collaboration 0.97

-- -0.12 .401*

5. Number of
Ethics
Courses 0.75

-- 0.10

6. Mean
Ethics 0.41 --

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 47

Research Question 1: Is there a difference in student help-seeking behaviors or
beliefs by course delivery method?
This research question was designed to investigate whether students who
completed their courses in the online or face-to-face delivery format differed in their
attitude or actions in regards to seeking help in their class. A t-Test was run in order to
determine if there was statistical significance between course format and help-seeking
beliefs. Results indicated there was no significant difference in the scores for online
(M=1.84, SD= .50) and on-campus (M= 2.50, SD 1.41) students as it relates to their
behaviors and beliefs about help-seeking; t(29)=-1.79, p=.083. This means that regardless
of course mode, students did not exhibit statistically significant differences in their views
of help-seeking or how often they sought help.
In evaluating the results as they pertained to whether students would seek help in
their course, 58.8% of online students and 42.9% of on-campus students agreed or
strongly agreed that they would try to complete their course work on their own without
help from anyone. If students were to seek help, 82.4% of online students and 71.4% of
on-campus students reported they would prefer to seek-help from their professor (formal
help-seeking) rather than another student (informal help-seeking). Regardless of course
mode, the students in this study prefer formal help-seeking strategies as opposed to an
informal approach.
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in student voluntary peer collaboration
behaviors or beliefs by course delivery method?
To evaluate differences of voluntary peer collaboration between online and face-
to-face student, two analyses were conducted. First, to determine significance between a
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 48

student’s beliefs and course delivery method, an independent samples t-test was
conducted. Results from the test show there was no significant difference between online
(M=3.96, SD=.76) and on campus (M=3.95, SD= 1.19) student beliefs and behaviors as it
relates to voluntarily collaboration; t(28)=.016, p=.987. These results indicate that
students voluntarily collaborate with their peers in a similar manner regardless of the
course delivery mode. In regards to voluntary peer collaboration frequency, 37.5% of
online students reported they never voluntarily collaborated with their peers in the course.
All students completing their course in the face-to-face format reported that they
voluntarily collaborated with their peers at least once during the 8-week session. Of the
students in both course modes that did connect with their peers, the most popular
frequency was between 1 to 2 times total for the eight week class, with 50% of face-to-
face students and 31.25% of online students reporting this answer.
To evaluate whether there was a relationship between student behavior as it relates to
voluntary peer collaboration, specifically via in person, phone or text, email or discussion
board, or social media, and course delivery method, a chi-square test was conducted.
Results from the chi-square did indicate a significant relationship between course
location and in-person voluntary peer collaboration, X
2
(1, N=30) = 16.081*, p<.001.
Students completing their course on campus were found to be much more likely to
collaborate in-person than those taking their course online. With regard to the use of
phone or text, students completing their course online were much less likely to use phone
or text compared to students completing their class on campus, X
2
(1, N=30) =5.593*,
p=.018. No differences were found between course mode and whether students
collaborated via email or discussion board, X
2
(1, N=30) =.002, p=.96. Similar results
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 49

were also found for social media with no differences being found between course modes,
X
2
(1, N=30) =2.449*, p=.118. However, students were found much more likely not to
use social media than to use it.
Research Question 3: Is there a difference in student ethical beliefs by course
delivery method?
To determine whether students varied by delivery model as it relates to their beliefs
about ethics education and the importance of ethics in the business environment, an
independent samples t-test was run. Results indicated there was no significant difference
in the scores for online (M=4.66, SD, .424) and on campus (M=4.73, SD=.412) t(28)=-
.431, p=670, students. These findings show that students reported similar beliefs about
ethics regardless of whether they were completing their course online or on campus.
Summary
The t-tests conducted on the three research questions did not elicit any statistically
significant findings. However, the chi-square analysis conducted to evaluate the
relationship between type of voluntary peer collaboration and course delivery mode did
bring forward some statistically significant findings, specifically as it relates to in-person
collaboration and the use of phone and text messaging, with on-campus students being
much more likely to use both of these forms of communication to collaborate with their
classmates. Overall, both the statistically significant and insignificant findings from the
analysis conducted yielded results that are relevant to the findings presented in the
literature as well as for implications to the field of higher education.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 50

Chapter 5: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the beliefs and behaviors of
undergraduate online and on-campus students. In particular, this study looked at the
beliefs and behaviors of students completing a Leadership and Professional Ethics course
as it related to help-seeking and voluntary peer collaboration along with student beliefs
surrounding ethics. Examined in this chapter are the significant findings from each of
the research questions and how they relate to the literature reviewed in chapter 2. The
limitations this study presented along with the implications for the field and further
research are also discussed.
Help Seeking
The first research question regarding differences in help-seeking behaviors and
beliefs between course delivery methods yielded no significant findings. This result is
supported by research, as Kitsantas and Chow (2007) found students in all course modes
sought help. The responses from the survey did show that the students who reported they
would seek help in their classes were also more likely to utilize formal or informal help-
seeking strategies. This is to be expected as connecting with the instructor or other peers
within the course are typical steps taken when looking for assistance regarding class
material (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012).
Research conducted on informal and formal help-seeking show that students tend
to go to their peers first for assistance, then move to the formal help-seeking strategy of
going to their instructor if they are still in need of support (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991).
Kitsantas and Chow (2007) also found that face-to-face students were less likely to use
formal help-seeking behaviors than those in online courses. The students in this study
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 51

