Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college
(USC Thesis Other)
African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
AFRICAN-AMERICAN/BLACK STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT IN
ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AT A COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
by
Tammara Whitaker
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 2020
Copyright 2020 Tammara Whitaker
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to four amazing women in my life who have been instrumental in
my success throughout the years: Tabitha Whitaker, Deitra Whitaker, Cassandra Harrison, and
Julie Yarrish. You all have been a blessing in my life, and I am eternally grateful for your love
and support.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my amazing parents, Tabitha and Robert Whitaker, for your
unwavering support and love. I want to thank my mother for being my number one cheerleader
and for the strength she always exhibits even in the most tough times. Thank you for teaching me
at an early age, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” Philippians 4:13. I want
to thank my wonderful family for their encouragement and love. I would like to thank my
Godmother, Cassandra Stansberry, for always making me feel special. Thank you for making
sure every event is over the top and in style. I am looking forward to my future “drive-by”
graduation parade, even if I have been stubborn about it this whole time.
I would like to thank my wonderful husband, Andre, for your love and support. Thank
you for pushing me to continue throughout the years when I really needed it the most. I am
eternally grateful for such a supportive and caring husband such as yourself. I am truly excited to
embark on our next chapter together.
I also want to thank my amazing friends, cohort, and colleagues who were supportive
throughout me journey. I also want to thank my “work mom,” Julie Yarrish, for recognizing and
nurturing my talents. I appreciate your guidance and your great sense of humor. Thank you for
taking me under your wing.
I am also fortunate to have a great dissertation committee: Dr. Tambascia, Dr. Green, and
Dr. Andrade. Thank you, Dr. Tambascia, for pushing me and remaining patient throughout this
journey. Thank you, Dr. Green, for agreeing to serve on my committee and the support you have
offered in this process. Thank you, Dr. Andrade, for your warmth and guidance throughout this
journey. I also wish to thank the participants for their participation in this study and trusting me
with their voice.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 4
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 5
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 8
California Community Colleges ....................................................................................... 10
History of Distance Education in California Community Colleges.................................. 11
Distance Education at California Community Colleges .............................................. 13
Online Learning Success at California Community Colleges...................................... 14
Academic Achievement for Online African-American/Black Students ...................... 16
Closing the Gap ............................................................................................................ 17
Barriers to Academic Achievement .................................................................................. 18
African-American/Black Online Students ................................................................... 19
v
Cultural Differences in an Online Environment .......................................................... 21
Cultural Barriers ........................................................................................................... 21
Learning Preference Barriers ....................................................................................... 23
African-American/Black Student Satisfaction with Online Learning ......................... 23
Technological Challenges ................................................................................................. 25
Disparities in Access .................................................................................................... 25
Digital Inequality ......................................................................................................... 26
Technology Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................ 27
Culturally Responsive Instruction in Online Education ................................................... 29
Social Presence ................................................................................................................. 30
Online Social Presence Barriers ................................................................................... 33
The Role of Community in Online Learning ............................................................... 34
Online Learning Community Barriers ......................................................................... 35
Institutional Factors .......................................................................................................... 36
Faculty Training ........................................................................................................... 36
Online Readiness and Support Services ....................................................................... 38
Student Support Services ............................................................................................. 38
Ecological Systems Theory............................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 45
Research Design Overview ............................................................................................... 45
Site Selection .................................................................................................................... 46
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 49
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 51
vi
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 52
Validity ............................................................................................................................. 53
Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings ......................................................................... 56
Participant Overview ........................................................................................................ 56
Participant Profiles ....................................................................................................... 59
Themes .............................................................................................................................. 62
Academic Motivation to Succeed Online .................................................................... 63
Face-to-Face Settings Versus Online Settings ............................................................. 65
Academic Resources and Support ................................................................................ 70
Establishing a Connection Online ................................................................................ 74
Online Learning Barriers.............................................................................................. 79
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 85
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications .................................................................................. 86
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 86
Perceptions Regarding Barriers to Success .................................................................. 89
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory ................................................................. 90
Microsystem for African-American Online Students .................................................. 91
Mesosystem for African-American Online Students ................................................... 93
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 95
Recommendation 1: Promote and Invest in Online Student Services.......................... 96
Recommendation 2: Provide Opportunities for Online Student Communities............ 97
vii
Recommendation 3: Invest in Ongoing Online Faculty Training ................................ 98
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 99
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 100
References ................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Recruitment E-mail ............................................................................................... 128
Appendix B: Pre-Screening Survey ............................................................................................ 129
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 131
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol ........................................................................................... 134
Appendix E: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 136
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Online Academic Success Rates .......................................................................................47
Table 2 Individual Interview Participants’ Pseudonyms and Demographics .................................57
Table 3 Themes and Subthemes .....................................................................................................63
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 Synchronous vs Asynchronous Distance Education Internet-Based Courses Sessions
from 2005–06 to 2016–17 ..............................................................................................................13
Figure 2 Academic Performance Gap in Online Courses Relative to Face-to-Face Courses ........15
Figure 3 Academic Performance Gaps Exacerbated in Online Classes .........................................16
Figure 4 Renn and Arnolds’ (2003) Adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Model as applied to Higher
Education .......................................................................................................................................41
Figure 5 Distance Education Success Rate by Ethnicity from 2005 to 2016 ................................48
Figure 6 Age Range of Participants ...............................................................................................58
Figure 7 Number of Online Courses Completed at ACC by Participants......................................58
Figure 8 Renn and Arnolds’ (2003) adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Model as applied to Higher
Education .......................................................................................................................................91
Figure 9 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................96
x
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the experiences and perspectives of African-American/Black
community college students in asynchronous online learning environments. This study was
guided through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Despite the growing
number of African-American/Black students enrolling in California community colleges and
online courses, there is little known regarding the online learning experiences of this student
population. Furthermore, African-American/Black students have poor academic outcomes in
online courses in the California community colleges. Data were collected from semi-structured
interviews with 15 African-American/Black students who completed at least one asynchronous
online course at a community college in Southern California. The study found that African-
American/Black students in asynchronous online learning environments had limited interaction
with their peers in the course. Furthermore, the participants used many on-campus support
services and were not aware or did not utilize the online support services offered by the college.
The participants also highlighted the importance of family, faculty, and counselor support
throughout their academic journey. The study offers recommendations to improve the online
student experience of racially minoritized students, specifically African-American/Black
students, in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college.
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Online education continues to have high enrollments and affords students an alternative
approach to pursuing higher education. Over 30% of higher education students take at least one
distance education course, representing 6.3 million students in the U.S. (Seaman et al., 2018). In
online learning environments, the Internet is used to facilitate teaching and learning while
instructors and learners are physically separated (Newby et al., 2006). Students increasingly
enroll in online courses, particularly asynchronous options, due to a multitude of reasons,
including flexibility and convenience, ease of enrollment, and juggling life demands (Daymont et
al., 2011; Luo et al., 2011). Improving student access to higher education is a significant factor in
the growth of online courses and programs (Allen & Seaman, 2007). As a result, online learning
makes education more accessible to students without location and time constraints (Anderson,
2008).
In 2016–2017, 38% of undergraduates attended a public 2-year college (NCES, 2018).
Public institutions enroll the largest portion of distance education students, with 67.8% of all
distance education students (Seaman et al., 2018). Currently, the California community college
(CCC) system is the largest postsecondary education system in the nation and offers more online
credit courses than any other public higher education institution in the country (Johnson &
Cuellar Mejia, 2014). Community colleges typically serve students with greater educational
needs than 4-year institutions with the least amount of resources (The Century Foundation,
2019). In addition, community colleges serve a significantly higher percentage of racially
minoritized students, specifically African-American/Black and Latinx students (Adelman, 2005).
As the overall number of African-American/Black students enrolled in higher education
has increased, the number of African-American/Black students enrolled in online courses has
2
also increased (Ashong & Commander, 2012; Waits & Lewis, 2003). One of the many
challenges that community colleges face today with serving historically underserved and racially
minoritized students is the level of disparity between educational attainment for African-
American/Black and Latinx students and their White counterparts (Greene et al., 2008). While
only 8% of Black students were enrolled in distance learning between 2016 and 2017 at CCCs,
the lowest distance education academic success rate from 2005–2016 was among Black students,
which was between 39% and 49% (Woodyard & Larson, 2017). Several studies found that the
equity gap that exists in a traditional face-to-face course is exacerbated in an online learning
environment for African-American/Black students (Johnson & Cuellar Mejia, 2014; Rovai &
Ponton, 2005). However, there are relatively few studies that have examined African-
American/Black students’ experiences and outcomes in an online learning environment (Ashong
& Commander, 2012; Rovai & Ponton, 2005). Many studies involve quantitative surveyed
responses or anecdotal data from a single online course or program to examine racially
minoritized groups in an online learning environment (Ke & Kwak, 2013). For these reasons, it
is important to research the experience of African-American/Black students in a rapidly growing
online learning environment, as more students demand and enroll in online courses. Furthermore,
there is a need to improve access and close the equity gap of African-American/Black online
students in post-secondary education. Thus, an investigation using qualitative methods provided
a richer understanding of student perceptions in an online learning environment (Ashong &
Commander, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
There is a gap in the literature regarding African-American/Black students’ perceptions
of online learning (Ashong & Commander, 2012), and a need to gain a deeper understanding on
3
how African-American/Black students experience online learning environments (Rovai &
Ponton, 2005). Higher institutions have embraced online education as a method to not only
increase enrollments but provide greater access to students. Community colleges are the entry
point for many African-American/Black students in their pursuit to achieve social and economic
mobility. Thus, online courses are an attractive option due to flexibility for nontraditional and
underserved communities, including African-American/Black students. The underachievement in
online courses among African-American/Black students in the CCCs are well documented
(Woodyard & Larson, 2017), and these students historically have difficulty adapting to online
courses and performed lower academically in online courses akin to traditional face-to-face
courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand African-American/Black
community college students’ experiences in an asynchronous online learning environment. This
study sought to gain insight into experiences and barriers for African-American/Black students
within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) ecological systems theory. This study adds to the limited
body of literature for this growing population of students in an online learning environment.
Obtaining this information also aids in the development of support structures and initiatives to
improve student outcomes of underserved populations enrolled in online courses.
Research Questions
The following research question and sub-question guided the study:
1. What are African-American/Black students’ experiences in an asynchronous, online
learning environment at a community college?
4
a. What are the perceptions of African-American/Black students regarding the
barriers to academic success, if any?
Significance of the Study
This study is important because the potential access that online education provides some
students may actually represent a different set of challenges for other students. This qualitative
case study added to the limited existing body of research regarding African-American/Black
students and online education. Additionally, this study may also serve as the impetus for further
research on other racially minoritized groups and their experiences in an online learning
environment. Findings from this study may help administrators, faculty, and staff in the
development of support structures and initiatives to improve student outcomes among African-
American/Black and Latinx students, where the disparity is the greatest in online courses.
Limitation and Delimitations
This study is subject to certain limitations. The first limitation is that case studies are not
generalizable. The study focused on one large community college in California, thus limiting the
examination of experiences for African-American/Black students to that particular region of the
U.S. Although the community college selected has robust online course offerings, the small
sample size limits the generalizability of the study. The second limitation is the study did not
isolate students who are exclusively enrolled in online courses. Community college students
typically enroll in a combination of online and face-to-face courses, and it was difficult to recruit
students who solely enroll in online courses. Additionally, this study solely examined
experiences in an asynchronous online learning environment and did not include other distance
education delivery methods. This study relied on students’ self-reported experiences with regard
to race and ethnicity, specifically identifying as African-American/Black. Furthermore, the use
5
of female and male in the study is a possible limitation due to its focus on gender binary. Lastly,
participants could opt out of the study, even if they identified as mixed African-American/Black
students.
Assumptions
The study was guided by two assumptions. The first assumption was that the participants
provided an accurate and honest account of their experiences in taking completing coursework
online. The second assumption was that qualitative research was the best methodological
approach for this research study.
Definition of Terms
There following terms are used in this study:
African-American or Black - A person in the United States of America with origins
with the Black racial groups of Africa (United States Census Bureau, 2018).
Asynchronous Online Learning – Internet-based instruction that occurs in delayed time
and does not require the simultaneous participation of learners and instructors. Learners can
review and complete work at their own pace to follow a specific deadline (Mehrotra et al., 2001).
Community college - An open-access, public, two-year degree-granting institution.
Distance Education - Instruction provided remotely while the instructor and the student
are not in each other’s geographic location or physical presence (Mehrotra et al., 2001). The
terms online learning, online education, online courses, and distance learning are used
interchangeably.
Face-to-face course – A lecture component in which learners are expected to be
physically present in the same location as their instructor. The term campus-based courses are
used interchangeably.
6
Opportunity Gap – The unequal or inequitable distribution of resources and
opportunities. In this study, opportunity gap will refer to the inequitable distribution of
opportunities between White and Black students in higher education (Johnson-Ahorlu, 2012).
The term equity gap will be used interchangeably and looks specifically at White and Black
students.
Racially Minoritized Students – “Minoritization” signifies an understanding of
“minority” status or underrepresentation in U.S. social institutions which is socially constructed
in specific societal contexts, including higher education institutions (Harper, 2012; Stewart,
2013). Individuals are not born into a minority status or minoritized in every social context
(Harper, 2012). Thus, individuals are considered minorities in institutional environments and
specific situations with an overrepresentation of their White counterparts.
Success Rate – The number of enrollments who earned a grade of C or better (California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office [CCCCO], 2019c).
Conclusion
This study examined the experiences of African-American/Black students in an
asynchronous online learning environment. This qualitative study sought to add to the dearth of
literature for this growing body of students enrolling in online courses. In efforts to improve
educational attainment among African-American/Black students in community colleges, research
must also focus on online learning experiences for racially minoritized students, as online
education is often marketed as a flexible and accessible option to pursue educational goals. Thus,
it is important to have a deeper understanding of the experiences of students who historically
underachieve in this particular setting. The next chapter will provide a review of relevant
literature to support the significance of the study. In addition, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
7
systems theory was used as the theoretical framework. The methodological approaches used for
the research study will be detailed in Chapter Three.
8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Online education is credited with being an innovative format that has provided greater
access, affordability, and convenience to students and educators globally. Kentnor (2015) argued
that not only is online education the fastest growing form of distance education, but it is also
valued at both traditional and non-traditional post-secondary institutions. This chapter examines
literature on African-American/Black students’ experiences and barriers that may contribute to
lower academic achievement among African-American/Black students in an online learning
environment.
Distance education is defined as instruction provided remotely while the instructor and
the student are not in each other’s geographic location or physical presence (Mehrotra et al.,
2001). Distance education evolved from a combination of correspondence, parcel post, radio,
audio, video, and television, taking on the online format today (Kentnor, 2015). Today, distance
education is online education, which uses computers and the Internet as the delivery method.
According to Stumpf et al. (2005) distance education makes education accessible and affordable
without location and time constraints. Students are also not limited to local colleges and
universities and may select which institution best suits their needs (Li & Irby, 2008). The
terminology for distance education continues to evolve from e-learning, distance learning, and
online learning.
There are a variety of delivery options for distance learning courses, including
asynchronous and synchronous delivery. Synchronous online learning environments involve
two-way communication at the same time through various online mediums between the teacher
and student (Mehrotra et al., 2001). Asynchronous courses do not require the instructor and
student to be present at the same time, and students can review and complete work at their own
9
pace, following a specific deadline. According to Hrastinski (2008), there are benefits and limits
to asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments for all students. Asynchronous
online learning environments allow students flexible learning and more time for reflection in
comparison to synchronous online learning environments, while synchronous online learning
environments allow students to ask questions in real time and avoid feelings of isolation.
Distance education courses are no longer an option for many institutions who wish to
remain competitive for students in a global society (Care & Scanlan, 2001). A 2016 report by the
Babson Survey Research Group found that distance learning student enrollments increased for 14
consecutive years, and 30% of higher education students take at least one distance learning
course (Allen et al., 2018). Furthermore, academic leaders identified online learning was critical
to an academic institution’s long-term strategy to meet student demand (Allen & Seaman, 2014;
Kentnor, 2015).
Distance education will continue to evolve as technology changes to meet students’
needs. Furthermore, students enjoy the benefits of having less travel time, convenience to course
materials, and setting their own schedules in online courses (Jaggars, 2014). In a study involving
persistence in online learning environments, researchers found that online classes were beneficial
to community college students who wished to pursue their educational goals and integrate their
additional familial and work obligations (Stanford-Bowers, 2008). Online learning provides
convenient access to students who may not otherwise attend postsecondary education (Bawa,
2016).
10
California Community Colleges
California community colleges (CCC) serve more than two million students annually and
is the largest system of higher education in the nation (Scott, 2009). One in five of all community
college students nationwide are enrolled in a CCC (CCCCO, 2019a).
Community colleges have an over 100-year history and provide students with basic skills,
academic courses towards an associate’s or baccalaureate degree, workforce education courses,
and continuing education courses (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). Community colleges serve a diverse
population of students with a vast range of educational goals. As a result, some argue that the
mission of community colleges is diverse and the expectations often conflict (Dougherty &
Townsend, 2006). Community colleges have open-door enrollment policies and students can
enter without the resources or skills to be successful students in the higher education
environment (Cohen & Brawer, 2008).
Community colleges serve a high percentage of historically underrepresented minorities
(Adelman, 2005). In 2015–16, researchers found that 45% of all undergraduate students
identified with a race or ethnicity other than White, compared to 29.6% in 1995–96 (Espinosa et
al., 2019). The study also found that Latinx and Black undergraduate students, 55.4% and 44%
respectively, were more likely to be enrolled at public 2-year institutions than in any other higher
education sector. In 2017, among the 84% of African-American/Black students who attended
college in California, 72% were enrolled at one of the CCC campuses (The Campaign for
College Opportunity, 2018).
Community colleges also serve a large proportion of first-generation college students,
English as second language learners, low-income, and older adult students. According to the
11
National Postsecondary Student Aid study, more undergraduate students were enrolled in public
two-year institutions than any other sector (Espinosa et al., 2019).
Community colleges are publicly funded institutions with limited resources, and many
academic leaders have stated they will be unable to “keep up with inflation and enrollment
increases” without more state support (Zeidenberg, 2008, p. 56). By 2025, California will likely
face a shortage of one million college degree and certificate holders to support the increasingly
educated workforce needed for economic development (CCCCO, 2019a).
Barriers to Student Success
Although community colleges have provided more access for all students to pursue
higher education, many of the students face a myriad of barriers, including economic, family,
and work obligations that hinder their academic success. The limited funding sources
experienced by community colleges result in cuts to services and resources that would mitigate
the high attrition rates, lower transfer rates, and poorer student outcomes at these campuses
(Zeidenberg, 2008). For example, without the funding to allocate to support strategies and
programs, such as tutoring and child care assistance, there is a likelihood of higher attrition rates.
History of Distance Education in California Community Colleges
Distance education has been part of the CCCs for more than 40 years. In the early years,
television, radio, and correspondence were the primary delivery methods (Scott, 2009). From
1979 to 1994, community college students were only allowed to take distance education courses
that were transferable to 4-year institutions (Woodyard & Larson, 2017).
In 1994, temporary regulations allowed colleges to use “computing technologies” to
address student access issues related to “geographical, cultural, or facility barriers” (Scott, 2009
p. 3). In 2002, the CCC Board of Governors approved Title V regulations to expand distance
12
education courses to all credit and noncredit bearing courses (Woodyard & Larson, 2017). In the
same year, regulatory changes were implemented to recognize established distance education
courses as the same as regular courses, instead of being recognized as an independent study
course previously (Woodyard & Larson, 2017). This was noteworthy because the change
allowed distance education courses to be computed as full-time equivalent student (FTES)
apportionment (Scott, 2009; Woodyard & Larson, 2017). The Higher Education Opportunity Act
of 2008 provided distance education requirements that the Accrediting Commission for
Community Colleges verify during accreditation visits.
Currently, the most common method of delivery for distance education programs at the
CCCs is Internet-based asynchronous. Internet-based (online) instruction is divided into two
delivery formats: synchronous and asynchronous delivery. According to Woodyard and Larson
(2017), at the CCC’s, 87% of distance education courses are asynchronous, and 7% are
synchronous. Figure 1, which was prepared by the academic affairs division and the educational
programs and professional development unit of the CCCCO, demonstrates the relationship
between the two types of delivery methods over a 10-year period. In 2016–17, the majority of
online courses were offered asynchronously.
