Student and faculty interaction in motivated learning for face-to-face and online marketing classes

References

• Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X025004005
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Infornation Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50.
   Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fitness measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316. doi:10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brocato, B., Bonanno, A., & Ulbig, S. (2015). Student perceptions and instructional evaluations: A multivariate analysis of online and face-to-face classroom settings. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 37–55. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9268-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, D. J., Gupta, P. B., & Burns, S. D. (2013). Are business students at Jesuit universities more responsible? Social Responsibility Journal, 9(3), 454–464. doi:10.1108/SRJ-03-2012-0031
   Google Scholar
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–31. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celuch, K., Bacic, D., Chen, M. W., Maier-Lytle, J., & Smothers, J. (2018). The potential of student co-creation in extracurricular experiences. Marketing Education Review, 28(3), 230–243. doi:10.1080/10528008.2017.1419432
   Google Scholar
• Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perception of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crews, T. B., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Online quality course design vs. quality teaching: Aligning quality matters standards to principles for good teaching. The Journal for Research in Business Education, 57(1), 47–63.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331. doi:10.1177/0092055X12446624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastman, J. K., Aviles, M., & Hanna, M. D. (2017). Determinants of perceived learning and satisfaction in online business courses: An extension to evaluate differences between qualitative and quantitative courses. Marketing Education Review, 27(1), 51–62. doi:10.1080/10528008.2016.1259578
   Google Scholar
• Estelami, H. (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and learning experience in hybrid-online and purely online marketing courses. Marketing Education Review, 22(2), 143–155. doi:10.2753/MER1052-8008220204
   Google Scholar
• Ganesh, G., Paswan, A., & Sun, Q. (2015). Are face-to-face classes more effective than online classes? An empirical examination. Marketing Education Review, 25(2), 67–81. doi:10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: Student perceptions, behaviors, and success online and face-to-face. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 73–88. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.496532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jestice, R., & Kahai, S. (2010). The effectiveness of virtual worlds for education: An empirical study. Sustainable IT Collaboration Around the Globe. 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS Proceedings, Lima, Peru (pp. 1–10).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Z. S., Cascio, R., & Massiah, C. A. (2014). Explaining student interaction and satisfaction: An empirical investigation of delivery mode influence. Marketing Education Review, 24(3), 227–237. doi:10.2753/MER1052-8008240304
   Google Scholar
• Konetes, G. D. (2012). The effects of distance education and student involvement on incidental learning (Theses and dissertations, Knowledge Repository). Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Maddix, M. A. (2012). Generating and facilitating effective online learning through discussion. Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry, 9(2), 372–385. doi:10.1177/073989131200900209
   Google Scholar
• Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global standards for enhancing quality in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(2), 1–102.
   Google Scholar
• Midgely, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., … Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Natale, S. M., & Libertella, A. F. (2016). Online education: Values dilemma in business and the search for empathic engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 175–184. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2566-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obizoba, C. (2016). Effective methods for online teaching. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 2(2), 14–25.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, Students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 49–62.
   Google Scholar
• Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated meditation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulkka, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Adult students’ achievement goal orientations and evaluations of the learning environment: A person-centered longitudinal analysis. Educational Research & Evaluation, 19(4), 297–322.
   Google Scholar
• Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734–746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidelinger, R. (2010). College student involvement: An examination of student characteristics and perceived instructor communication behaviors in the classroom. Communication Studies, 61(1), 87–103. doi:10.1080/10510970903400311
   Google Scholar
• Smith, I., & Woodworth, W. (2012). Developing social entrepreneurs and social and social innovators: A social identity and self-efficacy approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 390–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, C., Chen, N. & Kinshuk , (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Education Tech Research Development, 60, 529–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters – The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), 222–242.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y., Cho, Y. J., & Watson, A. (2015). Classroom motivational climate in online and face-to-face undergraduate courses: The interplay of gender and course format. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 30(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2017). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95–122. doi:10.1177/0735633116656453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 25–40. doi:10.1177/0273475304273346
   Google Scholar