however, reported that they would rather seek-help from their professor (formal help-
seeking) rather than another student (informal help-seeking).
The results from this study indicated that online and campus students would try to
complete their course work on their own without help from anyone. Previous studies have
been inconclusive on whether online or face-to-face promotes help-seeking behaviors.
Some have received similar results to this study, showing that students regardless of
course mode avoid seeking assistance, both formally and informally (see Lee, 2007;
Mahasneh, Sowan & Nassar, 2012). Others have indicated that the online environment
may actually promote help-seeking behaviors (see Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Kitsantas
& Chow, 2007; Schworm & Gruber, 2012). The results from this study may vary from
this due to the personal and environmental factors that play a role in help-seeking
behaviors (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Sakiz, 2011). A professor’s willingness and
openness to answer questions and facilitate a supportive environment are factors in
whether a student will seek-help in a class (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007; Sakiz, 2011). In
addition, the length of the course may have impacted a student’s help-seeking behavior.
The short eight-week long term means students often do not have significant assignments
to turn in until the end of the course. It is possible that if a student does not form a
connection with their peers at the beginning of the course, they may not reach out to their
classmates or faculty at the end of the session when they are in need of assistance.
Additionally, the course regarded in this study is many times planned at the beginning of
a student’s program. Undergraduate students at the beginning of their program that are
new to college work and possibly the online setting may not have the time management
skills or awareness to connect with others in their course. Student attitudes may have
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 52

contributed to the outcomes found in this study as well. Students in both the online and
face-to-face setting have been found to avoid asking assistance because of their approach
towards asking questions as well as their desire for autonomy (Mahasneh, Sowan, &
Nassar, 2012).
Collaboration
Evaluating whether there was a difference in student behaviors or beliefs
regarding voluntary collaboration between course delivery methods did not yield any
significant findings. However, when looking at whether a relationship existed between
students and varying formats of collaboration, significance was found between course
location and in-person collaboration. This is to be expected as students completing their
class in the traditional face-to-face format can easily access their peers given their
physical presence in the classroom as well as their geographical location to the campus.
Both factors allow for collaboration to occur during as well as outside of the course.
Online students may not have the option to meet with their peers in-person given
geographical reasons as well as other reasons that prevent them from taking a course
face-to-face such as work and family commitments (Colucci & Koppel, 2010; El
Mansour & Mupinga, 2007).
The results regarding voluntary collaboration when looked at further did yield
additional information. Following is an analysis of the results, specifically regarding the
lack of collaboration frequency found between students and their peers as well as the
absence of the use of technology that facilitates collaboration among classmates.
Voluntary peer collaboration frequency. Previous research findings have
shown that collaboration is tied to student satisfaction with their course (So & Brush,
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 53

2008). Also, students have reported that they find connecting with their peers a
meaningful experience in the classroom (Ward, Peters, & Shelley, 2010). However, a
high percentage of online students within this study reported that they never voluntarily
collaborated with their peers throughout the course. Similar to factors limiting help-
seeking behaviors, the length of the term may have an impact on online student voluntary
collaboration. With the session being only eight weeks in length, students may not
connect with their peers because of the expedited term. In addition, the course regarded in
this study is often planned at the beginning of a student’s program. An undergraduate
student at the beginning of their program most likely has limited experience with
proactively reaching out to their peers and may not understand how to collaborate or why
it is an important aspect of their education. Students completing the course in the face-to-
face format reported much different responses, with all students in this course mode
reporting that they voluntarily collaborated with their peers at least once during the eight
week session. When looking at frequency of collaboration, regardless of course mode,
The most popular frequency was between 1-2 times total for the eight week class. While
a smaller percentage of students in both course modes reported that they connected with
their peers on a more frequent basis such as every other week, once a week, or more than
once a week, the current finding is supported by previous research which found that over
half of students connected with their classmates one or twice per semester (Jones, 2008).
Use of social media. Students in this study were found much more likely not to
use social media than to use it. This is surprising given the amount of adults that are a
part of social media. According to the Pew Internet Project’s research conducted by the
Pew Research Center (2014) As of January 2014, 74% of adults that utilized the Internet
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 54

were a part of social media. Of those between the ages of 30-49, which represents the
mean age of those in this study, 82% of them used social media for personal,
professional, or educational purposes. In the educational setting, social media can help
facilitate relationships, interactions, help students to creatively solve problems in the
course, and promote participation (Okoro, 2012). It is also important between students
and faculty as it promotes responsiveness and accountability between the two parties in
the class (Baird & Fischer, 2006; Mason & Rennie, 2008; Wandel, 2007). The students
within this study may not have used social media to collaborate with the peers in their
class due to course design. Research shows that student-student collaboration happens
most often when it is intentionally designed into the course (Borokhovski, et al., 2012).
Also, collaboration has been found to be more effective when it is also supported and
promoted by the faculty (Borokhovski, et al., 2012). Faculty, however, are not using
social media for personal or educational use as much as their students are (Roblyer, et al.,
2010). If students are left to voluntarily collaborate on their own through social media in
a setting that isn’t designed to be a part of the course and isn’t supported by faculty, then
this could explain the lack of social media use found in this course.
Use of phone and text messaging. Another form of student-student collaboration
this study looked at was through the use of phone and text messaging. Results showed
that students completing their course online were much less likely to use the phone or
text to collaborate with their classmates compared to students completing the course in
the face-to-face format. Prior research has found that students enjoyed using text-
messaging as a form to communicate in their online class (DuVall, Powell, Hodge, &
Ellis, 2007). With online students having fewer means to collaborate with their peers than
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 55