13
Figure 1
Synchronous vs Asynchronous Distance Education Internet-Based Courses Sessions from 2005–
06 to 2016–17
Adapted from Distance Education Report, 2017, p. 39.
Distance Education at California Community Colleges
In California, community colleges have experienced a steady increase in enrollment.
Distance education offerings more than doubled from 21,414 sessions in 2005–06 to 58,017 in
2015–16 (CCCCO, 2019a). In 2000–01, CCCs had 1,046,343 FTES; in 2017–18, the enrollment
increased to 1,182,897 FTES (CCCCO, 2019c). As a result, distance education course offerings
have increased to match student enrollment. Woodyard and Larson (2017) found that 1 in 3
students will take a distance learning course each academic year. Distance learning courses are
expected to have the same quality and rigor as a traditional, face-to-face, courses on campus.
The increasing role of online learning at CCCs is evident in the fact that over half of the
community colleges offer at least one degree or certificate that can be completed mostly online
(CCCCO, 2019c). Since community colleges are more likely than any other institution of higher
education in the United States to serve nontraditional students, students are often attracted to the
flexibility of online learning due to work and family obligations (Johnson & Cuellar Mejia,
2014). African-American/Black and older students have higher enrollment rates in online courses
14
than in traditional, face-to-face courses at CCCs. In a report that tracked a cohort of students
enrolled in one of the CCCs over 6 years from fall 2006 to fall 2012, 9.4% of African-
American/Black students were enrolled in online courses, compared to 7.6% African-
American/Black students enrolled in traditional face-to-face courses (Johnson & Cuellar Mejia,
2014).
Online Learning Success at California Community Colleges
Community colleges are an entry point for many underrepresented populations in higher
education, and it is necessary to explore whether online learning contributes to or reduces known
equity gaps. Retention rates in distance learning courses continue to be a concern for many
community colleges (Aragon & Johnson, 2008). Whenever a student withdraws from a course,
the student is considered not retained. However, the retention rate has improved for online
learning courses at CCCs, with an average retention gap between online instruction and
traditional instruction of 7% from 2005–06 to 2016–17 (Woodyard & Larson, 2017). CCCs have
also experienced an improvement in academic outcomes in online learning courses. The gap in
success rates between face-to-face courses and distance education courses, 71% and 66%
respectively, have closed from 17% in 2006–07 to 4% in 2016–17 (Woodyard & Larson, 2017).
Thus, student academic performance is higher in face-to-face courses when compared to success
rates in distance education courses, which is defined as receiving a grade of C or better.
However, the academic performance gap of African-American/Black and Latinx students in
online learning courses is worse compared to traditional face-to-face courses (Johnson & Cuellar
Mejia, 2014).
15
Figure 2
Academic Performance Gap in Online Courses Relative to Face-to-Face Courses
Adapted from Online Learning and Student Outcomes in California’s Community Colleges,
2017, p. 9.
Johnson and Cuellar Mejia (2014) found that online learning exacerbates existing
achievement gaps for certain groups (Figure 3).
16
Figure 3
Academic Performance Gaps Exacerbated in Online Classes
Adapted from Online Learning and Student Outcomes in California’s Community Colleges,
2017, p. 9.
Academic Achievement for Online African-American/Black Students
While there is an increased number of African-American/Black students enrolling in
higher education, many of these students are enrolling in online courses (Ashong & Commander,
2012). In a study that examined how well students adapted to online learning environments
relative to their performance in face-to-face courses, Xu and Jaggars (2013) examined a dataset
of over 40,000 community and technical college students. They found that African-
American/Black students had difficulty adapting to online courses and performed lower
academically in online courses similar to traditional face-to-face courses due to lower levels of
academic preparation compared to other groups. While there is an abundance of literature
17
focusing on online learning, there is a dearth of research focusing on the performance of racially
minoritized students in online classes (Xu & Jaggars, 2013).
However, there is a wider equity gap for African-American/Black students in an online
environment in comparison to face-to-face courses. Johnson and Cuellar Mejia (2014) reported
that the equity gap between African-American/Black and White students in CCCs in face-to-face
classes was 12.9%, and 17.5% in online classes. To fully grasp the African-American/Black
student experience in an asynchronous online learning environment, it is important to understand
the influences that contribute to their academic achievement.
Closing the Gap
CCCs are aware of this equity gap in distance education courses for African-
American/Black and Latinx students and have identified a goal in the Strategic Vision for the
California Community College to address this concern by working towards “increasing the
overall success rates to exceed 70% and to closing the equity gap by focusing on improvement in
success rates of African-American/Black and Hispanic students taking distance courses and
programs” (Woodyard & Larson, 2017, p. 6).
There is also an emergence of innovation and funding to support student success in online
learning courses across the CCCs. Former Governor Jerry Brown’s 2013-14 budget provided
millions of dollars to promote innovation and expand online learning across California’s higher
education systems (Johnson & Cuellar Mejia, 2014). The plan included providing CCCs with
funds for the Online Education Initiative (OEI) for $56.9 million over 4 years, beginning in
December 2013. The OEI is a collaborative effort among the CCCs to develop high-quality
online courses to increase access and success of students (CCCCO, 2019b).
18
In 2017, Governor Brown tasked the CCCCO to create a proposal for a new fully online
community college. The new 115th fully online CCC will “focus on underserved working adults
not currently enrolled in CCCs, who need skills and credentials to advance their careers”
(Woodyard & Larson, 2017, p. 8). The future fully online community college seeks to provide
nondegree options for adult learners in California. Upon the initial announcement of the new
online college, there were concerns from existing CCCs about potential competition. However,
the distance education report expressed that the fully online college is “not designed to compete
with existing colleges for students” (Woodyard & Larson, 2017, p. 8). With more funding and
innovative initiatives in the future, community colleges have realized the opportunity to improve
their online learning programs.
Barriers to Academic Achievement
There is literature that identifies African-American/Black and Latinx students as more at-
risk academically than White students (Greene et al., 2008). The possible causes and solutions of
the educational achievement disparity among African-American/Black and White students is a
persistent debate when addressing the performance outcomes of African-American/Black
students. These low academic outcomes stem from historical inequities that originate from race,
class, and gender (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Underserved populations are more likely to be first-
generation college students, be underprepared academically for college, and confront
institutional, family, and financial barriers (Greene et al., 2008). Many underserved populations,
specifically Black students, have not had equal access to opportunities in education due to
inequitable educational environments (Johnson-Ahorlu, 2012).
19
The Achievement Gap
The achievement gap is known as the persistent disparity in academic performance
between different groups of students. The debate surrounding this gap is typically a conversation
about Latinx, Black students, and students of lower socioeconomic status (SES) regarding reasons
why these student populations are not doing as well academically as White students. However, the
commonly referenced “achievement gap” reinforces negative stereotypes (Kellow & Jones, 2008).
The term infers that some groups are less inclined to be successful than other groups (Pendakur,
2016). However, the achievement gap is not solely a result of race, culture, or SES. The
achievement gap terminology fails to take into account both the history and today’s complex set
of disadvantages, such as segregation, underfunding of public schools, and environmental factors
students may face (Dumas, 2015; Pendakur, 2016). Additionally, the achievement gap attributes
lower academic success rates to the students themselves and does not consider the unequal
opportunities they may face in their schools and communities.
The Opportunity Gap
The structural inequalities that African-American/Black students face can be
characterized as an opportunity gap. The usage of the term “opportunity gap” signifies the
complex interrelated issues that contribute to academic outcomes (Eberhardt, 2016). The
opportunity gap shifts the burden from the student to examine systems in which racially
minoritized and low-SES students do not receive the opportunities their White counterparts are
afforded in education and society as a whole.
African-American/Black Online Students
In the limited research regarding how students from different cultures adapt to online
classes, the majority of the research focuses on Asian American students (Uzuner, 2009). As a
20
result, there is limited research that explores the African-American/Black students’ experiences
and outcomes in an online learning environment (Rovai & Ponton, 2005). The relative lack of
research on academic outcomes for racially minoritized students studying online has prompted
this study, which seeks to understand the experiences of African-American/Black students at
community colleges studying in an online environment.
Improving Equity
Higher education institutions across the U.S. are striving to improve the retention and
completion rates for African-American/Black students. The increased enrollment growth of
African-American/Black students in post-secondary education has also mirrored enrollment
growth in online learning programs (Waits & Lewis, 2003). African-American/Black students
are more likely than those from other racial or ethnic groups to complete their entire
undergraduate program online (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). According to the 2016
U.S. Census Bureau, almost half of African-American/Black students who attended college left
without obtaining a degree (The Campaign for College Opportunity, 2018). Coupled with the
fact the online learning programs have higher attrition rates than traditional face-to-face classes,
the opportunity gap only widens for African-American/Black online students (Patterson &
McFadden, 2009).
The increase of racially minoritized students in online classes will impact society
economically and academically, particularly as academic institutions assist these populations in
acquiring the skills and knowledge to promote social and economic mobility. The opportunity
gaps between African-American/Black students and White students in traditional, campus-based
courses also exist in online courses (Rovai & Ponton, 2005). According to Xu and Jaggars
(2014), the gaps are often wider in online courses. Rovai and Ponton (2005) found African-
21
American/Black online students tend to have lower grades and fewer posting behaviors in
discussion forums. The literature highlights a need for more research to understand the equity
gap in online courses among African-American/Black students through their unique
perspectives.
Cultural Differences in an Online Environment
Online education affords an opportunity for students of diverse cultures to not be bound
by geographic location due to its global accessibility. While there is abundant literature on online
education, there is a lack of research exploring culture in online education (Gunawardena et al.,
2003). Culture refers to values, traits, attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral patterns that may
characterize a group of individuals. Culture may have a significant role in online learning
environments (Uzuner, 2009), and it is important to examine the perspectives of culturally
diverse students in asynchronous online learning environments. According to Tapanes et al.
(2009), the “cultural dimensions in online learning may either empower or diminish learning for
students” (p. 1). Culture includes communication patterns and often non-verbal cues that transfer
over to education. Additionally, culture affects how students communicate in online courses. The
next section will focus primarily on the unique cultural elements of some African-
American/Black students and how that may impact their experiences in an online learning
environment.
Cultural Barriers
Cultural challenges in online learning environments can develop from the social
inequities embedded in dominant cultural value systems that are reflected in teaching materials
and methods (Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005). Although there is literature that positions online
learning as culturally neutral, it does not remove the cultural gaps experienced by online learners
22
(Chase et al., 2001). Hannon and D’Netto (2007) found the cultural neutrality experienced in
online learning “results in ineffective delivery of online education and reduces the attainment of
good learning outcomes for culturally diverse participants” (p. 420). However, there are aspects
of the online environment that are less threatening than a traditional face-to-face class. Corey and
Bower’s (2005) case study revealed, for an African-American/Black male high school student
enrolled in an online math class, the online learning environment promoted uninhibited
participation and more time to master the content in comparison to a traditional face-to-face
environment. The participant in the study performed poorer in a face-to-face math class and felt
at a disadvantage by feeling the need to assimilate to the face-to-face classroom culture.
Additionally, Collins (2014) found in a study of 96 African-American/Black college
students enrolled in distance learning programs that the anonymity of the online environment
allowed African-American/Black students to distance themselves from racial stereotypes. In
contrast, cultural differences in an online environment may also lead to exclusion or alienation
(Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005; Mavor & Traynor, 2003). For example, researchers found in a
field experiment that tested for racial and gender biases in higher education of 124 massive open
online courses (MOOCs), that online instructors were 94% more likely to respond to a discussion
forum post by a White male student than by any other race-gender combination (Stanford Center
for Education Policy Analysis, 2018). Thus, African-American/Black students may be at a
disadvantage in an online learning environment.
Learning preferences and experiences may also be influenced by ethnicity and cultural
groups (Maldonado-Torres, 2014). According to Ibarra (2001), low-context cultures make little
use of nonverbal signals and use direct communication with precise verbal messages. In contrast,
high context cultures rely on nonverbal signals, use language more loosely, and value informal
23
and implicit communication. African-American/Black participants in multiple studies were high
context learners, or field-dependent, which was in opposition to the dominant group culture of
low context learners and field-independence (Rovai, 2007; Tingoy & Gulluoglu, 2012).
Whereas, online learning is more prone to the field-independent learner (Rovai et al., 2008).
Learning Preference Barriers
There are also studies to suggest some African-American/Black and Latinx learners tend
to adopt a collaborative preference to learning, rather than independent or individual learning
(Gallien & Peterson, 2005; Maldonado-Torres, 2014). Arroyo (2010) further corroborated this
idea by positing that online courses are often characterized by isolation and autonomy, which
precludes the social nature of the field-dependent learner. These experiences impact successful
learning by creating barriers to students’ ability to thrive in an online learning environment. An
examination of these cultural differences provides a better understanding of the barriers that
some African-American/Black students may encounter in an online learning environment.
African-American/Black Student Satisfaction with Online Learning
It is critical to understand how a student’s culture impacts the satisfaction of an online
class. Community college students typically choose online learning because it suits their
lifestyle, but their work, family, and personal obligations can also impede their ability to succeed
in an online learning environment. Student satisfaction involves the perception of students
regarding how they perceive their learning experiences in the course (Kuo et al., 2014).
According to Reinhart and Schneider (2001), high student satisfaction can lead to student
retention and higher persistence towards completing a program. However, a student with low
satisfaction will have a negative perception of online courses and not as motivated to persist or
drop out of the program (Kuo et al., 2014). This is an important distinction, in that African-
24
American/Black students report a less positive perception than their White counterparts with
online courses (Ashong & Commander, 2012; Okwumabua et al., 2011). African-
American/Black students particularly reported fewer positive perceptions regarding the
asynchronous nature of online courses and had a stronger preference for real-time learning than
White students (Ashong & Commander, 2012).
A study of 124 young African-American/Black students found a negative attitude
towards online learning (Okwumabua et al., 2011). A significant number of students revealed
low interest in using the computer and did not perceive online learning to have a positive impact
on their academic performance. The students in the study had experience working with
computers but did not have experience with online learning applications. This had a direct
impact on students’ confidence level. There were inconsistencies of attitudes between use of
computers for personal purpose versus for academic purposes. According to Okwumabua et al.,
(2011), “these attitudes are relevant to intervention, educational achievement, and technological
advancement with respect to minority populations” (p. 247). It is possible African-
American/Black adult learners are already influenced by their perception towards online learning
as an adolescent. There is a need to understand the attitudes and perceptions that prevent many
African-American/Black students from excelling in an online learning environment.
Interaction is an important factor that contributes to student satisfaction in online learning
(Artino, 2007). Kuo (2014) surveyed 64 African-American/Black undergraduate students
attending a historically Black college and enrolled in an accelerated online course. The
quantitative study found the participants had significant levels of satisfaction with online courses
when there was interaction among the content, faculty, and peers. Student satisfaction was
positively correlated with the student’s success in an online learning environment. Students who
25
performed better in the course typically had higher levels of satisfaction for online courses. A
further understanding of student satisfaction helps educators work on areas that need
improvement in online courses to close the equity gap among racially minoritized groups.
Technological Challenges
Underserved populations experience technological disparities that impact academic
achievement and may also impact success in an online learning environment. Although online
learning and technology offer the flexibility and benefit many students, this advantage can also
become an access issue for underserved populations. This is known as the digital divide or digital
inequality in higher education that focuses on technological skills, computer ownership, and
Internet access (Paul, 2016; Warschauer, 2003b). Today, there are underlying social and
economic inequities beyond providing physical access to computers and the Internet (Gorski,
2009; Warschauer, 2003b). For example, individuals of lower SES may not be able to afford
computers and Internet access that may result in low levels of proficiency. Furthermore, costs
were cited as a primary reason for African-American/Blacks’ hesitation to use e-learning and
computer-mediated communication (Lobaina, 2016).
Disparities in Access
According to the Pew Research Center, in 2016 African-American/Blacks and Latinx
were less likely to own a desktop computer or have high-speed Internet access in their home
when compared to Whites (Perrin, 2017). Fairlie (2007) reported that African-American/Black
and Latinos are more likely to own computers that are not capable of Internet access. Students
who have a personal computer at home, in comparison to those that rely on public computers,
typically have better student outcomes (Howland & Moore, 2002; Rovai, 2007; Zhao et al.,
2010). Additionally, students with a computer at home have a stronger perception of Internet
26
skill (Zhao et al., 2010). In a study of 852 urban high school students of lower SES, many
participants owned personal computers, but most participants had to share the computer with
four to seven family members, impeding their ability to use the computer for long periods
(Greenhow et al., 2010). As a result, these populations of students may experience challenges
with courses that rely on frequent Internet use.
Digital Inequality
Digital inequality is defined as the unequal access and the quality use of digital
technologies, which includes Internet access (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Digital inequalities can
reinforce and exacerbate existing social inequalities (Robinson, et al., 2015). As more people use
the Internet for a variety of reasons, researchers have reconsidered the concept of the digital
divide (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Attewell (2001) posited there are two levels of the digital
divide; the first level refers to access to computers and the Internet, and the second level refers to
the disparities in computer and Internet use. Digital inequality is a multi-faceted issue that
includes a variety of factors such as SES, educational levels of parents, and ethnicity (DeBell &
Chapman, 2006; Fairlie, 2012; Wei & Hindman, 2011). The effort to equalize school and home
physical access to computers and Internet addresses the first level of the digital divide
(Modarres, 2011; Van Dijk, 2006). However, research shifted beyond a simple use or non-use
issue. The shift in research redefines the digital divide concern as more than just an equipment
issue and more of a quality of use issue Wei & Hindman, 2011). Warschauer (2003a) pointed out
the complexity of attempting to close the evolving digital inequalities because there is not one
specific solution to close such a divide.
In 2014, The Pew Research Center found African-American/Blacks and Latinos, 12%
and 13% respectively, are more likely to access the Internet primarily on their smartphone to
27
access the Internet than the 4% of Whites (Perrin, 2017). The report revealed the participants are
smartphone-dependent and may not have other options to use the Internet. An additional Pew
Research Center study found that African-American/Black, Latinx, and lower-income
smartphone users were more likely than White counterparts to cancel service due to the
associated costs (Smith, 2017). According to Modarres (2011), access to social networking and
information can be handled through mobile devices; however, content development requires
access to hardware and software beyond a mobile device. Mobile Internet access is inferior to
broadband access; therefore, it impacts an individual’s “abilities to engage in information
seeking and content creation, and to develop a wide range of digital skills” (Napoli & Obar, 2014
p. 330). Thus, it is important to consider how likely it is for some African-American/Black
students to actively engage and succeed in an online course relying only on a mobile device.
The concerns surrounding digital inequality are complex and include access, usage, and
types of engagement in a digital environment. As online education expands, the lack of digital
literacy and inability to use the Internet effectively to succeed in an online environment may
adversely affect academic performance for African-American/Black students.
Technology Self-Efficacy
A major focus of social cognitive theory is the construct of self-efficacy, which refers to
one’s beliefs about one’s ability to achieve a goal or outcome or accomplish a task in specific
situations (Bandura, 1997). The greater an individual perceives their self-efficacy to be, the more
engaged in a task, and the longer they will remain persistent in accomplishing a task (Bandura,
1986). In the context of an academic setting, academic self-efficacy refers to a students’ beliefs
about their ability to learn and develop skills (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015). Academic
self-efficacy is often studied in traditional learning environments and the main finding is that a
28
student’s self-efficacy beliefs are a significant predictor of academic performance. However,
self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific and vary depending on the situation.
The change in course delivery, such as from a traditional face-to-face environment to an
online one, may impact a learner’s self-efficacy beliefs (Hodges, 2008). However, there is a gap
in the literature on self-efficacy in an online learning context. Computer self-efficacy is defined
as the belief in one’s ability to use the computer (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). Researchers found
that previous computer experience or a positive experience would not only increase self-efficacy
for computers but also influence future use (Ertmer et al., 1994). Internet self-efficacy is a
student’s belief in their capability to maintain and utilize the Internet currently or in the future
(Lai, 2008) and an integral part of online learning success to overcome possible feelings of
isolation and encouraging the skillset necessary to be successful (Wu et al., 2010). However,
researchers have also found conflicting results regarding the relationship between technology
self-efficacy, student outcomes, and satisfaction with online courses (Wang et al., 2013).
