Teacher−Student Interaction and Learning in Online Theological Education. Part Four: Findings and Conclusions

Abstract

Many theological educators ask how online classes can provide students with the kind of personal teacher-student interaction that is needed in a healthy and holistic approach to preparation for ministry. A quantitative study was undertaken for the purposes of examining the relationships between three major types of teacher-student interaction (organizational, social, and intellectual) and two types of learning outcomes (cognitive and affective). Seminary students from nine seminaries accredited by the Association of Theological Schools were invited to complete a Web-based survey about their experience in online courses. In the first two sections of this four-part report, the research concern was introduced and the theoretical framework was reviewed. Literature relevant to teacher–student interaction in online higher education, the teacher–student relationship in theological education, learning outcomes in higher education, and the Web-based survey research approach used in this study was considered. The third section explained the methodological approach used in the research. This fourth and final section presents the study's findings and discusses possible conclusions.

Notes

∗p < 0.05.

∗∗p < 0.01.

In addition to the strong correlations in Table 3, it is interesting to note the pattern of weak (in the range of r = .213–.270, p < .01) but significant correlations between all types of interaction and final course grade (Q3.4ABCD).

∗∗∗p < .001.

Three additional hierarchical regressions conducted with each interaction variable entered in the third step produced results nearly identical to the regression using total interaction. Intellectual and social interaction accounted for 16% and organizational interaction accounted for 14% of the variance in postcourse cognitive learning.

∗∗∗p < .001.

Following the same procedure used with postcourse cognitive learning, three additional hierarchical regressions were conducted with postcourse affective learning. When each of the variables for the three different types of interaction was entered in the third step, results were nearly identical to those in the regression using total interaction. Intellectual and social interaction accounted for 13% and organizational interaction accounted for 12% of the variance in postcourse affective learning.

See Smith and Margolskee (2001).

“Instructor communication behaviors” are simply the instructor's part of teacher–student interaction.