face-to-face students it was hopeful that this common form of communication would be
utilized. This result could be explained by expectations set forth in the class. In the study
conducted by DuVall, Powell, Hodge, and Ellis (2007) the online students did utilize and
enjoyed communicating via text messaging, however, the expectation was that both
professors and students use this as a means to communicate. Professor facilitation in the
course could play a role. If phone and text messaging is being encouraged from faculty to
students, this may in return prompt the same type of collaboration between students and
their peers.
Ethics
Lastly, the final research question of whether a difference in student beliefs about
ethics between course delivery methods existed, did not elicit any significant findings,
aligning with the research done previously on this topic (Adkins & Radtke, 2004). A
positive association was found however between a respondent’s age and the number of
ethics courses they had completed, with younger students having completing more ethics
courses than their older peers. This can be related to the regulations surrounding ethics
education for business students that have become more prevalent in recent years.
Since 1974, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
has required institutions to offer a course or other learning opportunities that focus on
ethics. Revisions to these requirements came in 1991 and also 2003, which now require
institutions to integrate ethics into coursework, or offer a class dedicated to the subject
(Sims and Felton, 2006). Also, with the rates of academic dishonesty continually
increasing over the past decade (Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013; Kidwell &
Kent, 2008; McCabe, 2005; Witherspoon, Maldonado, & Lacey, 2012) and with business
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 56

students have the most incidences of academic dishonesty (Burks & Sellani, 2008;
Granitz & Loewy, 2007; Harmon & Lambrinos, 2008; Lanier, 2006; Lawson, 2004)
many institutions are focusing on making ethics education within their business schools
an important part of the curriculum (Christensen, Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier,
2007).
Lastly, results from this study showed that students who collaborated voluntarily
with their peers in the course were also more likely to find ethics, in the classroom and
business setting, important. Previous research tying these two areas together could not be
found, however, the results could be a result of the students building a connection with
other peers in their classroom. Lawson (2004) found that students reported being
disapproving of their peers who cheat. The connection that students make with others in
their class through collaboration could mean that they are more connected to the course
and find the material important, which may relate to them finding the ethical behaviors of
others in the class important to them.
Limitations
While the findings can relate back to higher education practice, the study was not
without its limitations. In evaluating the differences in online and face-to-face student
beliefs and behaviors, only correlational differences were determined due to the one-time
data collection. Had a pre and post survey been conducted, it would have allowed for a
comparative analysis to be conducted on how a student’s beliefs or behaviors may have
been affected based on what was learned in the course. This would have been particularly
beneficial as it relates to the information gathered on student beliefs about ethics and the
effect the ethics course had on these beliefs.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 57

The generalizability of this study is limited due to the small response rate and the
self-selection bias of this study. Also limiting its generalizability is the asynchronous
course mode this study focused on. Online courses vary from totally asynchronous with
no requirements for students to be online at the same time as others, to synchronous
where students are required to log-on on a particular day and time to complete part of the
course work. There are also hybrid class models, where students attend class on-campus
and complete course requirements online. The results from the asynchronous course
looked at in this study may not be generalizable to courses that are conducted under a
synchronous or hybrid course mode. Also to be noted should be the length of the course.
With the session only being eight-weeks in long, the results found here may not be
relatable to courses that are more traditionally structured around a quarter or semester
system.
The time in which the survey was deployed also serves as a limitation. The
students surveyed were in was accelerated course which lasted for eight weeks. Survey
responses were gathered starting in the seventh week of class and closed one week after
the conclusion of the course. This means some responses were based on a student’s
experience in the course that they had not yet finished while responses reflected a
student’s knowledge and experience after they had received and completed all of the
course content. This could possibly affect the types of responses received as not all
students were able to reflect on their entire experience.
Lastly, being reliant on self-reported data allows for the possibility that the
responses collected were answered in a socially desirable manner rather than the
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 58

student’s actual beliefs and behaviors. It could not be ensured that the participants in this
study answered the survey questions honestly.
Implications
Recommendations for Practitioners and Other Stakeholders
The results of this study highlighted several areas for improvement particularly as
it related to voluntary student collaboration in the classroom as well as help-seeking.
Students were found not to use all of the tools available for them to collaborate with their
classmates. With online students in particular having more limited means for
collaboration than face-to-face students, it is important that the tools that are available are
being utilized to their fullest extent. To facilitate this, it is recommended for instructors to
be more deliberate in promoting technological tools to encourage collaboration. To
accomplish this, faculty can promote information sharing within their class by providing
students the opportunity to socialize by setting up discussion or bulletin boards that focus
on non-class topics (Haythornthwaite, 2006; So & Brush, 2008). Also, to foster
communication and collaboration, faculty can have students post about themselves and
get to know the other students at the beginning of the course (So & Brush, 2008).
Another recommendation is to implement instances for modeling and scaffolding.
Faculty that model collaborative behavior and provide scaffolding for student to connect
with one another can help facilitate student-student interaction in the course (Agosto,
Copeland, & Zach, 2013; Borokhovski, et al., 2012; So & Brush, 2008).
Another underutilized collaborative tool in this study was the use of social media.
Social media is perceived as a social tool rather than educational which may limit student
and faculty use in the classroom (Roblyer, et al., 2010). To help promote the use of social
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 59