Additionally, students’ confidence in their ability to effectively use Internet-based tasks
may impact their interaction level in an online learning context (Liang & Tsai, 2008). In a study
of 1,060 first-year college students, lower SES students, and African-American/Black students
were found to show lower levels of knowledge on how to use the Internet compared to other
populations (Hargittai, 2010). Lower SES schools tend to have less access to instructional
computers and educational technology tools, in comparison to students in schools in high SES
communities (Ritzhaupt et al., 2013). Students’ Internet skills are connected to a parent’s SES;
therefore, students with highly educated parents were found to navigate the web easier than
students with parents who have less education (Hargittai, 2008). Okwumabua et al. (2011) found
African-American/Black students experienced anxiety and lack of confidence in their
29
technological skills in an online learning environment. The impact of race and SES on
technological skills and literacy may be a disadvantage to certain students prior to reaching post-
secondary education.
Culturally Responsive Instruction in Online Education
Culturally responsive instruction allows teachers to understand and bridge the cultural
gap with their students (Heitner & Jennings, 2016; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). A core principle of
culturally responsive pedagogy is creating equal opportunities for positive academic outcomes
from students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Culturally
responsive instruction emphasizes respect for diversity and creating a safe and inclusive
environment (Bergeron, 2008). Rovai and Downey (2010) posited an online program with a
“pedagogically narrow approach” without the consideration of the educational needs of
culturally and ethnically diverse students is detrimental to not only the program but also the
institution (p. 146). Ethnic and cultural considerations affect students’ self-esteem and academic
outcomes (Bergeron, 2008). Additionally, a culturally responsive curriculum allows students to
learn from their individual experiences and connect new knowledge to their own experiences.
Kaupp (2012) emphasized the need to assess the quality of instruction in online education to
connect specific strategies to improve student outcomes for marginalized groups and share
amongst the online learning community. As a result, culturally responsive teaching (CRT)
involves not only valuing cultural differences, but challenging stereotypes, racism, oppression,
and injustice (Gay, 2010). The instruction must mediate inequities in a classroom environment
“stemming from culture, class, race, and other disparities” (Heitner & Jennings, 2016, p. 56). It is
important to reduce the bias against the possibility that any cultural group will be placed at a
disadvantage in the online learning process (Rovai & Downey, 2010).
30
Culturally Responsive Training for Online Faculty
According to Reeves and Reeves (1997), the challenges in course design may occur when
the main pedagogical values in one culture are inappropriate for another group. There is limited
research surrounding CRT practices of online faculty as they teach a diverse body of students,
such as racially minoritized students (Heitner & Jennings, 2016). However, Smith and Ayers
(2006) emphasized the need for community college educators to develop tasks for online
students to integrate their own personal and culturally relevant experiences to demonstrate
achievement of learning objectives.
According to Heitner and Jennings (2016), a lack of understanding about culturally
responsive practices may lead to miscommunication, attrition, mistrust, and persistence issues for
online students. However, higher education faculty tend to be less familiar with culturally
responsive pedagogy than their K-12 counterparts (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2009). Heitner and
Jennings’s (2016) study of 47 online faculty in higher education revealed that the majority of
faculty were aware of the value of CRT but did not have the knowledge to put it into practice in
their classroom. The researchers posited the need for professional development, training, and
mentorship to meet the needs of the diverse learners they teach in an online environment. CRT
essentially responds to students through methods that build and sustain positive relationships
(Shevalier, & Mckenzie, 2012). Thus, faculty members must receive the training to become
equity-minded and culturally competent to successfully engage with Black students in order to
support their academic success.
Social Presence
The online learning experience is also associated with social presence and learning
satisfaction (Kim et al., 2011). According to the researchers, the lack of social interaction is
31
thought to play a significant role in the lower retention rates in online courses, compared to face-
to-face courses. Thus, the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model addresses online pedagogy that
contributes to student success (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Garrison, 2009). The CoI framework guides
instructors to create an effective virtual community by engaging in three deferent elements of
presence: social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence (Garrison, 2009). Social
presence is a type of class interaction that encompasses collaborative and social interactions
among learners, their peers, and instructors (Soper & Ukot, 2016). Cognitive presence is the way
that students engage with the content, and teaching presence is the way students connect with the
instructor (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). The presences interact and overlap, and the goal of CoI
is to add a human element to asynchronous online classes (D’alessio, et al., 2019). There is some
debate around whether social presence actually improves learning (Soper & Ukot, 2016). The
overall goal of creating social presence is to create a level of comfort for learners in any learning
environment and provides a feeling of security with the instructor and students (Aragon, 2003).
Thus, students will feel safe to express themselves and increase participation when they feel at
ease (Soper & Ukot, 2016). There is an abundance of literature on online learning that focuses on
instructional design and technological decisions to improve learning, yet social presence is more
focused on the online learners’ affective feelings of social presence. The increased perception of
social presence for students is highly dependent on the type of technology used and the
immediacy of communication in asynchronous online learning environments (Chang & Lim,
2002).
Social presence in online learning environments refers to the degree to which a learner
feels personally connected with their peers and the instructor in an online learning community
(Sung & Mayer, 2012). Online social presence is a significant factor contributing to the
32
improvement of interaction in online learning environments. Zhao et al. (2014) evaluated the
effects of social presence on the use of asynchronous discussions in higher education can
improve learning. The researchers found that social presence can improve learning by creating
collaboration “through establishing a warm and collegial learning community” to encourage
learners to participate and interact (p. 817). Strategies for social presence in an online
environment include timely feedback from the instructor, incorporating audio, creating welcome
messages, and incorporating collaborative learning activities (Sung & Mayer, 2012). Social
presence is imperative for quality, asynchronous discussion forums (Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016).
Social presence decreases the feeling of isolation and increases the odds of students persisting in
an online course (Clark et al., 2015). Additionally, social presence can be perceived differently
depending on the cultural background of the student (Chang & Lim, 2002). Social presence is an
important factor in the online learning experience, yet there is limited research about African-
American/Black students’ perspectives or cultural influences regarding social presence.
Online courses in which learners perceive a strong social presence and a sense of
connectedness are more likely to have positive outcomes (Hart, 2012). Social presence is the
pathway to online social support, and more cultural consideration is needed for online
asynchronous courses to be effective with racially minoritized students. Ke and Kwak (2013)
took a closer look at interaction participation, satisfaction, and perception in an online learning
environment across age and ethnicity. The mixed-method study included 392 students enrolled in
28 online courses at a major university in the United States. The study found the minoritized
groups of students desired social presence and a bond, such as a cohort group, that lasted beyond
one course. The researchers suggested online programs should incorporate long-term learning
33
interactions among students. However, it is important to note, the cohort model for online classes
may be difficult to replicate in a community college setting.
Online Social Presence Barriers
While social presence is strongly related to online interaction (Gunawardena & Zittle,
1997), the online environment presents challenges for faculty in creating a sense of social
presence for students (Plante & Asselin, 2014). Moreover, online faculty are also challenged to
create interactions that promote a sense of belonging and a sense of community (Plante &
Asselin, 2014). Many instructors lack the training and understanding to make social presence
reflect the culture and ethnicity of their students (Dzubinski, 2014).
Online instructors and students are in different locations, and there is a propensity to feel
a lack of social connection with other learners and instructors. Oztok (2013) cautioned that the
reliance on asynchronous threaded discussions, without the opportunity to interact and form
relationships beyond the academic content, may cause the online learning environment to
become an “impoverished form of socialization” (p. 25). The non-verbal and visual cues that are
available in a face-to-face classroom are not available in an online learning environment (Plante
& Asselin, 2014). Thus, the asynchronicity element of online learning may present a barrier for
African-American/Black student’s academic success. However, emerging video conferencing
tools have aided in enhancing social presence in an online environment (Soper & Ukot, 2016).
High student engagement is important to the success of many African-American/Black and
Latinx students (Greene et al., 2008). Additionally, social interaction with the teacher and other
learners has an impact on motivating students’ efforts to learn as well as improving their
satisfaction with online courses (Cobb, 2011).
34
The Role of Community in Online Learning
The physical separation of students in asynchronous online learning environments tends
to reduce a sense of community and contributes to feelings of isolation (Rovai, 2002). Moreover,
the sense of a community found in face-to-face courses are often absent in distance learning
courses and may adversely impact students (Sadera et al., 2009). A sense of community has been
defined as a sense that an individual has a sense of belonging and matters to others (McMillan &
Chavis, 1986). Rovai (2002) believed a sense of community is diminished in online learning
environments without consideration of social presence, which is one of the factors to promote
stronger feelings of community for students. Numerous studies have used the tool developed by
Alfred Rovai, The Sense of Classroom Community Index (SCCI) is for measuring and assessing
students’ sense of community in online learning environments (Sadera et al., 2009; Swan &
Shea, 2005). The SCCI focuses on four related dimensions: spirit, trust, interaction, and learning
(Rovai, 2002; Swan & Shea, 2005). Researchers also found there is a positive relationship
between undergraduate students’ sense of community and their academic success in online
courses (Sadera et al., 2009). The application of this tool can be found in studies that are geared
towards analyzing students’ sense of community in higher education.
While there is a large body of literature on sense of community, there is not a universally
accepted definition (Rovai, 2002). Strayhorn (2012) offered a definition that is more narrowed to
higher education: the belief that the student will have a sense of belonging and continue to persist
when a college campus appears more inclusive. Students with a strong sense of connection with
other students and the institution are more likely to complete their degree and be more satisfied
as a result (Dare et al., 2005). While social integration coincides with student success,
community college students are typically balancing school, family, and work. They are,
35
therefore, less involved than traditional 4-year college students, which may impact student
success.
Online Learning Community Barriers
Online faculty members play an important role in fostering a strong sense of community
through their teaching styles and care of students in an online environment (Rovai & Wighting,
2005). A strong “sense of community provides a sense of belonging, identity, emotional
connection, and wellbeing” (p. 99). While a sense of community has been established as an
important component for online student success for all students, studies have demonstrated the
need for a sense of connection specifically for African-American/Black students who may be at
greater risk of feeling that they do not fit in (Locks et al., 2008; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Rovai
and Wighting (2005) conducted a study of 117 students taking online graduate-level courses. The
researchers examined student feelings of alienation as well as sense of community to determine
how well the online courses fostered student learning communities and a sense of belonging. The
study revealed African-American/Black students typically felt a stronger sense of social isolation
than their White peers. The lack of social support and connection can result in a low sense of
community and alienation for students and are significantly correlated with student attrition.
According to Tinto (1993), a sense of community is important in reducing attrition and
students will increase their levels of satisfaction and the likelihood of persisting in a college
program if they feel a sense of belonging. Tucker’s (2014) case study found factors within and
beyond an online environment that impacted academic success of male college students of color
at a predominately White college. It was revealed that students of color preferred traditional, in-
person social supports, which may reduce the feelings of isolation and alienation typically
experienced in an online learning environment. For these reasons, it is important for African-
36
American/Black students to have a perceived sense of community and belonging in an online
learning environment.
Institutional Factors
Research has examined various approaches for higher education institutions to improve
online student success, such as faculty training (Bawa, 2016), online readiness orientations for
students (Russo-Gleicher, 2014; Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005), and providing student support
services (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003; McCracken, 2004). Higher education institutions
that examined their existing services and programs for African-American/Black students to
inform decision making found increased student retention and persistence in college among
African-American/Black students (Flowers, 2004). According to Bensimon (2004), equity-
mindedness requires practitioners to not only think critically but to actively work towards
reducing gaps in outcomes. Hence, community colleges must reshape and redesign policies and
structures in place to better support students of color.
Faculty Training
The quality of online programs in higher learning institutions may vary and depends on
the support and training an online instructor received at academic institutions. The possible lack
of knowledge, awareness, and skillsets related to effective practices for a quality online course
creates an added layer of the complexity of online education for educators and students. Thus,
educators may only utilize limited resources to serve the dominant group and have not given
underserved communities the proper attention in an online learning environment. Arroyo (2010)
noted that African-American/Black students’ successful experience in online learning involves
verbal interaction, collaboration, and increased instructor engagement that needs to be addressed.
37
However, the demand and rapid increase of online courses often prevent educators from keeping
up with the evolving expertise needed for online learners (Stumpf et al., 2005).
Faculty support in the form of training in technology and pedagogy may address this
problem. They are essential in the online learning experience of students but may not have the
proper training or support to deliver a positive experience for any student, especially racially
minoritized students. A study surveying 111 online faculty found that a large percentage of
instructors are not receiving training in pedagogy or technology prior to teaching their first
online course and found training instructors prior to instructing online resulted in better
preparation to teach online courses (Ray, 2009). In a 2012 case study to identify what supported
or hindered participants’ online teaching and learning experiences, faculty revealed there were
limited opportunities for faculty to collaborate with one another to improve the quality of online
courses (Boling et al., 2012).
California community colleges typically provide faculty with the autonomy to develop
their own online courses (Johnson et al., 2015). According to the researchers, this model at CCCs
is due to lack of funding, expertise in online course design, and faculty collective-bargaining
agreements (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 10). As a result, faculty are tasked to be the subject matter
experts, multimedia experts, and course design experts with limited support. It is important for
faculty members to receive training and ongoing professional development to develop successful
online courses (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Johnson et al., 2015; Rovai & Downey, 2010). Hence,
it is important that institutions provide faculty with the pedagogical and assessment skills needed
to establish conditions in their online classrooms that promote student involvement and retention
(Rovai & Downey, 2010). According to Caruth and Caruth (2013), although online education
increases enrollments for colleges, the infrastructure of the college is not up-to-date with
38
technology. Thus, faculty and institutions, specifically community colleges, are not always
equipped with the knowledge and training to stay afloat with the fast-paced changes of online
education.
Online Readiness and Support Services
Adult students who feel unsupported in an online class may drop out of the course (Park
& Choi, 2009). Online readiness orientations for students is one of the methods to address this
problem. Orientations help manage students’ expectations and generally prepare them for online
courses (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003). Scagnoli (2001) noted that orientation for online
courses can also increase student involvement by enhancing a sense of belonging similarly to in-
person college orientations. Wojciechowski and Palmer (2005) found that an online orientation
was the second greatest factor in predicting success in an online course. The outcomes of online
student readiness orientation include better time management skills, realistic expectations of
online courses, and lower attrition rates (Russo-Gleicher, 2014). However, only 20% of students
in a student satisfaction survey sent by the CCCCO indicated they completed an orientation for
an online class (Woodyard & Larson, 2017), suggesting that online readiness orientations may
not be required for community college students.
Student Support Services
Support services readily available on campus are not always available to online students
(LaPadula, 2003). For example, online support services for students include assistance with
online registration, course selection, financial aid, tutoring, libraries, and technical support (Dare
et al., 2005; Lee, 2010). One-on-one academic advising not only supports online student success
but also supports students feel connected to the college (Ludwig- Hardman & Dunlap, 2003).
39
Positive student outcomes are all linked to quality support services at a higher education
institution (LaPadula, 2003).
With the increasing numbers of online students and expansion of online courses,
community colleges face new challenges in providing student services and other support in an
online learning environment (Woodyard & Larson, 2017). Many students are expected to come
to campus to utilize support services, yet that is difficult for many distance learners. Smith
(2005) noted that many colleges have adopted online support services more slowly and on a
limited basis. Additionally, higher education institutions may not provide support services
beyond normal business hours that are necessary for online learners (Britto & Rush, 2013).
The lack of readily available support services in an online format is a potential barrier for
online student success. The availability of online support services is important when considering
the characteristics of community colleges, which serve a diverse population of students and is
more varied than any other sector of higher education (Smith, 2005). Studies have found that
online students want flexible, online access that is similar to what is offered on campus (Dare et
al., 2005; LaPadula, 2003). The researcher suggests the need for community colleges to develop
a long-term plan to support online learners to avoid treating them as “second-class students”
(p. 29). Chen et al. (2010) posit that as more racially minoritized and part-time students enroll in
online courses, it is imperative to ensure not only the quality of online education but also
providing online student support services is essential for social equity. Furthermore, the gap in
the literature in this area makes it difficult for academic institutions to effectively address the
needs of racially minoritized students to become a successful online learner.
40
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory considers the interdependent and
intertwining relationships of the individual and their environment. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory is a useful framework for understanding the complexity of interactions linked to
student achievement (Johnson, 2008). Models derived from the ecological systems theory are
typically used to understand child development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). However,
Bronfenbrenner extended and revised the model to include the development of individuals over
time. Bronfenbrenner established the process, person, context, and time model (PPCT) to
categorize the various elements that influence human development. In which the person is the
center of the model. These elements collaborate in ways that promote or inhibit an individual’s
development. Bronfenbrenner’s model provides a lens to examine the interrelated interactions
and experiences between students within the context that influence an individual’s growth or
development (Evans et al., 2010).
The ecological systems theory provides a framework to examine the processes of human
development in the context of the varying systems or environments that influence human
development. Bronfenbrenner (1986) emphasized that human development involves both
continuity and change impacted “by the relations between these settings and by the larger
contexts in which the settings are embedded” (p. 118). The theory contains five nested systems
and examines how each system interacts and influences the other: micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-,
and chronosystems. Bronfenbrenner (1979) posited that we are not solely recipients of our social
experiences with individuals; we also contribute to the construction of this environment. As
illustrated in Figure 4, the systems range from the most immediate circle to an individual, such as
41
family and friends, to the most distant circle comprised of the historical context, culture, and
societal norms.
Figure 4
Renn and Arnolds’ (2003) Adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Model as applied to Higher
Education
This study also uses Renn and Arnold’s (2003) research on how college student peer
groups influence student learning and development using Bronfenbrenner’s model. Renn and
Arnold (2003) posit that understanding the influence of peer culture will enable educators to
improve student outcomes. Researchers have also suggested the use of the ecological systems
theory to assist in understanding and improving college student achievement (Dennis et al.,
2005). Dennis et al. (2005) longitudinal study examined the role of student motivations and
social support on academic outcomes for 100 ethnic minority first-generation college students.
The study revealed the lack of peer support was a strong predictor of college outcomes and
grades. The researchers suggest that programs that provide academic resources and support may
help improve academic outcomes for first-generation, ethnic minority students.
42
The ecological systems theory is useful for online learning environments as well (Cho et
al., 2015). Gibson (1993) noted that educators should focus on not only online learning but also
the interaction between individuals and their multiple environments. For example, students
directly interact with teachers and their peers through the Internet and their interaction may vary
depending on the course elements, and also the macro-level environment, such as culture and
technological innovations. Yang et al. (2010) found that cultural differences influenced
communication styles in asynchronous online discussions. Thus, an ecological theory framework
allows a researcher to understand the diverse components involved in an online learning setting
that influences human behavior beyond an isolated event. An exploration of how the interaction
between the person and environments affects the success of online learners was applied using an
ecological perspective.
Ecological theories provide a lens whereby researchers can examine how individuals
interact with their environments, and the interrelated exchange between the systems may support
or create barriers toward a person’s development (Torres et al., 2009). Various environments and
individuals within these environments influence the college experiences of students. Researchers
have used Bronfenbrenner’s theory to study African-American/Black student outcomes (Grogan-
Kaylor & Woolley, 2010). For example, African-American/Black student’s perceived sense of
belonging toward a college environment can be influenced by their campus experiences (Cook et
al., 2012). Therefore, the ecological system theory avails researchers to understand an
individual’s positive or negative sense of community in an asynchronous online environment
from various contexts. According to Flynn et al. (2011), many studies on students of color “fails
to fully incorporate the varied experiences, levels of identity, psychological constructions of
meaning, and worldviews of the individuals” (p. 1). Thus, the ecological systems theory provides
43
an opportunity to look at the multi-faceted challenges African-American/Black students face in
an online course within their educational environments at a community college.
The inner circle, which Bronfenbrenner (1979) refers to as the microsystem, describes the
immediate environment in which the individual is directly exposed to: usually the family,
friends, and work settings. Within the context of an online course, the microsystem includes a
student’s interactions with peers, learning content or resources, and faculty (Cho et al., 2015).
The online environment creates varying experiences within the microsystem. This may include
cultural differences between the faculty and student, and different influences in the microsystem,
such as work and family obligations that impact the online engagement from the student.
The mesosystem refers to the connections between the microsystems and how they shape
the environment to influence the individual, such as the balance of school work, employment,
and family responsibilities. In the mesosystem, a student’s immediate system may promote one
another or act against one another (Renn & Arnold, 2003). Hence, students may or may not
engage with the varied elements in an asynchronous online learning environment at a college.
The exosystem influences derive from a wider context that indirectly influences an
individual’s development and which they do not control (e.g., institutional policies and local
community). This level may include curriculum development within an academic department,
institutional efforts to support online learning and professional development opportunities for
online faculty. Although not as direct as the micro-level, the individuals, interactions, and
policies of the exosystem affect the student’s experience in their immediate setting.
The outermost circle, the macrosystem, relates to the influence of culture, beliefs,
religion, knowledge, and norms that influence interactions on the other systems (Bronfenbrenner,
1993). This macrosystem includes, “cultural understandings of gender, race, and ethnicity also
44
emit from the macrosystem to affect micro-, meso-, and exosystems” (Renn & Arnold, 2003, p.
272). The macro-level environment would address the cultural aspects of the United States that
create access or barriers to higher education for African-American/Black students.
The chronosystem conveys the changes in the individual and environments and systems
over time. In the context of student experiences, students are shaped by the era in which they
attend college and the time also relates to the sequence of life events experienced by the student
(Renn & Arnold, 2003). Students are now entering college in the age of technological
innovations and online course offerings. Additionally, community college students typically have
different roles and responsibilities than a traditional aged 4-year college student (Crawford Sorey
& Harris Duggan, 2008). Thus, students will experience unique life experiences that will
influence student learning and development.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model can provide researchers with insight into the
influences surrounding how and why certain outcomes occur. The present study adapts
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to the experience of African-American/Black
students in asynchronous online courses at community colleges. The ecological systems theory
was applied as a theoretical lens to understand the experience of Black students attending
community college and how that experience influences academic performance in online courses.
For the purposes of this study, the microsystem and mesosystem level influences were examined.
The ecological perspective is important in identifying interactions and contexts that may promote
or hinder development, specifically academic outcomes in an online learning environment for
African-American/Black students.
45
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to better understand the nature of African-American/Black
students’ experiences and perceived challenges, if any, in asynchronous online courses at a
community college. Community colleges are an entry point to postsecondary education for a
significant number of African-American/Black students, and educational leaders are charged by
the CCCCO with addressing equity gaps at an institutional level. The expansion and popularity
of online courses are a flexible option for many college students, especially students that must
balance work and family obligations while pursuing postsecondary education. However, minimal
research has been conducted on the experiences of students of color in an online environment in
college.
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What are African-American/Black students’ experience in an asynchronous, online
learning environment at a community college?
a. What are the perceptions of African-American/Black students regarding the
barriers to academic success, if any?
Research Design Overview
This study used a qualitative case study methodology. Qualitative research methods are
appropriate for this case study because the research questions seek to understand “how people
make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016,
p. 15). A qualitative approach is used when little is known about a particular phenomenon and
when one seeks to gain a perspective that will be unique, new, and richly detailed (Creswell,
2014). Context is a primary characteristic of qualitative research, and the study sought to
46
understand how the participants perceive their experiences in a specific setting, the online
learning environment.
Interviews were used as the primary data collection tool. Interviews allow a researcher to
learn about perceptions and how they are interpreted in a real-world context (Weiss, 1994).
Without interviewing participants, researchers would be unable to make sense and deeply
understand participant experiences, gain meaning from contexts that can influence behavior and
process events and actions (Maxwell, 2013). Moreover, unfolding African-American/Black
student experiences online at a community college is a complex endeavor, in which qualitative
methodology allows for rich description (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While distance learning is
widely studied, a greater depth of understanding may be conducted from a qualitative study of
African-American/Black distance learners that are under-researched.
Site Selection
Apple Community College (ACC; a pseudonym) is a large, public, 2-year institution
Hispanic-Serving Institution located in California that serves over 25,000 students. There are
currently over 12,000 students enrolled in online courses, with 60% attending part-time and 40%
attending full-time. The college student demographics consist of 40% Hispanic/Latino, 25%
White, 9% African-American/Black, 12% Asian, 53% female, 46% male, 31% below the age of
19, 38% 20 to 24 years of age, 27% 25 to 49 years of age, and 3% over the age of 50 years old.
Approximately, 35% of students at ACC enroll in one or more distance education courses. The
online program is one of the largest distance education programs among the CCCs in terms of
distance education FTEs (CCCCO, 2019c).
Equity is a primary focus for the CCCs’ strategic vision and a state-funded initiative.
ACC is a site that explicitly values providing students with a quality and equitable education.
47
ACC’s enrolled population of African-American/Black students is higher than the 6% of the
African-American/Black demographic between the ages 18 and 24 in the state of California (The
Campaign for College Opportunity, 2018). African-American/Black students at ACC have an
online academic success rate, a grade of C or better, of under 50%. Table 1 below illustrates the
online academic success rates of students across race and ethnicity in credit online courses for
fall 2018 at ACC.
Table 1
Online Academic Success Rates
Success
Rate
Apple Community College Total 70.77 %
Asynchronous Internet Based Total 70.77 %
African-American 48.09 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 47.62 %
Asian 79.21 %
Hispanic 63.77 %
Multi-Ethnicity 65.56 %
Pacific Islander 60.00 %
Unknown 84.13 %
White Non-Hispanic 78.74 %
As illustrated in Figure 5, this opportunity gap is also prevalent statewide for CCCs. The
chancellor’s office reported the online success rates over an 11-year period for African-
American/Black students “have consistently remained 20% behind the most successful students”
(Woodyard & Larson, 2017, p. 27). ACC reflects this persistent opportunity gap for African-
American/Black students in online courses, making the site ideal for this study.
48
Figure 5
Distance Education Success Rate by Ethnicity from 2005 to 2016
Population and Sample
The population identified for this study was comprised of African-American/Black
students currently enrolled or previously enrolled in an asynchronous online course at ACC. This
study used purposeful sampling to gather the most information and insight about participants’
experience in asynchronous online courses at a community college in Southern California
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, snowball sampling is a type of purposeful sampling.
Snowball sampling was considered to seek referrals from participants from the same community
that are the focus of the study. The study included African-American/Black students who have
enrolled in at least one online course as a student at ACC. There are approximately 400 African-
American/Black students enrolled per semester. For the purposes of this study, the researcher
planned for 12 participants in interviews and seven participants to participate in the focus group
interview. The sample size of 19 participants would provide adequate information to answer the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013). However, the researcher was able to recruit 15 participants
49
for interviews and no participants were available for focus groups. Therefore, no data were
collected in that setting. The 15 individual interviews resulted in data saturation, and additional
participants were not necessary for the study.
Additionally, the sample drawn from the population was selected by using purposeful
sampling, meaning the individuals were specifically selected because they meet certain criteria
(Patton, 2002). The criterion consists of adult male or female students who have completed at
least one 3-unit asynchronous online course at ACC, who are at least 18 years of age. The
responses that indicate the highest number of online courses completed were considered. The
study also considered convenience sampling to identify participants with availability and
willingness to be recorded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews took place virtually or in-
person depending on the preference of the participant. Pseudonyms were selected by each
participant and used in the study.
Instrumentation
Focus group interviews and individual interviews were the primary planned instruments
used in this case study. Interviews are best facilitated to gain a rich understanding of perceptions
and experiences of participants (Creswell, 2014), and focus group interviews aim to collect rich
data about thoughts, experiences, and impressions of people in their own words (Stewart &
Shamdasani, 1990). Individual and focus group interviews further the study’s goal to further
understand the experiences and perceptions of African-American/Black students’ experiences in
asynchronous online learning environments, where there is a dearth of literature. However, focus
group recruitment was unsuccessful and no data were collected in that setting.
50
A screening survey was used first to identify prospective participants. The research
questions, along with the tenets described in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory, guided
the creation of the focus group and individual interviews.
Screening Survey
An online pre-screening survey (Appendix B) was e-mailed to students by the director of
the African-American/Black cultural organization at ACC to select who meets the provided
criteria of taking at least one online course at ACC. In the event that not enough participants
respond to the e-mail, the researcher contacted faculty at ACC to further announce the study to
recruit participants. The screening survey included 18 questions on student demographic
information (i.e., racial/ethnic background and student status), completion of at least one online
course, interview preference, contact information, and availability. The students who received
the survey indicated their willingness to participate by completing the survey. The researcher had
access to the results of the survey to schedule an individual or focus group interview if the
participant met the criteria. The participants were contacted and asked to provide a pseudonym to
protect their identity in the study.
Interview
The interviews used a semi-structured protocol (Appendix C), which enables some
uniformity across the interviews while allowing flexibility and follow-ups based on what
participants revealed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Open-ended questions were used to elicit the
opinions and views of the participants Creswell, 2014). This is important to allow a deeper
understanding of participants’ perspectives and experiences regarding online courses at ACC.
51
Data Collection
The study was approved by USC and ACC institutional review boards before data
collection. Upon approval, the director of the African-American/Black cultural organization,
faculty at ACC, forwarded an e-mail on the researcher’s behalf to enlist participants.
Additionally, snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants. The e-mail
contained a brief discussion of the nature of the study, the time commitment and criteria to
participate, the pre-survey link, and a notice to inform participants who were selected to
interview received a $20 Amazon gift card for individual interviews. The pre-survey allowed the
researcher to select candidates who have enrolled in at least one online course at ACC. All
participants were at least 18 years old, and the age range varied considering the open-access
nature of community college. The researcher contacted potential participants via e-mail to
schedule an interview. The e-mail reiterated the purpose of the study, time commitment of the
interview, confidentiality statement, and permission to audio and video record the interviews. As
noted, the researcher requested a pseudonym from each interview participant to use throughout
the study.
The 15 interviews took place via a video and audio-conferencing tool, Zoom, or in a
conference room on campus to ensure privacy. Considering the study involved students who may
not have courses on campus, it would not be convenient for students to commute to campus. The
researcher recorded interviews because content is likely to be lost without recording (Weiss,
1994), and recording interviews via handwritten notes is least desirable (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Each interview was 45 minutes to an hour.
The researcher introduced herself, gave a brief overview of the study, and provided the
information sheet (Appendix E). The researcher revealed measures to maintain confidentiality,
52
the voluntary nature of the study, and that follow-ups may be necessary for the study. The
participants received an opportunity to ask any questions and confirm via verbal consent to
record the interview. The researcher used the interview protocol, which included probing or
asking for clarification depending on the response. Throughout the interview, the researcher
wrote notes to guide subsequent questions. Following each interview, the researcher wrote
reflective memos to detail the sense of rapport with the participant, researcher bias, and any
conversations that happened after the recording stopped.
Upon the conclusion of the interview, participants received an electronic Amazon gift
card. To maintain confidentiality in the qualitative data collection process, a third-party
transcription service was used. Interview recordings were also transcribed and reviewed after
each interview. The transcribed interview responses and audio recordings were stored on a
password secured device and deleted after five years of the study.
Data Analysis
The analysis of qualitative data is an ongoing and iterative process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Case studies involve an analysis of extensive amounts of narrative text (Turner, 2010).
The analytic process for the study involved transcripts of recordings from interviews, coding,
and memos. As the researcher collected the data, she simultaneously analyzed the data and
noticed patterns (Miles et al., 2014). The researcher color-coded the interview data electronically
to develop categories. The researcher also thought of the data in theoretical categories (Maxwell,
2013). The categories were organized into themes that best reflected the participant’s
experiences. The researcher looked over the data several times and revised the coding to avoid a
shallow analysis of the data. Furthermore, the researcher’s reflective memos of the interviews
and field notes were summarized. This approach allowed the researcher to identify connections
53
in the data, construct patterns and categories, and refine interpretations of the data. Furthermore,
using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the theoretical framework, it is important to
interpret the data through the lens and identify key themes to understand how microsystems and
mesosystems impact African-American/Black student’s experience in an online learning
environment at ACC.
Validity
It is important to verify the accuracy of data collected by using multiple strategies to
check for accuracy to ensure qualitative validity. Credibility and trustworthiness strategies
employed for this study were triangulation, member checking, researcher positionality, and rich-
thick description. In addition, reflectivity supports data analysis and trustworthiness in
qualitative research (Patton, 2002). This allows the researcher to cross-reference the researcher’s
assumptions and limit bias. For example, it is impossible to prevent reactivity in interviews,
since the participants were likely influenced by the researcher’s presence (Maxwell, 2013).
However, the researcher made reflective notes about how she may have influenced the
interviewee after each interview to understand potential threats to validity.
Member checking was used to confirm interpretations of data was reflective of the
participants. Participants were offered the opportunity to review the transcription of interviews
and provide feedback. Additionally, the researcher clearly outlined the data collection
methodology, including extensive descriptions and quotes made by participants, which allows
for reliability and potential transferability of the study. Lastly, peer debriefing by a peer not
involved with the study enhances the validity of the study (Creswell, 2014). The study also
underwent a review and approval by a committee.
54
Role of the Researcher
It was important as a researcher to ensure the study was ethically conducted to prevent
exploitation of the participants. As a result, all of the participants were made aware of the
purpose of the study and provide their informed consent to voluntarily participate in the
interviews (Glesne, 2011). Confidentiality and privacy were maintained by using pseudonyms
throughout the study.
It was also important to recognize the researcher’s bias as it relates to the study. The
researcher’s role as a distance education administrator at a community college includes access to
a variety of online learning data. The researcher observed that the data collected often did not
include demographics or various aspects of online students beyond retention and performance
rates in comparison to on-ground students. Upon further investigation, the researcher realized the
academic performance of African-American/Black students in distance learning was among the
lowest of all minority racial and ethnic groups, which is an equity gap that is worth exploring
qualitatively. Moreover, the researcher has specific views about the additional need for online
learning support and equity matters as it pertains to African-American/Black students, including
the need for increased resources to effectively close the equity gap in higher education.
The researcher was aware that her personal and professional experiences may influence
her ability to be neutral in collecting and analyzing the data. In efforts to be mindful of these
biases, the reflective memos served as a reminder of the researcher’s biases and were monitored.
Additionally, the researcher did not misrepresent herself as a non-employee but refrained from
exerting personal views in the study. Lastly, the study participants did not meet the researcher
before the data collection process.
55
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter provided the purpose of the study and the details of the
qualitative methodology design that was used in the case study. The chapter included the
research design and methods for data collection and analysis and the instrumentation approach
employed for the study. Chapter Four will present the results of the data collection.
56
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings
The purpose of this case study was to gain a better understanding of African-American
students’ experiences and perceived challenges in asynchronous online courses at a community
college. This chapter will present data from interviews. The following research questions guided
the study:
1. What are African-American/Black student’s experiences in an asynchronous, online
learning environment at a community college?
a. What are the perceptions of African-American/Black students regarding the
barriers to academic success, if any?
Participant Overview
The 15 participants for the study were selected using purposeful and snowball sampling.
Participants received an e-mail from the African-American/Black cultural program and faculty
members from their college. Snowball sampling occurred for a few participants who were
identified by counselors from the African-American/Black cultural program. All participants
self-identified as African-American/Black and were currently enrolled at ACC. Nineteen
potential interview candidates who completed the survey were contacted, and 15 participants
accepted the invitation to participate in the individual interviews. Twelve of the participants were
female and three were male. The preferred sample was an equal number of male and female
participants, but more females were willing to participate in the study. The researcher was not
successful in recruiting participants who were willing to participate in focus groups, so no data
will be provided from that source.
A profile of each participant is summarized in Table 2. Figures 6 and 7 show the
demographic data collected.
57
Table 2
Individual Interview Participants’ Pseudonyms and Demographics
Participant Pseudonym Gender Age Range Part-
time/Full-
time Student
Number of
Online
Classes
Completed
at ACC
1 Deja F 18-24 Full-Time 4
2 Mya F 18-24 Full-Time 12
3 Nola M 18-24 Full-Time 2
4 Alana F 18-24 Part-Time 3
5 Jessica F 24-30 Full-Time 2
6 Lisa F 24-30 Part-Time 12
7 Shawna F 24-30 Part-Time 2
8 Dawn F 30 and older Full-Time 8
9 Jenny F 30 and older Full-Time 2
10 Marcus M 30 and older Full-Time 2
11 Markie F 30 and older Full-Time 4
12 Kay F 30 and older Part-Time 24
13 Bryan M 30 and older Part-Time 3
14 Nicole F 30 and older Part-Time 5
15 Tay F 30 and older Part-Time 3
58
Figure 6
Age Range of Participants
Figure 7
Number of Online Courses Completed at ACC by Participants
27%
20%
53%
Age Range
18-24 24-30 30 and Older
73%
7%
20%
Number of Online Courses Completed at ACC
Less than 5 online courses 5-10 online courses 10 or more online courses
59
Participant Profiles
Dawn was a full-time online student with a desire to transfer to a 4-year university that
offers the options to dual enroll in an undergraduate and master’s program. Dawn worked full-
time in a fast-paced industry. Dawn attended other universities but was not able to complete her
degree. She realized online courses were not only convenient but fit with her busy schedule.
Kay was a part-time student who considers herself a lifelong learner. She obtained her
bachelor’s degree in economics. She was a single mother of a special needs child and worked
full-time. She found that online classes allowed her the convenience she needed to avoid the
commute to ACC and provided the flexibility needed for her limited availability.
Alana was a part-time student who took a mixture of online and on-campus courses at
ACC. She believed that education was her only way to achieve her goals and not repeat the same
mistakes as the people in her neighborhood. She realized online classes would allow her to have
more availability to work three jobs.
Nola was a full-time student who relocated to California from New Orleans, Louisiana.
He never pictured himself as a college student and was more focused on his career in athletics
and modeling. He was given an ultimatum by a family member and decided to enroll in college
instead of entering the workforce. He did not take college seriously until he finally made a few
lifestyle adjustments and his focus started to shift to getting better grades in college. At the time
of this study, he worked full-time and decided to enroll in online classes for convenience and
their perceived ease. He prefers being on-campus and typically enrolls in a mixture of online and
face-to-face classes. He aspired to attend Columbia University for law school and the University
of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for an undergraduate degree.
60
Jessica was a full-time student motivated to attend college to obtain employment. She
was employed and enrolled in a mixture of online and face-to-face classes. Jessica’s interest in
taking online classes stemmed from the convenience the classes provide, such as the commute,
parking costs, and avoiding in-person contact.
Jenny was a full-time student. She was a nursing student, mother, and worked full-time.
Jenny became interested in online classes because of the convenience of online classes to meet
her numerous obligations outside of school.
Tay was a returning part-time student. She worked full-time as an early education teacher
and received a bachelor’s degree in English. While pursuing a career in speech pathology, she
enjoyed her early childhood education classes and transitioned to an early education teacher. She
was attending community college to upgrade her permit to increase her salary as an early
education teacher. Online classes were her preference because they worked with her schedule
and the specific courses she needed were only offered online.
Deja was a full-time student with aspirations of entering the field of journalism. She was
the compensated caretaker of her disabled father. She also cared for three younger brothers. She
decided to enroll in online classes to accommodate her schedule. She was enrolled in a mixture
of online and face-to-face classes since certain classes in her major were not offered online.
Marcus was a full-time student who attempted to complete his undergraduate degree
many years ago. He realized in searching for new career opportunities that he did not meet the
degree requirements. He considered himself a lifelong learner, worked part-time, and was the
father of two children. Marcus chose to enroll in online classes to accelerate meeting the
requirements to obtain an associate degree. He typically enrolls in a mixture of online and face-
to-face courses.
61
Shawna was a part-time student who already obtained her bachelor’s degree. She
decided to change careers and wanted to obtain certification. She worked full-time and opted to
enroll in online classes due to her schedule and the flexibility of online classes. Additionally, the
commute time and avoidance of parking fees were also a motivating factor.
Bryan was a part-time student with a graduate degree. He transferred from a neighboring
community college many years ago with an associate degree in mathematics and became
interested in computer science and linguistics while attending UCLA. He supplemented his
coursework by taking classes at ACC as an undergraduate student. He returned to college to earn
a specialized cloud computing certificate. He had a busy schedule with working, interning, and
volunteering. He decided to enroll in online classes due to the anonymity and flexibility. He
aspired to earn a Ph.D. in linguistics from Stanford University.
Lisa was a first-generation part-time student who obtained an associate degree in
business logistics and pursuing her passion for a career in fashion. She was also in the process of
taking transfer classes to transfer to a 4-year university. Lisa was a former foster youth and
prioritized obtaining a job after graduating high school. After having a child years later, she
decided to enroll in college to be a role model for her children. Online classes provided the
flexibility she needed as a single mother without childcare options. The benefits of avoiding gas
and parking costs, along with avoiding the embarrassment of being an older student were also
motivating factors. After pursuing a career in fashion, she sought to obtain her master’s in
counseling due to her own college experience.
Markie was a full-time student who obtained an associate and bachelor’s degree nearly
two decades prior to this study. After being laid off from her job, she relocated to California and
returned to community college for a career transition. She decided to leave the financial industry
62
and obtain a certification in computer programming. She worked as a volunteer and dedicated
most of her time studying. She realized that most of the classes offered for the certification were
offered online, and because she does not have a vehicle, online classes were the best option.