media in an educational setting, professors may look to instruct students on how to utilize
social media within the class to move beyond this connotation (Haythornthwaite, 2006).
Also, there may be a need to teach students collaborative skills in the online setting if
they are unfamiliar with online education, social media, or both. By properly showing
students how to create threads in discussion and bulletin boards will allow them to see its
use as a collaborative tool (Haythornthwaite, 2006). By faculty modeling collaborative
behavior, providing the space in the classroom to connect with others about material not
related to the class, and also by providing the scaffolding so the students have the tools
needed to collaborate, student use of technology to collaborate will hopefully increase for
students in both course modes.
Steps need to be taken to help facilitate help-seeking behaviors within the
classroom as well. A high percentage of online and campus students reported that they
would try to complete their course work on their own without help from anyone. This
lack of seeking help may contribute to lower retention rates as those that demonstrate
help-seeking behaviors in the class are more likely to be successful in the course than
those that do not (Finnegan, Morris, & Lee, 2008; Kumrow, 2007; Madge, Meek,
Wellens, & Hooley, 2009).
Students have long been on their own to find assistance when they are in need of
help in a class (Mahnasneh & Nassar, 2012). However, this notion of it being the
student’s sole responsibility should shift. Instead, it is recommended for a model of
educational support to be implemented to create an environment where the student does
not need to find help. Rather, the support becomes a part of the best practices
implemented by the faculty. As the findings in this study indicate, students are not
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 60

inclined to ask for assistance in their course. With this, a change in pedagogy that focuses
on instructors guiding students when they show low levels of self regulated learning may
promote student success (Cheng, Liang, & Tsai, 2012; Clegg, Bradley, & Smith, 2006).
To promote formal and informal help-seeking behaviors among students, it is
recommended that instructors use and promote web based technology, such as email, and
strategically implement it into their class to support self-regulated learning (Dabbagh &
Kitsantas, 2013; Kitsantas & Chow, 2007). Giving students the option to submit
questions about course material electronically may help them feel comfortable in
bringing their questions forward (Kitsantas & Chow, 2007). Also, by guiding students
and providing them examples as to when seeking-help is appropriate, faculty can better
assist students to reach their goals (Karabenick & Knapp, 1991). The learning
environment in the classroom can also be geared to be student-centered, with the focus
being on helping students to become empowered learners so they will have the skills to
overcome obstacles in the future (Karabenick and Knapp, 1991).
Recommendations for Future Research
With few studies focusing on students completing the same course both in the
online and face-to-face format, it is recommended that this study be replicated using the
same undergraduate population, but on a broader scale. With a small response rate in this
study, expanding the research to include more undergraduate students will allow for the
results to be better generalizable to the population. The outcomes of the study also
highlighted several areas that should be considered for future research as well,
particularly as it relates to peer collaboration, the use of social media and technology in
the classroom, as well as student beliefs about ethics and ethics education.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 61

Additional research needs to be conducted on students as it relates to their beliefs
about voluntary peer collaboration and how often it is occurring. Most studies conducted
on collaboration focus on required collaborative assignments in the classroom and how
they foster student satisfaction and learning (see Agosto, Copeland, & Zach, 2013;
Alghamdi, 2013; Beldarrain, 2006; Borokhovski, Ramim, Bernard, Abrami, &
Sokolovskaya, 2013; Lewis, 2010; So and Brush, 2008; Zach & Agosto, 2009). Also,
much of the research on collaboration has focused on studying online students or all
undergraduate students in general (see Alghamdi, 2013; Beldarrain, 2006; Butson &
Thomson, 2014; Fisher & Baird, 2005; Lewis, 2010; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006; So &
Brush, 2008; Sullivan, et al., 2011; Zhu, 2012). To better understand voluntary peer
collaboration differences between both online and face-to-face students, it is suggested
that additional research be conducted to look at these two student populations together to
further add to the literature on the subject.
As it relates to collaboration, this study highlighted the underutilization of social
media as a resource for students to voluntarily collaborate with one another. While the
benefits of students using social media to enhance their education has been established
(Okoro, 2012), there is a lack of focus on how many students are taking advantage of this
mode of communication within the classroom. Looking at the differences between
student personal use of social media and their use of social media in the class setting
would provide additional insight as to who the type of student that may be more likely to
use this format to collaborate.
Other forms of technology, specifically the use of phone and text messaging, were
also found to be underutilized methods of contact for online students in this study. It is
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 62

recommended that additional research be conducted to evaluate the various forms of
technology online and face-to-face students use to collaborate with one another and why
they prefer one method over another. This information would be helpful for universities
to use so they may help to foster communication amongst the students in their class.
Lastly, research is scarce on student beliefs about ethics and ethics education.
Much has been focused on identifying who cheats and how (see Christensen-Hughes &
McCabe, 2006; Hamlin, Barczyk, Powell, & Frost, 2013; Kidwell & Kent, 2008;
McCabe, 2005; Witherspoon, Maldonado, & Lacey, 2012). However, with ethics
education and preparing students to act ethically specifically in the business setting,
understanding their beliefs and perceptions about ethics education would be beneficial to
ensure the ethic education that is being provided is capturing the students’ attention.
Conclusions
The results from this study highlighted important facts regarding online and on-
campus students and their beliefs and behaviors as it relates to help-seeking, voluntary
peer collaboration, and ethics. These findings hold value to the staff and faculty of higher
education institutions. The results highlight the importance of the environment that is
created in the classroom and its effect particularly on help-seeking and collaborative
behaviors. Faculty and course creators alike should reflect on the pedagogy used to
facilitate these student behaviors. The same can be said about those working in student
affairs. Departments such as advising and counseling can use these findings to help
further their own practices. With a focus on creating a connection between students and
their schools, such departments can find ways to encourage students to seek-help and
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 63

collaborate in their classes, reinforcing the work the professors and others are doing to
create a safe learning environment.
With the limitations taken into account, the current study does add to the limited
literature on evaluating student differences in the same course being completed in two
different course modes. While researchers and higher education institutions have
recognized and focused on the differences that separate student that complete their course
online and face-to-face, it is important that we continue to evaluate online education as it
evolves. As the population of those taking online courses continues to grow and change,
it is imperative that differences in beliefs and behaviors of our higher education student
population are evaluated to continue to promote student success.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 64

References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J. & Baker, C. R. (2007). The Relationship Between Moral
Reasoning and Plagiarism in Accounting Courses: A replication study. Issues in
Accounting Education, 22(1), pp. 45-55.
Adkins, N. & Radtke, R. R (2004). Students’ and Faculty Members’ Perceptions of the
Importance of Business Ethics and Accounting Ethics Education: Is there an
expectations gap? Journal of Business Ethics, 51, pp. 279-300.
Agosto, D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the Benefits of Blended
Education: Using social technology to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing
in face-to-face LIS courses. Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 54(2), pp. 94-107.
Alghamdi, A. (2013). Pedagogical Implications of Using Discussion Board to Improve
Student Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies, 3(5), pp. 68-80.
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking online education in the United
States. Sloan Consortium
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten years of tracking online
education in the United States. Sloan Consortium
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United
States. Sloan Consortium
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. Theory and
Practice of Online Learning, 2, pp. 15-44
Baetz, M., Zivcakova, L., Wood, E., Nosko, A., De Pasquale, D., & Archer, K. (2011).
Encouraging Active Classroom Discussion of Academic Integrity and Misconduct
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 65

in Higher Education Business Contexts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9, pp. 217-
234. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-011-9141-4
Baird, E. E. & Fisher, M (2006). Neomillenial User Experience Design Strategies:
Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), pp. 5-32.
Benshoff, J. M. & Gibbons, M. (2011). Bringing Life to E-Learning: Incorporating a
synchronous approach to online teaching in counselor education. The Professional
Counselor 1(1), pp. 21-28.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster
student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), pp. 139-153.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes, M.
A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-analysis of Three Types of Interaction
Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), pp.
1243-1289
Bird, J., & Morgan, C. (2003). Adults Contemplating University Study at a Distance:
Issues, themes and concerns. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/130/210
Black, E. W., Greaser, J. & Dawson, K. (2008). Academic Dishonesty in Traditional and
Online Classrooms: Does the “Media Equation” hold true? Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(4), pp. 23-30.
Boehm, P, Justice, M., & Weeks, S. (2009). Promoting Academic Integrity in Higher
Education. The Community College Enterprise, 15(1), pp. 45-61.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 66

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012).
Are Contextual and Designed Student-student Interaction Treatments Equally
Effective in Distance Education? Distance Education, 33(3), pp. 311-329
Brey, P. (2006). Social and Ethical Dimensions of Computer-Mediated Education.
Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society, 4(2), pp. 91-101.
Brown, J. L. (2013). Online Learning: A comparison of web-based and land-based
courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), pp. 39-42
Burkes, B. D. & Sellani, R. J. (2008). Ethics, Religiosity, and Moral Development of
Business Students. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, pp. 49-71
Butson, R. & Thomson, C. (2014). Challenges of Effective Collaboration in a Virtual
Learning Environment Among Undergraduate Students. Creative Education, 5,
pp. 1449-1459
Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., & Callery, P. (2008). Online vs. Face-
to-Face Discussion in a Web-based Research Methods Course for Postgraduate
Nursing Students: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 45, pp. 750-759
Castle, S. R. & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An Analysis of Student Self-assessment of Online,
Blended, and Face-to-Face Learning Environments: Implications for sustainable
education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), pp. 36-41. DOI:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.02.002
Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). University Students’ Online Academic
Help Seeking: The role of self-regulation and information commitments. Internet
and Higher Education, 16, pp. 70-77.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 67

Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., & Carrier, J. (2007).
Ethics, CSR, and Sustainability Education in the Financial Times Top 50 Global
Business Schools: Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 73, pp. 347-368. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9211-5.
Christensen Hughes, J. M. & McCabe, D. L. (2006). Academic Misconduct within
Higher Education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), pp.
1-21.
Clark, R. (2003). What Works in Distance Learning: Instructional strategies. In O’Neil,
H. (Ed.), What works in distance learning: Guidelines. Greenwich, Connecticut:
Information Age Publishers
Clark, R. E. & Feldon, D, F. (2005). Five Common but Questionable Principles of
Multimedia Learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). Evidence for the Performance
Benefits of Guided Training Methods. Handbook of Improving Performance in
the Workplace, pp. 263-297.
Clegg, S., Bradley, S., & Smith, K. (2006). ‘I’ve Had to Swallow My Pride’: Help
seeking and self-esteem. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), pp.
101-113.
Colucci, W. & Koppel, N. (2010). Impact of the Placement and Quality of Face-to-Face
Meetings in a Hybrid Distance Learning Course. American Journal of Business
Education, 3(2), pp. 119-130
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 68