Mya was a full-time student who aspired to make her family proud by earning a degree.
She worked and attended school full-time. She decided to enroll in online classes due to the
flexibility and ability to manage her time more wisely. She also felt she was judged less in an
online environment. She typically enrolled in a mixture of online and face-to-face classes but has
opted to only take only online classes in past semesters.
Nicole was a part-time student who attempted community college in the past but dropped
out after finding employment at the post office. She later found a job with Los Angeles County
and was motivated to return to school because of promotional opportunities that required a
degree. She had a full-time job and a spouse, and she was an active member of her church. She
attended ACC part-time. She decided to switch her major from liberal arts to accounting. Her
decision to enroll in online classes was due to the commute to campus and the convenience.
Themes
After analyzing the data, five themes and 11 subthemes emerged related to the
experiences of African-American/Black students in asynchronous online learning environments.
This chapter is organized by the themes and subthemes from the data. Table 3 shows the themes
and subthemes of the study.
63
Table 3
Themes and Subthemes
Themes Subthemes
Academic Motivation to Succeed Online
Face-to-Face Settings versus Online Settings Instructional Delivery Preference
Need for Flexibility
Connection to Campus
Academic Resources and Support Online Support Services
Caring Counselors
Understanding Faculty
Establishing a Connection Online Immediacy
Instructor Social Presence
Student-to-Student Interaction
Online Learning Barriers Challenges for Online Students,
Barriers for African- American Online
Students
Academic Motivation to Succeed Online
Participants discussed their motivation to achieve academic success as online students.
Students in asynchronous, online courses tend to have to initiate their learning, and it can be an
isolating and less motivating environment (Butz & Stupnisky, 2017). Because of the autonomous
nature of online learning, there is a need for a high level of self-motivation to be successful
(Artino & Stephens, 2009; Rakes & Dunn, 2010).
A recurring theme among participants is their ability to be independent learners and
motivation to succeed in their online courses. Academic motivation is a reflection of a student’s
high level of persistence to engage in learning tasks, even if faced with challenges (Artino &
Stephens, 2009). All but two did not seek advice, tutorials, or orientations before enrolling in an
online class. Tay expressed that she felt the online classes she had experienced “have been a lot
of independent work.” Alana also elaborated on her success as an online learner:
64
I’m the person that is going to take the extra time to try to understand it or to make sure
that I pass at least. So, I think that I was successful because I was the student that took
extra time, took the extra route, like looking at videos about the information just trying to
teach myself.
Nola offered a similar response:
I feel like I have a strong foundation for who I am as a person. So, even if a teacher in
real life doesn’t help me, I’m going to get some type of material because this is what I
want to do. I’m gonna find some value in it.
Jessica also felt, ultimately, whether one is academically successful or not, depends on the
individual: “You could have all the support and the world. Whether you want to do something or
not. It’s all up to you.” Brian shared a similar sentiment, “People may not expect for me to
succeed, but I’m the only person who determines whether I succeed or not.” Deja further
explained the independent nature of online learning in her experience:
Online classes, because it’s mostly you know, just being self-sufficient and learning the
material stuff by yourself, even though you have the support of your teacher. It’s not like
when you’re in a class and you can ask a million questions and they can show you right
in there.
When asked how she discovered how to search for information about the textbook of an online
class and reading ahead of time, Kay stated, “I figured this out on my own. I’m a very proactive
person, and I wasn’t in school for a while, but I was like this is mind over matter. I got to get it
done.” Jenny made a similar comment when explaining how simple the instructions are in an
online class: “I’m a self-learner anyway. So, if I need clarity on something, I’ll go research it.”
65
The older adults, such as Markie, Dawn, and Marcus, attributed their success in college to
their age and felt their age helped them avoid most pitfalls that traditional college-aged students
fall into.
As evidenced by the participants’ narratives, a high level of academic motivation helped
participants overcome the solitary nature of asynchronous online courses. The older
students also attributed their age as contributing factors to their success in online courses.
This is important in understanding the characteristics of a successful online learner in an
asynchronous environment.
Face-to-Face Settings Versus Online Settings
The participants reported distinct differences when comparing their in-person experiences
to their online experiences in a classroom or on-campus. There were three subthemes identified
from the analysis of the data: instructional delivery preference, need for flexibility, and
connection to campus. All 15 of the participants did not believe their experience was the same in
a face-to-face and online setting.
Instructional Delivery Preference
There was a mixture of preferences from the participants when asked about online and in-
person classes. While some participants preferred online classes for various reasons, all
participants admitted the experience, specifically the interaction, was not the same as it would be
in a face-to-face class. Markie, Nola, Tay, and Alana felt they learned more in an in-person
setting. Markie explained, “I really like to have people interacting with me and I feel like I
learned a lot from other people, like in a classroom setting.” Nola explained that online classes in
his experience are “impersonal” and “not real life.” Alana also shared that in-person classes
offered more clarity of the expectation for exams and quizzes: “With online classes, there’s a lot
66
of confusion on like, what specifically you need to know for the exams or for the quizzes.”
Nicole and Marcus felt students miss out on potential career networking opportunities by not
attending a class in-person. Seven of the participants felt a synchronous component in their
asynchronous courses, or a hybrid model, may improve the experience for students. However,
the participants realized adding a synchronous portion would be difficult for students who enroll
in online classes due to their busy schedules. Lisa proposed providing a synchronous
opportunity, but also providing the recording of the session to allow students “to go back to it at
a better time that works for them.”
Bryan and Mya enjoyed the anonymous nature of online classes to prevent being subject
to discrimination or stereotypes. Bryan stated,
But, you know, the perception that, you know, Black students aren’t worth helping. You
know, it’s just like, you know, the lack of desire of associating with the Black student,
because maybe people, they think that, you know, a Black student may not be able to
contribute. Them not being knowledgeable or not knowledgeable, but I would say fruitful
conversations about the topics or anything like that and engaging, you know, seriously in
the learning process.
Mya reported that she experienced receiving a lower grade on assignments, in comparison to her
peers in the same group, in the face-to-face classes. She said this has happened on a few
occasions and typically received better grades in online classes:
Classes on campus can be like more judgmental and thinking like, judging more often.
Things like just in general, like as me just observing. I feel that you can like sometimes, I
feel like discrimination, like you can be discriminated, or you can just be judged by
67
things out of your control on campus. Rather being online, you can just focus on
education and finishing your assignments without anyone having that background of you.
She further explained that she contacted a counselor on-campus about this experience and was
advised not to focus on the discrimination and to “get my grade and get out.”
While the participants opted to take online courses because of the convenience it affords
them, it was at the cost of not having the same type of interaction as they would in a face-to-face
setting. Furthermore, two participants revealed they received different treatment in online classes
in comparison to in-person classes.
Connection to Campus
The majority of participants felt it was impossible to feel connected to campus if students
only enrolled in online courses. Two participants, Tay and Kay, felt it may be possible by staying
abreast of campus events via the college website. Alana elaborated on why she felt it was
impossible to feel connected to the campus for students only taking online classes: “I didn’t
interact with my classmates online, rarely interacting with professor, so there’s no interaction.
So, there’s no way to like, feel connected to the school or people there online.” Bryan also
recalled his experiences enrolling in MOOCs at other universities:
I mean, there are some Coursera courses that I took you know. I have certificates from
Stanford, from Brown, from different institutions and stuff. I’m not, you know, I’m not a
Stanford student. I don’t have a Stanford ID. I’m not like strolling through the Rodin
sculpture garden or anything. I guess you know I’m affiliated in some kind of way, but I
just, I would love to have that connection with the campus. I mean, there’s nothing like
being, you know, on that campus.
68
Marcus explained that the lack of “human contact” made a connection impossible. He further
explained his stance: “Even people who do online dating, they have to meet the person at some
point. So, you know, there’s definitely an isolation that you experience by all computer training.”
Jenny and Jessica suggested that online students are not looking for this particular
experience. Jenny explained,
I feel like the people who are taking the online courses are doing it because they need the
convenience. They’re not really searching for that campus experience or connection,
because if they wanted that, they would take the class in person.
The majority of participants felt it was not possible to feel a connection to campus
without having some form of in-person interaction with the campus. Two participants said that, if
a student chooses to take only online classes, they may not be seeking a connection with the
campus. Thus, the insights from the participants are helpful in understanding the possible
disadvantages of being an online student.
Need for Flexibility
A recurring theme that emerged is all of the participants stated that online classes gave
them the flexibility to work on their assignments and study at their own pace. Many participants
enjoyed knowing what was expected of them ahead of time and planning their schedules
accordingly. One participant reported how they felt about online classes in comparison to in-
person classes regarding flexibility:
The online classes have proven to be much better as far as my time management, like I
don’t really like the deadlines. I don’t see how if I had a class that was every Tuesday and
Thursday and then everything’s due only on Tuesday and Thursday.
69
Dawn also shared similar sentiments in enjoying the flexibility to “do homework at three o’clock
in the morning and turn it in. I can log in at any time. I can do it from my phone.” Deja further
explained the difficulty in planning ahead with an in-person class,
I didn’t have to have something due the day of. It was more like, I knew the dates,
months ahead. It’s like when you log on, like online every day, like you see it. So, you
know, more stuffed in your brain, because it is constantly there, as in like you get the
syllabus, the first day of class and forget about it.
Lisa stated she had to take a chemistry class in person three days a week, and she
wondered how she would fit this in her schedule as a single working mother. She also shared a
story of how she received the grade of D in her online economics class because she was unable
to take advantage of the office hours on campus due to the long commute and her schedule. She
said that she wished she knew online tutoring was an option. Kay also said that the flexibility of
online classes saves her money for childcare for her son and allowed her to develop a routine that
accommodates her schedule. She felt that online classes are beneficial to students because they
do not have to worry about the typical concerns, such as childcare and making sure dinner is
served since students are already home. Students can prepare and plan to work on their online
class when their schedules allow. Furthermore, Brian shared he needs the flexibility of online
classes for mental health reasons, such as bipolar disorder: “You know, I was experiencing bouts
of clinical depression, and I didn’t feel like going to campus.”
The data illustrates the importance of flexibility as community college students pursue
post-secondary education and manage their everyday lives. Thus, asynchronous online courses
provide students with a viable option to continue their education that would not be possible with
on-campus courses.
70
Academic Resources and Support
The participants discussed their experience with accessing online student support and
their experiences with counselors and faculty while taking an online class. There were three
subthemes identified from the analysis of the data: online support services, caring counselors,
and understanding faculty.
Online Support Services
Twelve out of 15 participants were unaware of online support services such as tutoring
and counseling. The majority of the participants found themselves coming to campus to receive
student services. Marcus used an online writing service, while Kay took advantage of online
counseling when she was told of the service from a staff member of the phone. Mya felt the
online counseling service lacked the same quality as the in-person counseling services offered.
She described communicating with online counselors via an “alias” and it felt “automated.” She
would have liked for the service to feel “more personable” and have an actual counselor assigned
to her. Markie, Alana, and Shawna believed the college should invest more resources towards
online student services. Lisa believed on-campus staff, specifically counselors, are not
knowledgeable about the online support services available:
You know, my counselors, they are pretty good about telling me things. But, you know, I
think there’s just such a lack when it comes to online support for people. Yes, I can take a
lot of online classes, but my counselors that are on campus, they may not know a bunch
of stuff about online. So they’re not telling me about, you know, online counseling or
online this or online that you know.
71
The data illustrates that many of the participants not only did not use the online support
services available but were unaware of their existence. This highlights the underutilization and
lack of knowledge about online support services available to students.
Caring Counselors
A recurring theme from the data was how helpful the counselors were throughout their
journey as a student at ACC. Although online counseling was not utilized by the majority of
participants, the care and support of the in-person counselors at ACC was mentioned 14 times.
Deja credited a few counselors for making sure she is on “track.” Marcus also expressed
how a few counselors have helped him, so he is motivated to help them in any way that he can.
Alana described that the counselors provided in the African-American/Black cultural program
were one of her motivations to continue her academic journey:
Just being able to see someone where you want to be and them supporting you, and
believing in you, and seeing potential that you don’t see in yourself. That definitely like
motivates me to keep going and shows me that like, it is achievable, like I’m not reaching
for something that’s impossible.
Lisa also offered a positive experience with a counselor when she stopped attending ACC and
decided to re-enroll a few years later, and was told by a counselor she was only one “semester
away from graduating.” Lisa noted she was not told before dropping out that she was so close to
graduating. She noticed there is a difference between the general counselors and the specialized
program counselors: “Some counselors are good, and some counselors are not.” She felt in the
past she was just given her plan and “moved along” but noticed the counselors for the specialized
programs, specifically for foster youth and African-American students, “these counselors, they
are on it.”
72
The participants stated how instrumental supportive and caring counselors are for their
success as a community college student. While online counseling services may not have been
utilized or seen as beneficial, the on-campus counseling services were crucial to the educational
journey for some of these online students.
Understanding Faculty
The participants had varied experiences with faculty support online. The majority of the
participants admitted that they did not seek additional help or support in their online classes.
However, nine participants remembered a faculty member who seemed helpful or understanding.
Kay explained she enjoyed online classes because of the professors, “They’re very
understanding. They understand that a lot of people are working, and that’s why they take online classes
and they work with you as long as you communicate.” Kay offered a story about when she was unable to
complete an assignment due to fear of disrupting routine for her special needs child and how the
instructor was willing to accommodate her. Tay recalled an instance when she was sick and unable to
complete her assignments for the week, and she e-mailed the professor and received an extension on her
assignments. She mentioned how the professor was understanding and was “good about checking in
periodically.” She felt the instructor was “understanding,” and noticed each student in the class. Tay also
said that although the instructor was understanding, she tried not to reach out “every single time.” She
further explained that she already benefitted from being an online student and the convenience that came
with it, so she did not feel it was right to contact the instructor each time she was unable to complete an
assignment. Lisa recalled a similar experience, in that she only reached out to an online instructor once,
due to having surgery. However, when asked if she contacted an instructor about not being able to pay
for a required textbook, she felt the instructor would not care about her financial situation. She also
expressed that it may be difficult for her to open up to people due to her past as a foster youth and
73
having anxiety. Nicole also recalled an experience with an instructor she met on campus at a conference,
and how much of an impact that had on her academic journey:
That same professor that e-mailed me about the event. He’s not even my professor, but he
remembered me, so that was my motivation to keep going. being on campus and having
professors that actually care and believe in you.
Alana and Markie noted a different experience when their instructors were not as
supportive in their online classes. Alana recalled asking for more guidance from an instructor:
I remember one time I was taking like a music history class online, and I asked the
question for clarification, and he just simply responded like, “Look at your syllabus. It’s
online.” And it’s like, clearly, I had a, you know, like, clearly. That wasn’t doing it for
me. I didn’t get my answer.
Markie shared a similar experience in the past when she first ventured into online classes many
years ago:
In order to pass this class was so different. For me, I’m going to need a lot of support and
the teachers just was not like at all with it. I remember her emailing me and saying,
“Well, ask one of your students, your fellow students” and I’m like what are you talking
about? this is an online class.
The participants revealed how critical it was for online students to have an understanding
and supportive online instructor. Although some of the participants acknowledged how
understanding the instructor may have been in their course, they were still hesitant to contact the
instructor unless it involved a serious illness. It was also evident how much of a negative impact
an unsupportive instructor can have on the success of an online student.
74
Establishing a Connection Online
Social presence reflects the degree of personal connectedness of students in the class
(Sung & Mayer, 2012), and also the degree that students can feel the presence of others in an
online learning environment (Biocca et al., 2011). The participants stated their perspectives and
experiences regarding the type of interactions that occur in online learning environments. Three
subthemes were identified: immediacy, instructor social presence, and student-to-student
interaction.
Immediacy
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) posited that immediacy is a way to enhance social
presence. The researchers believed when an individual receives a delayed response, then less
social presence would be perceived, and they would likely be less engaged. Thus, all of the
participants recognized that one disadvantage of their online classes is the lack of the ability to
receive real-time answers or support. Jenny explained the differences in receiving a response in
an online and in-person class:
There are huge differences. In class, you are able to ask the instructor, you know, right,
then and there to further elaborate or explain something more clearly. And you don’t
have to, you know, wait for a response for a couple of hours or a couple of days, versus
an online class, where you do have to wait.
Marcus shared a similar sentiment, “the immediacy, the ability to develop rapport and have an
immediate response, and perhaps a more in-depth response, is what’s lacking online, in my
experience.”
Tay felt that her experience in the industry helped her with online classes but felt, if her classes
were in a different subject, she would need the opportunity to have an immediate conversation. She
75
stated that although her instructors may reply the next day, she would prefer her instructors to be “more
accessible.” She further explained,
I like to be in the moment, if I don’t understand something right then, being able to be in the
classroom, raising my hand, talking amongst others, other peers like that, just tends to work
better for me for my understanding.
Although Bryan preferred pre-recorded videos, he acknowledged how frustrating it
would be if a student was stuck on a problem and needed an immediate answer. Deja felt in-
person classes provided more of a “direct connection. Any questions you have can be really
answered right then and there.” Whereas, in online classes, Deja explained,
You reach out to your teacher and it just varies on the time, like they can get right back to
you, or it could be like day and you know, you don’t have that direct line of contact with
the person.
The participants revealed that they felt the immediacy was missing in their online
courses. Furthermore, they highlighted how a lack of real-time communication in asynchronous
online learning environments can negatively impact a student.
Instructor Social Presence
Online instructors can help reduce students’ feeling of isolation (Clark et al., 2015).
Instructor social presence is the students’ sense that the instructor is “real” and “there” in an
online learning environment (Richardson & Lowenthal, 2017).
Most of the participants reported that they communicated with their instructor mostly via
e-mail and the response time is usually reasonable. Deja said, “So far I’ve had really good
instructors, who, like, if I do have questions, it’s either they will immediately get right back in, or
I’ll have like a 24-hour window and they’ll get back to me.” She explained that her instructors
76
are “proactive” and send out announcements and are helpful in sending out examples to explain
any difficult concepts in the class. Other participants noted their online instructors offered office
hours. One participant, Tay, had an instructor who offered their phone number to students for
text messaging. However, she explained the downfalls of e-mail in her experience,
I feel like there is a different vibe, you get when you meet somebody or, you know, when
you’re in their presence, than not. You kind of have a deeper connection, you know, if I
meet you, and I look at you in your eyes and I shake your hand or I’m talking to you, like
there’s a different connection that I have. Versus you just being somebody that I’m
emailing back and forth. It’s not the same type of connection.
Markie also shared a frustrating experience with a lack of response from her instructor,
The teachers have to really be on top of communicating with you, because there’s no
other way that you would be able to interact with them. Because there’s no other way for
me to get help. You have to respond to me or through e-mail, so I can get you know, what
I need as a student.
Nola reported he did not reach out to instructors due to the perceived impersonal nature
of online classes. When asked if he felt academically supported in his online classes, Bryan
replied, “I can’t really feel supported because my idea of what support is involves human to
human interaction.” In addition, four participants felt like their online classes were impersonal,
and a couple of participants revealed they would not know what their instructor looked like in
person. Alana believed instructor presence is missing in online classes,
I think that the presence is missing. Well, the one class that I took this semester, her
presence was there. She was there, like she had a picture online, like you could actually
see who she was. She was very active online. So, I actually did communicate with her,
77
but majority of them, they kind of just post the work. That’s it. They don’t really, I mean
technically, they have their online office hours, but they don’t really make themselves
available or open to ask questions or even just talk.
When Alana was asked how the college can improve the online experience for students, she
suggested faculty providing more opportunities for video office hours to allow instructors to
“know who you are as a person” since she believed “there’s no bond created at all,” in an online
environment.
The majority of participants responded favorably when asked about the quality of the
interactions in their online classes. For example, Tay felt the in-depth feedback from her
instructors on her assignments added to her experience in online classes.
The evidence sheds light on how online instructors were able to enhance or diminish
social presence in an online learning environment. This finding is important in understanding
how instructors were able to enhance social presence in asynchronous online learning
environments.
Student-to-Student Interaction
Overall, all the participants responded that there was limited interaction with their
classmates online. The majority of the interactions were through required threaded discussion
forums, and sometimes through e-mail. Nola explained that the discussions in an online class
were robotic in nature and “different people with the same opinion.” He felt an instructor in
person would be able to pivot the discussion to encourage more in-depth conversation.
Additionally, he felt he was more inclined to assist a classmate in a face-to-face setting rather
than his online classes. He believed online classes were “not real life” and would not allow him
to get to know a classmate the same way an in-person class would.
78
Participants explained some of the differences in their interactions with peers online in
comparison to an in-person setting. Nicole stated,
They actually have a choice if they want to read what you put as your introduction.
You’re not really getting to know people. You’re not really in a position to exchange
numbers and build those study groups, unless it’s forced by the teacher. So, it’s not really
relational if you will, even with the teachers, it’s not really relational.
Deja noted that in a face-to-face class, she had the advantage of being able to turn to a classmate
to ask for further understanding on a topic, whereas, in online classes, “You really don’t know
when the person will respond to you or when they get back to you.”
However, there were two participants who thought the interaction in online classes were
of good quality. Markie said she learned about people but acknowledged she chose to read their
responses. Similar to Markie, Nicole also enjoyed reading through introduction posts and having
diverse classmates, but acknowledged it is a choice. She explained, “But then again, it’s like, you
know, if you’re one of those. Let’s just kind of just taking the class to kind of rush through, you
will just do your introduction and then move on to the next module.”
Kay revealed she had one opportunity to connect with a student in person but was unable
due to her schedule. Kay and Jenny believed that students in- person can also be a distraction
sometimes, but Jenny also recognized the benefits of having classmates around, “Other people,
you know, you can get together easier and have study groups and, you know, get more clarity on
the information that way.” However, two participants also believed there were benefits in not
having to respond to classmates instantaneously. Bryan and Shawna enjoyed being able to have
time to think of their responses before responding to students in their online courses. However,
Bryan believed the interaction with students was “shallow,” but he preferred it since he believed
79
his ideas were different and “not along the same lines of what other people have been trained to
think” and can be perceived as “…not as valuable” in face-to-face settings.
The data highlights the limited student connections and interactions that occur in
asynchronous online learning environments. This is significant because distance education
courses at all CCCs are required to have “regular effective contact” among students (Thomson
Reuters, n.d.). Furthermore, the majority of participants were able to share the common
experience of being unable to make meaningful connections or relationships with their peers
online.
Online Learning Barriers
The participants identified challenges in their experience while taking an online course,
as well as unique barriers for African-American/Black online students. However, Nicole and
Lisa felt they would only recommend online classes for lower-division classes and not
“complicated courses” such as math.
All but one participant felt the academic rigor in online classes was the same or harder
than face-to-face classes. Alana explained her reasoning for believing online classes are harder
than in-person classes:
A lot of times, sometimes online classes are harder, maybe because they feel like you can
look it up online, or whatever, like you’re at home, you have your book with you. So, you
should be able to answer it. But I think that they make them a lot harder than classes that
are on campus.
Markie also elaborated on why she felt online classes are harder, “You don’t have anybody in
front of you to ask, or another student to say, ‘hey did you understand that?’ So, I think it’s way
more, by far, more difficult.”
80
The participants revealed how learning was different in an online setting compared to a
face-to-face setting. Moreover, 14 of the participants felt the academic rigor in an online class
was the same or more rigorous in comparison to their on-campus experiences.
Challenges for Online Students
The participants had a variety of responses in regard to specific challenges they may have
had in an online class. The majority of participants considered their online classes
“straightforward,” and did not experience many obstacles besides not being able to communicate
with their peers and instructors instantaneously. Nicole explained,
For the most part, the professors are kind of on it. You know, so it’s not really any real
challenges, except you know, not being able to get your questions answered maybe on
time. But I mean, like I said, they’re pretty on it, as far as I know.
However, all of the participants acknowledged in some form, the need to be disciplined, have
time management skills, and prepared to read a lot in an online class. Marcus explained,
Well it poses a different set of challenges because it’s online. You are required to
prioritize and really plan out how you’re going to approach completing assignments,
completing reading. So, you can do assignments, schedule time to work individually, so
that you can prepare for the different exams. If you’re not careful, that can get away from
you.
The participants also revealed experiences when there were challenges beyond their
control. Nicole, Jessica, and Markie recounted instances when the instructor may have been
disorganized or gave the wrong information to students in online classes. Markie explained a
situation where her instructor threatened to drop her from the class because she was not able to
view an assignment submitted:
81
She was threatening to drop me from the class, instead of just being like, “oh, just zoom
in on this area.” So, anyway, I did that and submitted it, and everything was fine. After
that, but it was like my first lesson in understanding that communication was going to be
absolutely key.
Markie also shared another experience when an instructor confused the entire class with constant
incorrect instructions,
This particular course lacked a lot of hands on demonstration. There was no video. The
teacher would send out like a lecture he wrote. He would post that and then he would like
read through it and he would sometimes post like a walkthrough where he would say do
this step one, and then he would point like an arrow to it. But 9 out of 10 times, or I
shouldn’t say 9 out of 10 times, at least a quarter of the time, those instructions were
absolutely incorrect. I heard him say to another student when I went to the office hours.
He said, quote, “I’m not an expert at this.”
The majority of participants felt there were not many challenges they faced in their online
courses. However, all participants agreed the skills needed to be successful in an online setting.
Additionally, participants also revealed the negative experience an ill-prepared instructor can
have in an online learning environment. This is important in understanding what is necessary to
improve the experience for online students.
Barriers for African-American Online Students
Participants were asked, “Do you feel students of a certain race or ethnicity will have
better success in an online class, why or why not?” Fourteen participants did not believe a certain
race or ethnicity would have better success in online classes. The participants believed success in
an online class was up to the individual. Nicole offered, “I think anybody, like I say, anybody
82
can be successful. And like I said, it is really diverse online. So, it’s like a mixture of everybody
in the class. So, we can’t say who would work out better.” Jessica also stated, “I feel like people
need to make sure they have a skill level to be in college, period.” Jenny also opined, “I don’t
think it has anything to do with ethnic background or race. I feel it has more to do with the
person in their learning style.” However, some participants did express that certain demographics
may have an advantage over others. Alana noted, “Caucasian students that maybe grew up like in
private schools are like doing classes online or whatever, it might be easier for them, because
they’re used to it.” Bryan also recounted the story of an African-American student in his master’s
program and how he believed academic success is contingent on your background:
I don’t think it’s so much of ethnicity. I think it’s so much as it as a training thing, as an
academic pedigree thing. You know and having those parents who really encouraged you
to study, and who were there to help you and support you, and you know, gave you that
structure.
Participants were also asked, “In your view, what are possible explanations as to why
Black students taking online classes are not as successful in online classes as other groups?”
Frequent responses from participants as to why African-American/Black students may not be as
successful in online classes were the lack of support structure, not having the time to be
successful, and not wanting to ask for help. Nicole explained, “You know, you really have to
focus, and I know we are hard work and race. So, we have a lot going on. A lot of us are like that
because of, you know, to make, you know, get our money.” Deja provided her observation, “A
lot of my friends are super like hardheaded, and so they rather just struggle than ask for help. I
feel like, that’s always has been like, a Black people thing, like we’re a little hardheaded.”
83
Participants also stated their perspectives about other obstacles African-American/Black students
may face. Tay stated,
I’m looking at my friends and my family for sure. Yeah, just because I know what their
schedules are like, and I just know what they’re dealing with. Like most of them have
children, they have families, you know, they’re working a full-time job.
Jenny mentioned,
Only thing I’m thinking that could possibly be a barrier would be them not being self-
learners. And them not having the motivation or the drive to actually commit to doing an
online class. Having more you know obligations than they can handle.
Jessica believed it is a systematic oppression issue:
But just systematically being impacted by slavery and having PTSD from that. And still
having effects trickle down now systematically. People are still trying to get themselves
out of a hole or out of mindset that trapped them from slavery. So, I think it’s that. Also,
the school system. The school systems in general are very lacking, especially when it
comes to people who are considered minorities and identify as African-American, Latino
and such. They automatically are in the pipeline system to jail. So, they’re not giving the
attention that it is necessary in order to succeed.
Bryan also shared similar sentiments with Jessica. He explained, “We have what it takes. No
question about it. It’s just more, just the history, especially being here in the United States.” He
further elaborated,
If you don’t have that support, if you don’t have the backbone. The not the backbone, but
the strong bones to succeed in an on-site course. You take away the scaffolding, and you
put a student in an online forum. What are they going to do? And then if they have self-
84
esteem issues, and then maybe feeling like their voices are not going to be validated, you
know, and you’re asking remedial questions, quote unquote, you know, and stuff like,
how is it that your professor may even get frustrated and bored with the student? So, you
know I think that, you know, it’s a tough one. And it hurts.
Deja shared her view regarding the lack of support systems available,
I know a lot of times everyone doesn’t have the best support system. Especially in like,
you know, the African-American community. I feel like education is supported, but it’s
like. “Oh, you send your student or your kid off to school.” It’s like, well you are there,
like you should know how to do it. More than like, “Okay, well, I’ll help you figure out
how to do this. If you don’t understand it.”
Lisa offered a similar perspective in that there is a lack of knowledge and support around taking
online courses in the community. Mya also shared a similar belief to Lisa, in that there is a lack
of knowledge about online classes and she recalled that she had to do her own research about
online classes.
Tay noted her observations of family and friends as it relates to African-American/Black
students’ success in online classes:
It might not even be that they couldn’t be successful in the class academically. It might
literally just be, I don’t have time to put my best foot forward when it came to it. It’s just
that you didn’t have the practical time to set aside to do your absolute best. You know if
they say that you should set aside three hours per day to work on homework or to do
assignments, whatever, and you’re like I only got an hour. So, you got to cram that three
hours that they suggest into one hour. Of course, it’s just never going to be what it could
be, had you put your best foot forward and not because you don’t want to put your best
85
foot forward. There’s just other things happening, there are just other things going on that
are always going to be more important.
While Tay believed African-American/Black students may not be able to dedicate the time
necessary to be successful in an online setting, Markie believed a barrier for African-American
students is not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed academically.
The participants reported their experiences of the challenges they faced in asynchronous
online learning environments and also their perspectives regarding the rigor in online learning
environments. Additionally, participants revealed their unique perspectives on potential barriers
for African-American/Black students as it relates to academic outcomes in online learning
environments. This is key in understanding the barriers that online courses present for online
students, specifically African-American/Black students.
Conclusion
In conclusion, themes and subthemes of the study produced supportive and challenging
experiences for African-American students enrolled in asynchronous online courses at the
community college level. The interviews with 15 participants provided various perspectives and
experiences in the online learning environment that addresses the two research questions of this
study. The next chapter will discuss the implications of the findings in the context of previous
literature and the theoretical framework, as well as recommendations for practice and future
research.
86
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications
This study examined the experiences of African-American/Black students in
asynchronous, online learning environments at the community college level. The insightful
narratives from the participants’ experiences shed light on the support systems and practices that
were beneficial or a hindrance in an online learning environment. The experiences shared by the
participants are significant to understand how to work towards closing the equity gaps in online
education for African-American/Black and Latinx students in the community college system.
The study is important because there is a limited existing body of research on the
experiences of African-American/Black students in asynchronous online learning environments.
Furthermore, this study is significant because it centers African-American/Black students’ voices
in online learning, which is a group that is not visible in the literature (Ashong & Commander,
2012). The findings captured the lived experiences of African-American/Black students who
have enrolled in at least one asynchronous online course at ACC. The findings revealed many
on-campus and off-campus support systems and practices that impact the online learning
experience for students.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the findings and examine them through
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Chapter Five will also address the
recommendations for practice and future research, followed by concluding remarks.
Discussion of Findings
This chapter contains discussion, future research possibilities, and recommendations for
practice to help answer the following research questions:
1. What are African-American/Black student’s experiences in an asynchronous, online
learning environment at a community college?
87
a. What are the perceptions of African-American/Black students regarding the
barriers to academic success, if any?
The study found participants’ experiences with online classes shared commonalities, but
there were also differences unique to the individual. Many of the participants attributed their
academic motivation as a contributing factor to their academic success in online classes.
However, the majority of participants referred to asynchronous online courses as independent
work. In a study conducted by Jaggars (2014), students also expressed they were “teaching
themselves” in online courses. The findings are consistent with the literature, in that online
courses tend to be suited for the field-independent learner (Rovai et al., 2008). However, the
findings differed slightly from the literature review in Chapter Two, since many of the
participants in the study would be characterized as field-independent learners. Whereas, African-
American/Black participants were deemed as field-dependent learners in previous studies
(Rovai, 2007; Tingoy & Gulluoglu, 2012).
All participants in this study revealed the need for flexibility and convenience as a
driving influence in their decision to enroll in online classes. This finding supports the research,
noting that asynchronous online courses offer flexibility and convenience to students (Daymont
et al., 2011; Luo, Pan, Choi, Mellish, & Strobel, 2011).
The data supports the finding that most participants had a preference for real-time
interaction and learning that happens in a face-to-face setting (Ashong & Commander, 2012).
Thus, some participants described their interaction with instructors and students in their online
classes as impersonal or superficial. According to Oztok (2013) the reliance on asynchronous
threaded discussions, without further opportunities to form relationships beyond the academic
content, may create a diminished form of socialization in the online learning environment.
88
Asynchronous text communication in online courses can make it difficult for students to perceive
instructor social presence in comparison to face-to-face communication (Thomas, West, &
Borup, 2017). A few participants recommended including optional synchronous meetings in the
class to overcome this challenge in asynchronous online courses. This aligns with the research
since video conferencing tools can be used to enhance social presence in an online environment
(Clark et al., 2015; Soper & Ukot, 2016).
Consistent with the data provided by the CCCCO, most participants did not participate in
an online orientation prior to enrolling in an online class (Woodyard & Larson, 2017).
Furthermore, most of the participants were unaware of the online student services and came to
campus to utilize these services. The data supports the finding that online student support
services are limited, and online students are usually expected to come to campus (Britto & Rush,
2013; Smith, 2005). Moreover, most of the participants did not feel it was possible to feel
connected to the campus if a student was only enrolled in online courses. This is important
because students with a strong sense of connection with their peers and the institution are more
likely to complete their degree and are satisfied with their educational experience (Dare et al.,
2005).
Participants’ experience with instructors in online classes were influenced by the
individual instructor’s perceived presence or care exhibited. While some participants felt their
instructors were understanding and accessible, a few participants felt their instructor was
unavailable and impersonal. Instructors who employ social presence strategies may potentially
decrease the feeling of isolation and increase the odds of students persisting in an online course
(Clarke et al., 2015). In this study, Alana was able to recall one positive experience with an
online instructor, in comparison to her overall negative online instructor experiences. She felt the
89
one online instructor was different than the others because “she was active online” and made
herself available in ways that other online instructors in her experience did not. According to
Arroyo (2010), African-American/Black students’ successful experience in online learning
involves increased instructor engagement.
Furthermore, a few participants shared frustrating experiences navigating online courses
when the instructor did not appear to be organized or provided inaccurate information in the
course. This finding is consistent with the literature that highlights the importance of ongoing
faculty training to develop effective online courses (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Johnson et al.,
2015; Rovai & Downey, 2010).
Perceptions Regarding Barriers to Success
Fourteen participants did not share the belief that a certain race or ethnicity would have
better success in online classes. However, many of the participants felt African-American/Black
students may not have the support structures in place to be successful academically. A strong
sense of community and support systems are needed to promote successful outcomes for
African/Black students (Orrock & Clark, 2018; Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Six participants
revealed they felt African-American/Black students may not be able to put as much effort into
their online classes due to other obligations, such as family and work, which would impede their
ability to focus on classwork. Participants also expressed there was not enough information or
guidance for African-American/Black students to identify resources and successful strategies for
online classes. Furthermore, a few participants attributed structural inequities as barriers to
academic success for African-American/Black students (Dumas, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Pendakur, 2016).
90
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
The theoretical framework used in this study was Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
theory. The ecological systems theory provides a useful framework to examine the interactions
between individuals and their environments and how the interrelated exchange between the
systems may support or hinder a person’s development (Torres et al., 2009). Bronfenbrenner
established the PPCT model to categorize the various elements that influence human
development. The ecological systems theory contains five nested systems in which the individual
is in the center, with each system surrounding the individual. The micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-,
and chronosystems interact and influence one another. Figure 8 illustrates how the systems
influence each other. These elements collaborate in ways that promote or inhibit an individual’s
development, specifically African-American/Black students’ outcomes in an asynchronous
online learning environment. For this study, only the microsystem and mesosystem were
examined.
91
Figure 8
Renn and Arnolds’ (2003) adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s Model as applied to Higher
Education
Microsystem for African-American Online Students
The microsystem is the immediate environment in which the individual is directly
exposed to and interacts with each system, and the most influential for an individual’s
development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). A consistent finding within the participants’
microsystem in this study was the lack of peer interaction and support experienced in their online
classes. According to Renn and Arnold (2003), the way in which a student is situated in a
microsystem may promote or inhibit interactions between the student and their environment. The
student’s microsystem contains different elements, including family, work, and friends, thus
impacting the online interactions. In this study, peer interaction in asynchronous online learning
environments are not promoted in this instructional delivery modality and absent from student
participants’ microsystems. Additionally, faculty interactions in asynchronous online learning
environments varied depending on the individual experiences with an instructor. While many
92
participants had positive interactions with online faculty and developed relationships with
faculty, others did not seek additional assistance due to their negative experience with the
instructor.
Another key finding related to the microsystem of participants is family support, which
contributed to their academic success as a student. Interactions and support from parents, family,
and peers are the most salient influences toward individual development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Dennis et al., 2005). This aligns with findings from Guiffrida’s study (2005a), which was a
qualitative study to understand the impact of family support for African-American college
students’ academic achievement and persistence. His study found that family support played a
critical role in academic success for African-American college students. Consistent with
ecological systems theory, the majority of participants discussed family support, whether their
understanding of the college experience was beneficial, or their lack of support was a driving
force in their success.
In the study, Kay mentioned how her sister was a support to her in learning how to be a
successful college student while Tay also noted a similar response regarding her cousin being the
role model and paving the way for others in the family to pursue higher education. She expressed
that she felt a duty to be a role model for her younger relatives in the same way that her cousin
motivated her. While most of the participants had a positive story to share about family support,
Lisa mentioned her mother was not as supportive about her decision to go back to school and she
wished her mother was more supportive. Nicole also shared a similar story in that her sister with
a degree was not as supportive in her decision to enroll back in school and she used it as her
motivation to persist. Family involvement indirectly affects academic success but directly
influences a students’ motivation and perceptions relating to school (Stewart, 2006). Thus,
93
participants’ support or non-support of their family members influenced participants’ motivation
to pursue post-secondary education.
Mesosystem for African-American Online Students
The mesosystem is defined as the connections between two or more microsystem settings
and how they shape the environment to influence the individual, such as the balance of
schoolwork, employment, and family responsibilities. In the mesosystem, depending on how a
student manages the interaction between the two or more microsystems, development may be
promoted or impeded (Renn & Arnold, 2003).
Participants cited limited interaction with their classmates in asynchronous online classes.
However, all of the participants sought out asynchronous online classes to meet the demand of
their schedule, whether it was work- or school-related. Thus, due to the interconnected nature of
the systems, the interactions between each microsystem conflict, which inhibits an opportunity
for students to establish meaningful relationships with their online classmates.
Furthermore, participants such as Tay shared that other responsibilities outside of school
interfere with African-American/Black students’ ability to dedicate the time and effort to succeed
in an online environment. Thus, the interactions between the various microsystems—work,
family, classes—may promote increased enrollment for African-American students in online
classes and hinder their academic success rate.
The majority of participants had to seek on-campus support while taking an online
course. Lisa shared an example when she was unable to participate in tutoring services on-
campus due to the commute and childcare obligations. As a result, she received a grade of D in
the class. Lisa’s microsystems presented her with a choice and came into conflict with each
other. Thus, hindered Lisa’s ability to take advantage of the supplemental instruction she needed
94
to succeed in the course. She lamented that she was not made aware of online tutoring services
by her counselors. Additionally, community college counselors are part of the mesosystem, to
help students meet their educational goals and transfer to a four-year university. Counselors also
play a pivotal role in supporting African-American/Black college students (Guiffrida, 2005b). A
few of the participants shared positive experiences with the counselors in the African-
American/Black cultural program. The findings revealed counselors who shared the same racial
identity provided a support system that positively influenced African-American/Black students’
community college students enrolled in at least one asynchronous online course. Thus, individual
student participants’ interaction with this particular element of the microsystem played a crucial
role in their lives.
Furthermore, participants experienced on-campus staff members not being as
knowledgeable about online classes or online support services available. Lisa explained she was
hesitant to take perceived complex subjects online, such as math, because she did not have
anyone to seek more information about this experience. Hence, this experience hindered
participation in another microsystem element, an online math class. Whereas, if Nicole had met a
peer or campus personnel with information regarding this experience, it would have possibly
influenced her interest to enroll in an online math class.
Participants felt connected to the campus by attending on-campus events. Nicole was able
to attend an event in-person and establish connections with students and other faculty members
on campus. Thus, these connections reinforced campus peer culture that impacted their
development (Renn & Arnold, 2003).
95
Recommendations
This section offers three recommendations for higher education policymakers,
administrators, faculty, and student services staff to improve and support the needs of African-
American/Black online students. The personal narratives shared by the 15 participants in this
study provided a deeper understanding of the experiences and barriers that impact many online
students and can also be applied to the general online student population. Based on the analysis
of the findings, the researcher recommends three areas of focus for improving the asynchronous
online learning experience for African-American/Black students: the promotion and investment
into online support services, opportunities for online student communities, and faculty training,
as illustrated in Figure 9. These recommendations will better serve African-American/Black
students and racially minoritized students enrolled in asynchronous online learning environments
at the community college level.
96
Figure 9
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Promote and Invest in Online Student Services
Most of the participants were unaware that there were online support services available
for students, such as tutoring and counseling. Participants who were aware of the online support
services identified the services as being inferior to the support offered on-campus. There is a
need to not only advertise but invest in substantial resources to provide the online student
population with the same quality of resources as their on-campus counterparts. According to
LaPadula (2003), quality and convenient online support services are linked to positive student
outcomes. Online support services not only enhance the college experience for online students
but for all students who may prefer to access assistance virtually (Hornak et al., 2010).
Furthermore, these services should provide students with a personalized experience, similar to
97
the experience of meeting a staff member in-person. The online support services should also
reflect the hours for working adults to ensure the online support services are accessible.
Higher education institutions should also consider creating a staff or peer support role
exclusively dedicated to coaching and mentoring online students throughout their educational
journey. Mentorship not only offers a supportive environment but also creates a sense of
belonging for African-American/Black students (Brittain et al., 2009). However, it is important
for the college to invest in the proper mentor training to ensure a positive experience for these
students (Booker & Brevard, 2017). There are 4-year universities, such as Arizona State
University, that have successfully implemented online student success coaching models and
community colleges should consider using existing personnel or create positions to replicate a
similar role.
Recommendation 2: Provide Opportunities for Online Student Communities
Higher education institutions should provide a virtual space for online students to connect
with their peers outside of the classroom. The participants interviewed experienced a lack of peer
interaction, beyond the required discussion prompts, in their asynchronous online classes. As
found in the study, students are unable to engage and develop the same connections in an online
setting as they would in an in-person class. A sense of community has academic and social
benefits for all students (Rovai, 2003). Thus, asynchronous online learning environments may
diminish a sense of community and contributes to feelings of isolation (Rovai, 2002). However,
research on online learning communities has focused primarily on the experiences inside the
classroom (Garrison, 2016). It is important for campuses to investigate and create opportunities
to allow online students to engage and connect with their peers in an online environment even
outside of class (Sundt et al., 2017). According to Yuan and Kim (2014), engaged online
98
communities are spaces where participants interact and there is a sense of belonging and
membership. Traditional, face-to-face classrooms provide an opportunity for students to meet
before and after class to build community, but this is absent in online classrooms. Therefore, it is
important for online students to have a space for “water cooler” discussions outside of
instructional content (Wehler, 2018). This type of online social support offered by the college
may not only provide a sense of belonging but increase the likelihood for a student to persist
(Strayhorn, 2012).
Recommendation 3: Invest in Ongoing Online Faculty Training
The data from the study revealed that all online instructors are not the same. Participants
shared a positive experience with faculty that were proactive in their class and employed
strategies to enhance social presence in an online setting. However, some participants reported
that their instructors had a minimal presence and felt the interaction was impersonal. It is also
important for online instructors to be proactive and intrusive as an equity-minded practice, and
not rely on the student to reach out (Wood & Harris, 2020). Online instructors play a critical role
in fostering a strong sense of community through their teaching styles and care of students in an
online environment (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). The evolving nature of online education
necessitates ongoing professional development to meet the needs of online learners (Stumpf et
al., 2005). Therefore, online instructors must stay abreast of the tools and data-driven strategies
to improve and better support of African-American/Black students in asynchronous online
learning environments. If the college does not have the capacity or expertise to provide this type
of training, the Center for Organizational Responsibility and Advancement is an organization
that provides community colleges with professional development opportunities focused on how
99
to be equity-minded, anti-racist, and address anti-Blackness on campus, including equity-minded
and culturally affirming teaching practices in online settings.
Future Research
The limited existing body of research regarding African-American/Black students and
online education underpins the need for further research. Although the data focused on African-
American/Black students’ experiences in asynchronous online learning environments, there is a
need to examine the experiences of other racially minoritized groups. It is imperative to identify
and halt the use of deficit models that are harmful to racially minoritized students. There is a
need to understand African-American/Black students’ experience in the time of the Black Lives
Matter and anti-racism movement. Thus, further examining anti-Blackness and systematic
oppression in higher education settings, including online learning environments is essential.
Additionally, there is an opportunity to obtain a larger sample size of diverse participants. The
participants should not only include students, but include college faculty, administrators, and
staff from various CCCs to examine the additional perspectives of the online learning
experience.
Future research should examine African-American/Black students’ online experience in
the lens of other nested systems in the ecological systems theory, such as the exosystem,
macrosystems, and the chronosystem. For example, the exosystem would further examine the
institutional policies, structural inequalities, course design, and curriculum decisions that impact
a student’s experience in an online learning setting. The macrosystem would explore the
relationship between cultural perspectives, racism, and online education, while the chronosystem
would explore the evolving nature of online education over time.
100
Another research recommendation is based on the two participants’ preference to be in
online settings due to perceived discrimination experienced in a face-to-face classroom. It would
be interesting to further examine and compare the experiences and academic outcomes of
African-American/Black students in online and in-person classrooms. Additionally, future
research should also include the experiences of African-American/Black students who received a
failing grade or dropped out of an online class at the community college level. This study was
limited to participants who completed at least one asynchronous online class.
Lastly, this study proved to be prescient before ACC moved to offer most classes online.
The participant interviews were conducted a semester prior to the COVID-19 pandemic
shutdown. In the spring semester of 2020, the majority of colleges and universities nationwide
transitioned student services and instructional classes to an online format. This abrupt change of
events prompted students and faculty to quickly adapt to an online learning environment. Future
research should examine the implications for higher education and online education and the
long-term effects of the disruption for students, specifically racially minoritized students, who
had to adjust online learning and other life changes during the pandemic. It is also pertinent to
further examine the experiences and outcomes of African-American/Black students in
asynchronous online learning environments, as community colleges, such as ACC, encourage
faculty to offer asynchronous online courses to better accommodate the lives of students during
the novel coronavirus pandemic.
Conclusion
This study explored the experiences in asynchronous online learning environments
among African-American/Black community college students and addressed a gap in the
literature in the realm of distance education. As distance education continues to evolve and
101
offered to community college students, there is a need for further research on how to better
support African-American/Black students. As the number of African-American/Black students
enrolled in online courses continues to increase (Ashong & Commander, 2012; Waits & Lewis,
2003), it is imperative to create support structures and initiate policies to improve the academic
outcomes of African-American/Black students in online learning environments.
This study provided strategies and support systems to help African-American/Black
students as they enroll in online classes at the community college level. There were several
findings pertaining to the experiences and challenges experienced by African-American students
in asynchronous online learning environments. The study highlighted the critical role of on- and
off-campus support systems, the challenges of asynchronous online courses, and the strategies to
improve the online learning experience for African-American/Black students. The findings from
this study can be useful for policymakers, administrators, faculty, and staff in the development of
support structures and initiatives to better support racially minoritized students. While higher
education institutions increase their online offerings to provide greater access to students, there is
a greater need to examine how to improve the academic outcomes for racially minoritized
students in online learning environments.
102
References
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the lives of
traditional-age students. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/comcollege/movingintotown.pdf
Akcaoglu, M., & Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small
group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
17(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Sloan.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States.
Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/
reports/gradechange.pdf
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University
Press.
Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.119
Aragon, S., & Johnson, E. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of
community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 146–
158. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802239962
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., &
Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of
the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and
Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
103
Arroyo, A. T. (2010). It’s not a colorless classroom: Teaching religion online to Black college
students using transformative, postmodern pedagogy. Teaching Theology and Religion,
13(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2009.00571.x
Artino, A., Jr., & Stephens, J. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative
analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher
Education, 12(3-4), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001
Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and
self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 191–202.
Ashong, C. Y., & Commander, N. E. (2012). Ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of online
learning in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 98.
Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2673277
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice- Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring Issues and Solutions—A Literature
Review. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777
Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, 36(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605083
Bergeron, B. S. (2008). Enacting a culturally responsive curriculum in a novice teacher’s
classroom: Encountering disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43(1), 4–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907309208
104
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2011). Toward a more robust theory and measure of
social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence, 12(5), 456–480.
https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
Boling, E., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in
distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning Experiences.
Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
Booker, K., & Brevard, E. (2017). Why mentoring matters: African-American students and the
transition to college. The Mentor an Academic Advising Journal, 1-10.
https://journals.psu.edu/mentor/article/view/61245/60877
Brittain, A. S., Sy, S. R., & Stokes, J. E. (2009). Mentoring: Implications for African-American
college students. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 33(2), 87–97.
Britto, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and Implementing Comprehensive Student Support
Services for Online Students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29–42.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i1.313
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. The
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Recent advances in research on human development. In R. K.
Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, & G. Rudinger (Eds.), Development as action in context: Problem
behavior and normal youth development (pp. 287–309). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02475-1_15
105
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N.
Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–
1647). Pergamon Press/Elsevier Science.
Butz, N., & Stupnisky, R. (2017). Improving student relatedness through an online discussion
intervention: The application of self-determination theory in synchronous hybrid
programs. Computers & Education, 114, 117–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.006
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2019a). California community colleges key
facts. http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2019c). Management information systems
Data Mart. http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Course_Ret_Success.aspx
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2019b). California virtual campus –
Online education initiative. https://cvc.edu/
The Campaign for College Opportunity. (2018). State of higher education for Black
Californians. https://collegecampaign.org/portfolio/state-higher-education-black-
californians/
Care, W., & Scanlan, J. (2001). Planning and managing the development of courses for distance
delivery: Results from a qualitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, IV(II). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/care42.html
Caruth, G., & Caruth, D. (2013). Understanding resistance to change: A challenge for
universities. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 12–21.
https://doaj.org/article/0e0ee1aaa5d04939a0382249ac63fdef
106
The Century Foundation. (2019). Recommendations for providing community colleges with the
resources they need. https://tcf.org/content/report/recommendations-providing-
community-colleges-resources-need/
Chang, T., & Lim, J. (2002). Cross-cultural communication and social presence in asynchronous
learning processes. e-Service Journal, 1(3), 83–105.
https://doi.org/10.2979/ESJ.2002.1.3.83
Chase, M., Macfadyen, L., Reeder, K., & Roche, J. (2001). Intercultural challenges in networked
learning; Hard technologies meet soft skills. Universitätsbibliothek der Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universität München., https://doi.org/10.5282/UBM/EPUB.13573
Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The Impact of web-based
learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4),
1222–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
Cho, Y., Choi, H., Shin, J., Yu, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2015). Review of research on online
learning environments in higher education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences,
191, 2012–2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.634
Clark, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs.
text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning, 19(3), 48–
69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.510
Clarke, C., Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video
vs. text based discussions in an online teacher education course. Online Learning
Journal,19(3),1–22. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/onlinelearning-journal/
107
Cobb, S. C. (2011). Social presence, satisfaction, and perceived learning of RN-to-BSN students
in web-based nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 115–119.
https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.115
Cohen, A., & Brawer, B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Collins, S. Y. (2014). Racial identity theory and its perceived impact for African American
students in an online distance learning program (Publication No. 3682202) [Doctoral
dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure
and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
Cook, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent
belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026312
Corey, D. L., & Bower, B. L. (2005). The experiences of an African-American male learning
mathematics in the traditional and online classroom--A case study. The Journal of Negro
Education, 74(4), 321–331.
Crawford Sorey, K., & Harris Duggan, M. (2008). Differential predictors of persistence between
community college adult and traditional-aged students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 32(2), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701380967
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
SAGE.
108
D’alessio, M., Schwartz, J., Pedone, V., Pavia, J., Fleck, J., & Lundquist, L. (2019). Geology
goes Hollywood: Building a community of inquiry in a fully online introductory geology
lecture and laboratory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(3), 211–221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1578467
Dare, L., Zapata, L., & Thomas, A. (2005). Assessing the needs of distance learners: A student
affairs perspective. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 39–54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.183
Daymont, T., Blau, G., & Campbell, D. (2011). Deciding between traditional and online formats:
Exploring the role of learning advantages, flexibility, and compensatory adaptation.
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(2), 156–175.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/851541755/
DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003. National
Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov.opac.acc.msmc.edu/pubs2006/2006065.pdf
Dennis, M., Phinney, S., & Chuateco, I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and
peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023
Dougherty, K. J., & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community college missions: A theoretical and
historical perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006(136), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.254
Dumas, M. (2015). Against the dark: Antiblackness in education policy and discourse. Theory
into Practice, 55(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1116852
109
Dzubinski, L. M. (2014). Teaching presence: Co-creating a multi-national online learning
community in an asynchronous classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
18(2), 97–113. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/olj_main
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i2.412
Eberhardt, D. (2016). Closing the opportunity gap: Identity-conscious strategies for retention and
student success. Journal of College and Character, 17(3), 209–211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2016.1195755
Ertmer, P. A., Evenbeck, E., Cennamo, K. S., & Lehman, J. D. (1994). Enhancing self-efficacy
for computer technologies through the use of positive classroom experiences. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 45–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298094
Espinosa, L., Turk, J., & Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher
education: A status report. https://1xfsu31b52d33idlp13twtos-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Race-and-Ethnicity-in-Higher-Education.pdf
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student
development in college: Theory research and practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Fairlie, R. W. (2007). Explaining differences in access to home computers and the Internet: A
comparison of Latino groups to other ethnic and racial groups. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 7(3), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-007-9006-5
Fairlie, R. W. (2012). Academic achievement, technology and race: Experimental evidence.
Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 663–679.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.04.003
110
Flowers, L. (2004). Retaining African-American students in higher education: An integrative
review. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.2190/9QPJ-
K9QE-EBGA-GWYT
Flynn, A., Sanchez, B., & Harper, G. (2011). An ecological analysis of research examining the
experiences of students of color in graduate school. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021506
Gallien, L., & Peterson, M. (2005). Instructing and mentoring the African American college
student: Strategies for success in higher education. Pearson/A and AB.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-198-8.ch052
Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667263
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework:
Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Gasser, H. (2008). Being multiracial in a wired society: Using the internet to define identity and
community on campus. New Directions for Student Services, 2008(123), 63–71.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.287
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College
Press.
Gibson, C. C. (1993). Towards a broader conceptualization of distance education. In D. Keegan
(Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 80–92). Routledge.
111
Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2009). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive
teaching in college. Jossey-Bass.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. Qualitative Health Research.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61396563/
Goodfellow, R., & Hewling, A. (2005). Reconceptualising culture in virtual learning
environments: From an ‘Essentialist’ to a ‘Negotiated’ perspective. E-Learning and
Digital Media, 2(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.355
Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse multicultural
education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318712
Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., & McClenney, K. (2008). The effort— outcome gap: Differences for
African American and Hispanic community college students in student engagement and
academic achievement. (Report). The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 513–539.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772115
Greenhow, C., Walker, J. D., & Kim, S. (2010). Millennial learners and net-savvy teens?:
Examining Internet use among low-income students. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 26, 63–79.
Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Woolley, M. (2010). The Social Ecology of Race and Ethnicity School
Achievement Gaps: Economic, Neighborhood, School, and Family Factors. Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(7), 875–896.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2010.494927
112
Guiffrida, D. (2005a). To break away or strengthen ties to home: A complex question for African
American students attending a predominantly White institution. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 38(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680590907864
Guiffrida, D. (2005b). Preparing and supporting African American college students. VISTA
ONLINE. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/preparing-and-
supporting-african-american-college-students.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L., & Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. In M.
G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 753–775).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education,
11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970
Hannon, J., & D’Netto, B. (2007). Cultural diversity online: Student engagement with learning
technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418–432.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710760192
Hargittai, E. (2008). The role of expertise in navigating links of influence. In J. Turow & L. Tsui
(Eds.), The hyperlinked society: Questioning connections in the digital age (pp. 85–103).
University of Michigan Press.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of
the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
682X.2009.00317.x
Harper, S. R. (2012). How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The
Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
113
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A
review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42.
Heitner, K., & Jennings, M. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching knowledge and practices of
online faculty. Online Learning, 20(4), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i4.1043
Hodges, C. (2008). Self‐efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the
literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3‐4), 7–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20001
Hornak, A., Akweks, K., & Jeffs, M. (2010). Online student services at the community college.
In R. L. Garza Mitchell (Ed.), New directions for community colleges, 150 (pp. 79–87).
Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.407
Howland, J., & Moore, J. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-based
courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791022000009196
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4),
51–55.
Ibarra, R. (2001). Beyond affirmative action : Reframing the context of higher education.
University of Wisconsin Press.
Jaggars, S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college
student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697
Johnson, E. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of
accountability in education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and
Education, 5(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8777
114
Johnson, H., & Cuellar Mejia, M. (2014). Online learning and student outcomes in California’s
community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California.
Johnson, H., Cuellar Mejia, M., & Cook, K. (2015). Successful online courses in California’s
community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California.
Johnson-Ahorlu, R. (2012). The academic opportunity gap: How racism and stereotypes disrupt
the education of African American undergraduates. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(5),
633–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2011.645566
Kaupp, R. (2012). Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-White
achievement gap. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(2), 8–16.
Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning
interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education,
61(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.003
Kellow, J. T., & Jones, B. D. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap:
Reexamining the academic performance of African American high school students. The
Journal of Black Psychology, 34(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798407310537
Kentnor, H. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States.
Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1/2).
Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and
learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512–
1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005
Kuo, C. (2014). Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes
among African American Students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28, 241–
252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.959334
115
Kuo, C., Walker, A., Schroder, E., & Belland, B. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and
self regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses.
The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3–12. 28(6), 697-708.
Lai, M. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing experience of
professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740810849061
LaPadula, M. (2003). A comprehensive look at online student support services for distance
learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 119–128.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1702_4
Lee, J. (2010). Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student
satisfaction. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002
Li, C., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges,
concerns and recommendations. (Report). College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–458.
Liang, J., & Tsai, C. (2008). Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward constructivist internet-
based learning environments: A study of pre-school teachers in Taiwan. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 226–237.
116
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Patall, E. A. (2015). Motivation. In L. Corno & E. Anderman (Eds.),
Handbook of Educational Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 91–103). Routledge.
Lobaina, O. (2016). A comparative analysis of cultural diversity satisfaction scores of
undergraduate students in an online learning environment (Publication No. 10096211)
[Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus
climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education,
31(3), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2008.0011
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. (2003). Learner Support Services for Online Students:
Scaffolding for Success. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 4(1). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i1.131
Luo, Y., Pan, R., Choi, J., Mellish, L., & Strobel, J. (2011). Why choose online learning:
Relationship of existing factors and chronobiology. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 45(4), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.4.a
Maldonado-Torres, S. E. (2014). The relationship between Latino students’ learning styles and
their academic performance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38,
357–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.761072
Mavor, S., & Traynor, B. (2003). Exclusion in international online learning communities. In S.
Reisman, J. Flores, & D. Edge (Eds.), Electronic learning communities: Issues and
practices (pp. 457–488). Information Age.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McCracken, H. (2004). Extending virtual access: Promoting engagement and retention through
integrated support systems. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(1).
117
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I
Mehrotra, H., Hollister, D., & McGahey, L. (2001). Distance learning: Principles for effective
design, delivery, and evaluation. SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Modarres, A. (2011). Beyond the digital divide. National Civic Review, 100, 4–7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.20069
Napoli, P., & Obar, J. (2014). The emerging mobile internet underclass: A critique of mobile
internet access. The Information Society, 30(5), 323–334.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.944726
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Postsecondary institutions and cost of
attendance in 2017-18; Degrees and other awards conferred: 2016-17; and 12-month
enrollment: 2016-17: First look (Provisional Data). https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018060REV
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2006). Educational technology for
teaching and learning. Pearson Education.