Crawford-Ferre, H. G. & Wiest, L. R. (2012). Effective Online Instruction in Higher
Education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), pp. 11-14.
Dean, K. L. & Beggs, J. K. (2006). University Professors and Teaching Ethics:
Conceptualizations and expectations. Journal of Management Education, 30(1),
pp. 15-44.
Desplaces, D. E., Melchar, D. E., Beauvias, L. L., & Bosco, S. M. (2007). The Impact of
Business Education on Moral Judgment Competence: An empirical study. Journal
of Business Ethics, 74, pp. 73-87. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9221-3.
DuVall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis, M. (2007). Text Messaging to Improve
Social Presence in Online Learning. Educause Quarterly, 3, pp. 24-28.
El Mansour, B. & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ Positive and Negative Experiences
in Hybrid and Online Classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), pp. 242-248.
Esichaikul, V., Aung, W. M., Bechter, C., & Rehman, M. (2013). Development and
evaluation of wiki collaboration space for e-Learning. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 26(5), pp. 536-552.
Finnegan, C., Morris, L. V., & Lee, K. (2009). Differences by Course Discipline on
Student Behavior, Persistence, and Achievement in Online Courses of
Undergraduate General Education. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory and Practice, 10(1), pp. 39-54.
Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2005). Online Learning Design that Fosters Student Support,
Self-regulation, and Retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), pp. 88-
107.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 69

Fletcher-Brown, D., Buono, A. F., Frederick, R., Hall, G., & Sultan, J. (2012). A
Longitudinal Study of the Effectiveness of Business Ethics Education:
Establishing the baseline. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(1), pp. 45-56.
Goldin, C. & Katz, L. F. (1999). The Shaping of Higher Education: The formative years
in the United States, 1890-1940. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), pp. 37-
62.
Granitz, N. & Loewy, D. (2007). Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and responding
to student plagiarism. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, pp. 293-306. DOI:
10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9.
Grijalva, T. C., Nowell, C., & Kerkvliet, J. (2006). Academic Honesty and Online
Courses. College Student Journal, 40(1), pp. 180-185.
Grinnell, L., Sauers, A., Appunn, F., & Mack, L. (2012). Virtual Teams In Higher
Education: The light and dark side. Journal of College Teaching & Learning,
9(1), pp. 65-78
Gu, J. & Neesham, C. (2014). Moral Identity as Leverage Point in Teaching Business
Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, pp. 527-536. DOI 10/1007/s10551-013-
2028-0.
Gupta, S., Cunningham, D. J., & Arya, A. (2009). A Comparison of the Ethics of
Business Students: Stated behavior versus actual behavior. Journal of Legal,
Ethical & Regulatory Issues, 12(2), pp. 103-122.
Hall, O. P. (2006). Enhancing Management Education Using Hybrid Learning Nets: A
perspective from working adults. Journal of Business and Management, 12(1), pp.
45-58.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 70

Hamlin, A., Barczyk, C., Powell, G., & Frost, J. (2013). A Comparison of University
Efforts to Contain Academic Dishonesty. Journal of Legal, Ethical, and
Regulatory Issues, 16(1), pp. 35-46.
Harmon, O. R. & Lambrinos, J. (2008). Are Online Exams an Invitation to Cheat? The
Journal of Economic Education, 39(2), pp. 116-125.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating Collaboration in Online Learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), pp. 7-24.
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community
Development Among Distance Learners: Temporal and technological dimensions.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1).
DOI: 10.1111/j.10836101.2000.tb00114.x
Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the Course: A study in online student satisfaction and
retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4). Retrieved
from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter94/herbert94.htm
International Center for Academic Integrity:
http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/integrity-3.php
Jewe, R. D. (2008). Do Business Ethics Courses Work? The effectiveness of business
ethics education: an empirical study. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), pp.
1-6.
Jones, D. R. (2011). Academic Dishonesty: Are more student cheating? Business
Communication Quarterly, 74(2), pp. 141-150. DOI:
10.1177/1080569911404059.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 71

Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S. & Perez, F. S. (2008). Academic Work, the
Internet, and US College Students. Internet and Higher Education, 11, pp. 165-
177.
Jones, G. E., & Ottaway, R. N. (2001). The Effectiveness of Corporate Ethics On-Site
Visits for Teaching Business Ethics. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(2), pp. 141-156.
Karabenick, S. (1998). Strategic Help Seeking: Implications for learning and teaching.
Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Kidwell, L. A. & Kent, J. (2008). Integrity at a Distance: A study of academic
misconduct among university students on and off campus. Accounting Education:
An International Journal, 17, pp. 3-16.
Kitsantas, A., & Chow, A. (2007). College Students’ Perceived Threat and Preference for
Seeking Help in Traditional, Distributed, and Distance Learning Environments.
Computers & Education, 48(3), pp. 383-395.
Kumrow, D. E. (2007). Evidence-based Strategies of Graduate Students to Achieve
Success in a Hybrid Web-based course. The Journal of Nursing Education, 46(3),
pp. 140-145.
Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic Integrity and Distance Learning. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 17(2), pp. 244-261. DOI: 10.1080/10511250600866166.
Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the Distance with Online
Education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), pp. 567-605.
Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., Goodridge, W., & Lawanto, K. (2014). Task Value, Self-
Regulated Learning, and Performance in a Web-Intensive Undergraduate
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 72

Engineering Course: How are they related? Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 10(1), pp. 97-111.
Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is Classroom Cheating Related to Business Students’ Propensity
to Cheat in the “Real World”? Journal of Business Ethics, 49, pp. 189-199.
Lei, S. A. & Govra, R. K (2010). College Distance Education Courses: Evaluating
benefits and costs from institutional, faculty, and students’ perspectives.
Education, 130(4), pp. 616-631.
Lewis, G. S. (2010). I Would Have Had More Success If…: Student reflections on their
performance in online and blended courses. American Journal of Business
Education, 3(11), pp. 13-21.
LoSchiavo, F. M. & Shatz, M. A. (2011). The Impact of an Honor Code on Cheating in
Online Courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), pp. 179-184.
MaCabe, D. L. (2005). CAI Research http://www.academicintegrity.org/cai_research.asp
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Holley, T. (2009). Facebook, Social Integration and
Informal Learning at University: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to friends
about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media, and Technology,
34(2), pp. 141-155
Mahasneh, R. A., Sowan, A. K., & Nassar, Y. H. (2012). E-Learning and Digital Media.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(2),
pp. 196-210
Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2008). Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources
for Higher Education. USA: Routledge.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 73

May, D. R., Luth, M. T., & Schwoerer. (2014). The Influence of Business Ethics
Education on Moral Efficacy, Moral Meaningfulness, and Moral Courage: A
quasi-experimental study. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, pp. 67-80. DOI
10.1007/s10551-013-1860-6.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyn, K. (2011). E-learning, Online Learning, and
Distance Learning Environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher
Education, 14, pp. 129-135.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A systems view of online
learning. CengageBrain.com.
Morris, L. V. & Finnegan, C. L. (2009). Best Practices in Predicting and Encouraging
Student Persistence and Achievement Online. Journal of College Student
Retention 10(1), pp. 55-64.
Nelson-Le Gall, S. & Resnick, L. (1998). Help Seeking, Achievement Motivation and the
Social Practice of Intelligence in School. In S. Karabenick (Ed.) Strategic Help
Seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 39-60). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nicholson, C. Y. & DeMoss, M. (2009). Teaching Ethics and Social Responsibility: An
evaluation of undergraduate business education at the discipline level. Journal of
Education for Business 84(4), pp. 213-218.
Okoro, E. (2012). Integrating Social Media Technologies in Higher Education: Cost –
Benefits Analysis. Journal of International Education Research, 8(3), pp. 255-
262.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 74

Persons, O. (2009). Using a Corporate Code of Ethics to Assess Students’ Ethicality:
Implications for Business Education. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6),
pp. 356-366.
Pew Internet Project (2014). Pew Research Center, Washington, DC:
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I., E. (2010). Educational Transformation Through
Online Learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
14(4), pp. 17-35
Rabe-Hemp, C. & Woollen, S. (2009). A Comparative Analysis of Student Engagement,
Learning, and Satisfaction in Lecture Hall and Online Learning Settings. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), pp. 207-218
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on
Facebook in Higher Education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses
and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13, ,
pp. 134-140.
Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving Students’
Help-Seeking Skills Using Metacognitive Feedback in an Intelligent Tutoring
System. Learning and Instruction, 21, pp. 267-280. DOI:
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004
Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and Performance Approach Goal Orientations in Relation to
Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Academic Help-Seeking Behaviors of
College Students in Turkey. Educational Research, 2(1), pp. 771-778.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 75

Shannon, J. R. & Berl, R. L (1997). Are we Teaching Ethics in Marketing?: A survey of
students’ attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(10), pp. 1059-
1075.
Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L. (2006). Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching
and Learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, pp. 297-312.
Smith, D. E. & Mitry, D. J. (2008). Investigation of Higher Education: The real costs and
quality of online programs. Journal of Education for Business, 83(3), pp. 147-152
So, H. J. & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student Perceptions of Collaborative Learning, Social
Presence and Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment: Relationships and
critical factors. Computers and Education, 51(1), pp. 318-336. DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009.
Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online Learning in Higher Education: A review of research on
interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication &
Information 3(2), pp. 241-280
Wandel, T. (2007). About Facebook: Educational institution responses to online social
networking. WCA Conference, Brisbane.
Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and Faculty Perceptions of the
Quality of Online Learning Experience. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), pp. 57-77.
Witherspoon, M., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C. H. (2012). Undergraduates and Academic
Dishonesty. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(1), pp. 76-88.
Xu, D. & Jaggers, S. S. (2011). The Effectiveness of Distance Education Across
Virginia’s Community Colleges: Evidence from introductory college-level math
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 76

and English courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), pp. 360-
377
Zhan, Z. & Mei, H. (2013). Academic Self-concept and Social Presence in Face-to-Face
and Online Learning: Perceptions and effects on students’ learning achievement
and satisfaction across environments. Computers and Education, 69, pp. 131-138

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 77

APPENDIX A
Instruments
Demographic Instrument
1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Other (please specify)

2. What is your age in years?______

3. What is your current employment status?
a. Not currently working
b. Working part-time
c. Working full-time

4. Please choose indicate your ethnicity.
a. Hispanic/Latino
b. American Indian or Alaska Native
c. Asian
d. Black or African American
e. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Two or more races
h. Other – text

5. Please indicate your relationship status
a. Single
b. Married/Domestic Partner
c. Separated/Divorced
d. Widowed

6. Have you served as a member of United States Arms’ Forces? Yes/No

7. What is your current major? (open text item)
a. not currently enrolled in a program

8. I am currently enrolled as a
Part-time student (3-11.5 units)
Full-time student 12+ units)

9. Do you have a previous graduate degree?

10. How many online courses have you taken previously?

11. What is the highest level of education either of your parents has completed?
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 78

a. Primary or less
b. Middle school
c. Some high school
d. High school diploma/GED
e. Some college
f. Associate Degree/Certificate
g. Bachelor’s Degree
h. Master’s Degree
i. Doctoral Degree