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1998.29.2.155
118
Okwumabua, T. M., Walker, K. M., Hu, X., & Watson, A. (2011). An exploration of African
American students’ attitudes toward online learning. Urban Education, 46(2), 241–250.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377516
Orrock, J., & Clark, M. A. (2018). Using systems theory to promote academic success for
African American males. Urban Education, 53(8), 1013–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915613546
Oztok, M. (2013). Tacit knowledge in online learning: Community, identity, and social capital.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 21–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.720414
Park, J., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist
in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2).
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Paul, D. G. (2016). The millennial morphing of the digital divide and its implications for African
American youngsters in a new literacies era (Commentary). (2016). The Journal of Negro
Education, 85(4), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.85.4.0407
Pendakur, V. (2016). Introduction: Two distinct paths and a missed opportunity. In V. Pendakur
(Ed.), Closing the opportunity gap: Identity-conscious strategies for retention and student
success. Stylus.
119
Perrin, A. (2017). Smartphones help Black, Hispanics bridge some – but not all – digital gaps
with Whites. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/31/smartphones-help-
blacks-hispanics-bridge-some-but-not-all-digital-gaps-with-whites/
Plante, K., & Asselin, M. E. (2014). Best practices for creating social presence and caring
behaviors online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35, 219–223.
https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1094.1
Rakes, G. C., & Dunn, K. E. (2010). The impact of online graduate students’ motivation and
self-regulation on academic procrastination. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1),
78–93.
Ray, J. (2009). Faculty perspective: Training and course development for the online classroom.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 263.
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/ray_0609.htm
Reeves, T., & Reeves, P. (1997). The effective dimensions of interactive learning on the www.
In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Educational Technology.
Reinhart, J., & Schneider, P. (2001). Student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the perception of the
two-way audio/video distance learning environment: A preliminary examination.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), 357–365.
Renn, K. A., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing research on peer culture. Journal of
Higher Education, 74, 261-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2003.11780847
Richardson, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. (2017). Instructor social presence: Learners’ needs and a
neglected component of the community of inquiry framework. In A. Whiteside, A. Garrett
Dikkers, & K. Swan, (Eds.), Social presence in online learning: Multiple perspectives on
practice and research (pp. 86-98). Sterling, VA: Stylus
120
Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. (2013). Differences in student information and
communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender:
Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 45(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607
Robinson, L., Cotten, S., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M.,
& Stern, M. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information Communication
and Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
Rovai, A. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs.
The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-
7516(02)00158-6
Rovai, A., & Wighting, M. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97–
110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.001
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. Distances et Médiations des
Savoirs, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Challenges in the virtual classroom. In A. P. Rovai, L. B. Gallien, Jr., & H.
R. Stiff-Williams (Eds.), Closing the African American achievement gap in higher
education (pp. 104–122). Teachers College Press.
Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others
succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 141–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.001
121
Rovai, A. P., & Ponton, M. K. (2005). An examination of sense of classroom community and
learning among African American and Caucasian graduate students. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 77–92.
Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., & Baker, J. D. (2008). Distance learning in higher education: A
programmatic approach to planning, design, instruction, evaluation, and accreditation.
Teacher College Press.
Russo-Gleicher, R. (2014). Improving student retention in online college classes: Qualitative
insights from faculty. Journal of College Student Retention, 16(2), 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.16.2.e
Sadera, W., Robertson, J., Song, L., & Midon, N. (2009, March 2). Success in online learning
and the role of community. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen & D. Willis
(Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009--Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference (pp. 515–518). Charleston, SC, USA.
Scagnoli, N. (2001). Student orientations for online programs. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782330
Scott, J. (2009). Periodic report on distance education. https://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/AA/
DE/DistanceLearningPeriodicReport827093%20(2).pdf
Seaman, J., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade change: Tracking online education in the
United States. Babson Survey Research Group. http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/
reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Shevalier, R., & Mckenzie, B. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as an ethics- and care-
based approach to urban education. Urban Education, 47(6), 1086–1105.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912441483
122
Smith, A. (2017). A portrait of smartphone ownership. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/
chapter-one-a-portrait-of-smartphone-ownership/#cancel-phone
Smith, B. (2005). Online student support services. Community College Journal, 76(2), 26–29.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61843540/
Smith, D., & Ayers, D. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning: Implications
for the globalized community college. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 30(5-6), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920500442125
Soper, T., & Ukot, E. (2016). Social presence and cultural competence in the online learning
environment (OLE): A review of literature. American Journal of Health Sciences, 7, 9–14.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ajhs.v7i1.9692
Stanford-Bowers, D. E. (2008). Persistence in online classes: A study of perceptions among
community college stakeholders. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
4(1), 37–49. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf
Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis. (2018). Bias in online classes: Evidence from a
field experiment. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp18-03-201803.pdf
Stewart, D. (2013). Racially minoritized students at U.S. four-year institutions. The Journal of
Negro Education, 82(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0184
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practices. Sage.
Stewart, E. B. (2006). Family- and individual-level predictors of academic success for African
American students: A longitudinal path analysis utilizing national data. Journal of Black
Studies, 36(4), 597–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934705276798
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. New York, Routledge.
123
Stumpf, A., McCrimon, E., & Davis, J. (2005). Carpe diem: Overcome misconceptions in
community college distance learning. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 29(5), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920590921552
Sundt, M., Berry, S., & Ortiz, A. (2017). Using data to support online student communities. New
Directions for Student Services, 2017(159), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20229
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738–1747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2012.04.014
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In S. R. Hiltz &
R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning
networks (pp. 239–260). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tapanes, M., Smith, G., & White, J. (2009). Cultural diversity in online learning: A study of the
perceived effects of dissonance in levels of individualism/collectivism and tolerance of
ambiguity. Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 26–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.12.001
Thomas, R., West, R., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text
and asynchronous video feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61–
73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.003
Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). California Code of Regulations. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/
Document/I30AFD0EF02B449E187E6485AB412054F?viewType=FullText&origination
Context=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
124
Tingoy, O., & Gulluoglu, S. (2012, September 12–14). Effects of culture on distance learning in
higher education in the light of digital divide and multicultural: Curriculum and design
strategies. In 2012 IV International Conference “Problems of Cybernetics and
Informatics” (PCI) (pp. 1–3). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPCI.2012.6486275
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press.
Torres, V., Jones, S., & Renn, K. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs:
Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development,
50(6), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0102
Tucker, W. (2014). Spaces for success in higher education: Males of color at an online
predominantly White community college (Publication No. 3621155) [Doctoral dissertation,
Northern Arizona University]. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1545673941/
Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators.
Qualitative Report, 15(2), 754–760.
United States Census Bureau. (2018). About race. https://www.census.gov/topics/
population/race/about.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033).
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Uzuner, S. (2009). Questions of culture in distance learning: A research review. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.690
125
Van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research: Achievement and shortcomings. Poetic, 34(4,5),
221–235.
Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). U.S. Department of Education.
Wang, C., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning,
technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education,
34(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
Warschauer, M. (2003a). Demystifying the Digital Divide. Scientific American, 289(2), 42–47.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0803-42
Warschauer, M. (2003b). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT
Press.
Wehler, M. (2018, July 11). Five ways to build community in online classrooms.
https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/five-ways-to-build-community-in-
online-classrooms/
Wei, L., & Hindman, D. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of
new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass
Communication & Society, 14(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205431003642707
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
Free Press.
Wojciechowski, A., & Palmer, L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be
predictors of success in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 8(2). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/
wojciechowski82.htm
126
Wood, L., & Harris, F. (2020, March 27). Employing equity-minded & culturally-affirming
teaching practices in virtual learning communities [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMrf_MC5COk&feature=youtu.be
Woodyard, L., & Larson, E. (2017). Distance education report. California Community College
Chancellor’s Office. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/cccco-Website/About-
Us/Reports/Files/2017-DE-Report-Final-ADA.ashx
Wu, J., Tennyson, R., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning
system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of
students and academic subject areas. Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.7916/
D82F7M24
Yang, D., Olesova, L., & Richardson, J. C. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on students’
participation, communication, and learning in an online environment. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.2.b
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities
in online courses: Development of online learning communities. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 30(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12042
Zeidenberg, M. (2008). Community colleges under stress. Issues in Science and Technology,
24(4), 53–58.
Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P., & Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and social presence:
An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 45(5), 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12094
127
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Huang, W., & Wang, Q. (2010). Internet inequality: The relationship between
high school students’ Internet use in different location and their Internet self-efficacy.
Computers & Education, 55(4), 1405–1423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2010.05.010
128
Appendix A: Recruitment E-mail
Dear Student,
My name is Tammara Whitaker, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of
my dissertation, which examines the experiences of African-American/Black students in a fully
online course at ACC. The study will include individual interviews and a focus group. You are
invited to participate in the study if you have completed at least one fully online course at ACC.
If you are willing to participate in the study, please select the link below to complete a brief 3-5
minute survey to help determine if you qualify for the study. If you meet the criteria, I will
contact you to schedule a date and time for your individual interview or focus group. The
individual interview will be about 45-60 minutes long and the focus group will be 60 minutes
long. Both will be audio recorded and transcribed.
Participants in this study is completely voluntary and your identity will remain confidential
during and after the study.
If you are selected to participate in the study, you will be compensated with a $20 Amazon gift
card for individual interviews, and a $10 Amazon gift card for focus group participation. The gift
card will be sent electronically after the interview or focus group.
[Survey Link]
If you have any questions, please contact me at tammaraw@usc.edu or (310) 434-3769
Thank you for your consideration,
Tammara Whitaker
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
129
Appendix B: Pre-Screening Survey
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. All responses will remain
confidential.
1. Do you identify as African-American/Black?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Age Range
a. 18-24
b. 24-30
c. 30 or older
3. Gender:
a. Female
b. Male
c. Other:__________(fill in the blank)
4. Have you completed at least 1 three-unit online course at the college?
a. Yes
i. If yes, approximately how many online courses have you completed at the
college?
ii. If yes, are you currently enrolled in an online course at the college?
iii. If yes, approximately how many units (online & face-to-face courses)
have you completed at the college:
iv. If yes, approximately how many online classes have you completed at
another community college?
b. No
5. School Status
a. Full-time
b. Part-time
6. Would you be willing to participate in a 45-60-minute interview?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Would you be willing to be audio taped during your interview (your identity will remain
confidential)?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
c. Interview Format Preference
i. Online
ii. In Person
d. Which interview would you prefer?
i. Individual Interview
ii. Focus Group
e. Please indicate the days and times that you are available for an interview?
f. Contact Preference (please check all that apply):
i. E-mail
130
ii. Text
iii. Phone Call
g. Please provide your preferred contact information:
i. __________________
Thank you for your time. If you are selected to participate, you will be contacted through your
preferred method of contact to schedule an appointment.
131
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction
Thank you for taking the time today to speak with me. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned in the survey, the interview should take about
an hour.
As you know, I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education at USC. I have
asked to interview you as part of my study on the experiences and perceptions of African-
American/Black students in online classes at the community college level.
I want to assure you that this interview is confidential. What that means is that your name
will not be shared with anyone besides myself. I will use a pseudonym to protect your
confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the information I gather from you
today. I want to also assure you I am wearing the hat of a researcher today and will not make
any judgments about what you share with me today.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a recorder
with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. I will also write notes
periodically. The recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and
will only be shared with the research team. I have your permission to record our
conversation?
II. Setting the Stage
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about yourself
1. Tell me about your background as a student.
a. What motivates you to attend college?
b. Tell me about your responsibilities or commitments you have outside of attending
school currently?
2. Tell me about your decision to enroll in online courses.
a. What were your motivations to enroll in an online class at ACC?
b. Explain any actions you took to be prepared to take an online class, if at all?
c. Did you seek advice from anyone that completed an online class?
i. If yes, what were their experiences?
d. Do you typically enroll in a mixture of online and on-campus courses each
semester, or only online courses?
e. Tell me about your experiences in a face-to-face classroom?
f. Tell me about your experiences in an online class?
g. Are the experiences in an online class and face-to-face class the same?
h. Are there advantages to one delivery format over the other? Why?
i. Which delivery format (online vs. on-campus) do you prefer? Why?
132
III. Experience in an asynchronous online learning environment
Now I’d like to ask you some questions your experiences specifically in online classes
here at the college…
1. Tell me about your experience with interaction in an online class at ACC.
a. What were your experiences with the instructor in the online environment?
i. In what ways, if any, did you interact with instructors?
b. What were your experiences with other students in the online
environment?
i. Did you have opportunities to interact with students in your online
classes?
ii. In what ways, if any, did you interact with students?
iii. Have you used any student services while taking an online class?
c. Explain how these services helped you in an online environment, if at all?
i. In what ways, if any, did you interact with staff at the college?
d. How do you feel about the communication or interaction you had while
taking an online course?
i. How would you describe the quality of any of the interactions you
had while taking an online class?
ii. In what ways, if any, did these interactions add or hinder your
academic experience in online classes?
e. Did you feel the academic rigor is the same in an online class as an on-
campus class? Why or why not?
IV. Potential Barriers to Academic Success
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your perception regarding online
classes…
1. Do you feel you were successful academically in your online course(s)? Why or
why not?
2. If any, what challenges have you encountered in online classes?
a. Did you feel supported academically when taking an online class? Why or
why not?
3. In consideration of your own experience of taking an online class, would you
recommend other students to enroll in an online class? Why or why not?
a. What type of student would be successful in an online class?
b. Do you feel students of a certain race or ethnicity will have better success
in an online class, why or why not?
c. Is it possible to feel connected to the campus if you only take online
classes? Why or why not?
133
4. What do you think colleges should do to improve the experience for students in
online classes, if at all?
5. Closing Question
a. In your view, what factors inside and outside of the college have
contributed to your academic success as a student?
b. In your view, what are possible explanations as to why Black students
taking online classes are not as successful in online classes as other
groups?
V. Closing Comment
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Is there anything else you would like to add to this
conversation? If I find myself with a follow-up question, is it okay if I contact you via email?
Thank you so much for your time.
134
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol
I. Introduction
Thank you for taking the time today to speak with me. I appreciate the time that you have all
set aside to answer my questions. As you know, I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School
of Education at USC. I have asked to talk to you all as part of my study on the experiences
and perceptions of African-American/Black students in online classes at the community
college level.
Before we start there are a couple things that we need to do, and I’d like to tell you a little bit
about how I will conduct the focus groups. I have some forms that I am going to pass out to
you now. The information sheets tell you a little bit about the purpose of this focus group and
the process. The information sheet states that you are voluntarily consenting to participate in
this focus group and all information will be securely maintained and kept confidential.
I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you all share
with me. I will also write notes periodically. The recording is solely for my purposes to best
capture your perspectives and will only be shared with the research team. Do I have your
permission to record our conversation?
In a minute, I’m going to ask you some open-ended questions and I’d like you to share your
responses to them. Please share only information with this group you are comfortable
sharing. Everything you say is strictly confidential – your real names will not be used in the
study. Please remember that you can leave at anytime
At this time, I’d like you to write down your first name only on your name card. By only
using your first name, it will help keep your identify confidential.
I’d like to ask that before you make a comment, if you would please tell us your first name
and then make your comment. This helps us when we are transcribing the conversation from
the recording to identify who is making a specific comment; sometimes it can get difficult to
differentiate voices. For example, if I wanted to make a comment on one of the questions or
what one of my peers had said, I would say, “I’m Tammara, and I agree with what Jim had to
say about that, but I’d like to add….”
This interview will take approximately 45-60 minutes. Are there any questions or concerns
before we begin?
1. What do you think motivates students to enroll in an online class?
2. Did you feel prepared to take an online class? Why or why not?
3. What do you perceive as the advantages and disadvantages of taking a
fully online course?
4. What are the differences between an on-campus course and online course?
5. Did you contact any support staff while taking an online class? If so, what
is that experience like?
135
6. How did you interact or communicate with the instructor in the online
environment?
7. Do you feel you were given opportunities to interact with students the
same way as face-to-face classes? Why or why not?
8. Explain the difference, it at all, in your experience with learning in an
face-to-face class opposed to an online class?
1. Are the experiences in an online class and face-to-face class the
same?
2. Did you feel the academic rigor is the same in an online class as an
on-campus class? Why or why not?
9. What challenges, if any, have you encountered in online classes?
1. Did you feel supported academically when taking an online class?
Why or why not?
10. Would you recommend other students to enroll in an online class? Why or
why not?
11. In your view, what are possible explanations as to why Black students
taking online classes are not as successful in online classes as other
groups?
12. What do you think colleges should do to improve the experience for
students in online classes, if at all?
VI. Closing Comment
That was our final question. Is there anything else that anyone would like to add or any
additional comments concerning what we have talked about here today? This concludes our
focus group. Thank you for coming and participating. Once we have conducted all of the focus
groups and analyzed the transcript, you will receive an e-mail asking you to comment on the
conclusions we have drawn based on our analysis of the comments made during the group
discussion.
136
Appendix E: Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4033
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
An Investigation of the African-American/Black Student Experience and Achievement in
Asynchronous Online Learning Environments at a Community College
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the experiences of African-American/Black community
college students in an asynchronous online class environment.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants that agree to take part in the study will be asked to complete a 2-3-minute survey
and a 45-60-minute audio-recorded individual interview or focus group. After the interview, you
will have the opportunity to review a transcript of the interview and follow up with any changes
or feedback. You are free to end the interview at any time you do not feel comfortable
answering.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be compensated with a $20 Amazon gift card for individual interviews, and a $10
Amazon gift card for focus group participation
CONFIDENTIALITY
The interviews will be recorded, transcribed and coded. However, the content of the interviews
will be kept confidential. The participants and the college will be kept confidential for this
study. Only the researcher will know the identity of the participant and the college. Data will
be kept up to 5 years after this study. The members of the research team and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects. However, due to the nature of focus groups, your confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
In order to maintain the confidentiality of the group, you are asked not to discuss the content of
the group with anyone not in the group, or to discuss who participated in the focus group.
137
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the following
Tammara Whitaker via email tammaraw@usc.edu or phone at (310) 434-3769 or Faculty Advisor
Dr. Tracy Tambascia at tpoon@rossier.usc.edu or (213) 740-9747.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the experiences and perspectives of African-American/Black community college students in asynchronous online learning environments. This study was guided through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Despite the growing number of African-American/Black students enrolling in California community colleges and online courses, there is little known regarding the online learning experiences of this student population. Furthermore, African-American/Black students have poor academic outcomes in online courses in the California community colleges. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 15 African-American/Black students who completed at least one asynchronous online course at a community college in Southern California. The study found that African-American/Black students in asynchronous online learning environments had limited interaction with their peers in the course. Furthermore, the participants used many on-campus support services and were not aware or did not utilize the online support services offered by the college. The participants also highlighted the importance of family, faculty, and counselor support throughout their academic journey. The study offers recommendations to improve the online student experience of racially minoritized students, specifically African-American/Black students, in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An after thought: support services for distance learners at a post-secondary institution
PDF
Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students
PDF
An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system
PDF
When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Latino/a college student-athletes: Influences on recruitment, enrollment and degree completion
PDF
Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college
PDF
Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution
PDF
The racialized experiences of Black students in online master’s degree programs at a Predominately White Institution
PDF
Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges
PDF
Online student attrition in blended learning programs
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
Perspectives of learning in synchronous online education
PDF
To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs
PDF
Factors affecting the success of older community college students
PDF
Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced
PDF
Student engagement in online learning: examining undergraduate student engagement in online learning communities to improve instruction
PDF
A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students
PDF
Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences
PDF
Utilization of accommodations for learning or other non-apparent disabilities: the influence of ableism on student behavior
Asset Metadata
Creator
Whitaker, Tammara
(author)
Core Title
African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2020-08
Publication Date
08/06/2022
Defense Date
07/10/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
African American online student,asynchronous online learning environments,California community college,community college,Distance education,ecological systems theory,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning experience,online learning, asynchronous online learning
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
tammaraw@usc.edu,tammarawhit@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-361056
Unique identifier
UC11666615
Identifier
etd-WhitakerTa-8891.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-361056 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WhitakerTa-8891.pdf
Dmrecord
361056
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Whitaker, Tammara
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
Tags
African American online student
asynchronous online learning environments
California community college
community college
ecological systems theory
online learning experience
online learning, asynchronous online learning