12. Are you taking this course online or on-campus?
a. If on-campus, please select the campus location where you are completing
the course (drop down menu)

13. What session are you taking this course
a. Fall 1 2014
b. Fall 2 2014

14. Why did you choose to take this format? (check all that apply)
a. Scheduling
b. Instructional considerations (e.g., preferred method of instruction, quality of
instruction, access to instructor)
c. Geographic reasons
d. Family responsibilities
e. Professional responsibilities
f. Other: Text answer

15. Outside of this course, how many ethics courses have you completed?
a. None
b. 1-2 courses
c. More than 3 courses

Satisfaction Instrument
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree
nor agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
1. I am satisfied with my decision to take
the course/program in this format.

2. If I had an opportunity to take another
course/program in this format, I would
do so.

3. I feel that this course/program format
served my needs.

EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 79

4. I will take as many courses/programs in
this format as I can.

5. I feel the quality of the course/program
I took was largely enhanced by the
format.

6. If I had to do this over, I would take
another class with this instructor.

Voluntary Peer Collaboration Instrument
Please answer the following questions in the context of your experience in this course.

Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree – disagree – neither disagree nor agree – agree – strongly agree
(1-5)

1. It is important to collaborate with my peers in this course even if it is not required.
2. I believe that teaching and learning from each other is important to succeed in this
course.
3. It is important to both give and receive peer feedback related to work in this
course.

For the next two questions, think about your voluntary collaboration with your peers. By
voluntary collaboration, we mean collaborative activities that are NOT initiated or
facilitated by the instructor or required for the course or course assignments.

On average, how often do you voluntarily collaborate with your peers in this course?

1. Not at all
2. 1-2 times per semester
3. 1-2 times per month
4. 1-2 times per week
5. More than twice a week

In what ways did you voluntarily collaborate in this course/program? (check all that
apply)
Not applicable
In person
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 80

Via Phone or Text
Via Email or discussion board
Via Social Media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Via Videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Adobe Connect, etc.)
Other (please indicate below)
 Text entry

Help-Seeking Instrument
Please answer the following questions in the context of your experience in this course.
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Strongly disagree – disagree – neither disagree nor agree – agree – strongly agree
1. Even if I have trouble learning the material in this class, it is important that I try to
do the work on my own, without help from anyone.
2. It is important to ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand well.
3. If I don’t understand the material in this course, it is important that I ask another
student in this class for help.
4. It is important to identify students in this class whom I can ask for help if
necessary
(Formal versus Information Help Seeking) Indicate the degree to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements. Strongly disagree – disagree – neither disagree
nor agree – agree – strongly agree
1. If I were to seek help in this class I would ask the teacher rather than another
student.
2. I would prefer asking another student for help in this class rather than the
instructor. (REV)
3. In this class, the teacher would be better to get help from than would a student.
EVLAUATING THE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS 81

For the next set of questions, please indicate how often you have sought help from:
Not at all 1-2 times
per session

Every
other week
Once a
week

More than
once a
week

Instructor/teaching
assistant

Peer
Other

Student Ethics Instrument
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Strongly disagree – disagree – neither disagree nor agree – agree – strongly agree
1. An ethics course will help me solve moral and ethical issues in the workplace
2. Ethics is important in the business community
3. Ethics is an important topic to cover in business courses
4. Ethics plays an important role in my personal decisions
5. Ethics do play a role in my decision making in the workplace

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Online education has become a prevalent way for students to complete courses or entire degrees in higher education. The growth rate of students taking online courses continues to grow each year and outpace the growth rate of traditional higher education face‐to‐face courses (Allen & Seaman, 2013). While more students each year are completing their higher education in the online format, there is debate as to its effectiveness, specifically, regarding the differences in beliefs and behaviors of online versus face‐to‐face students (Beldarrain, 2006

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining student beliefs and behaviors in online and on-campus courses: measuring openness to diversity, voluntary peer collaboration, and help seeking

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

Academic beliefs and behaviors in on-campus and online general education biology classes

PDF

A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment

PDF

Faculty development curriculum to facilitate discourse in the online space

PDF

Asynchronous online education and introductory statistics: The role of learner characteristics

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

Community college students in STEM: a quantitative study investigating the academic beliefs of students enrolled in online and on campus information technology courses

PDF

Motives and methods: motivation, learning approaches, and academic achievement of students during first year transition to medical school

PDF

Integrating technology in teaching: beliefs and behaviors of practicing teachers from traditional and online teaching programs

PDF

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

The graduate school experience: exploring help-seeking behaviors of female South Asian international graduate alumni after experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

Motivational and academic outcomes in retained middle school students

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

Asset Metadata

Creator Perrine, Nicole R. (author)

Core Title Beliefs and behaviors of online and face-to-face students: evaluating differences in collaboration, help‐seeking, and ethics

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/22/2015

Defense Date 04/10/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag behaviors,beliefs,collaboration,ethics,face‐to‐face students,help‐seeking,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,online students

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Brooks-Johnson, Jalin (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email nikkieperrine@gmail.com,nperrine@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-574881

Unique identifier UC11298792

Identifier etd-PerrineNic-3499.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-574881 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PerrineNic-3499.pdf

Dmrecord 574881

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Perrine, Nicole R.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA