CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Online and Blended LearningEducation during COVID-19 pandemicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Relationships Between Minority Students Online Learning Experiences and Academic Performance

Open access
Kumi Yeboah, Alex, Smith, Patriann·2016·Online Learning
DOI 10.24059/olj.v20i4.577
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The study investigated the relationship between minority students’ use of technology, social media, the number of online courses, program of study, satisfaction, and academic performance. Participants in the study were a diverse student body regarding age, gender, and educational level, and functioned at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square tests were used to find the relationship between participants’ online learning experiences and academic performance. Results showed that satisfaction and use of social media had no relationship with the academic performance of participants. However, a relationship existed between the use of technology, the number of courses in online, program of study, and academic performance. Categories that emerged from the open-ended questions were flexibility and time convenience, self-confidence, lack of support, self-regulated learning skills, and language and linguistic differences. The authors concluded that varying factors such as cultural, language, personal, and efficacy skills facilitated the academic performance of minority students in an online learning environment. This study reiterates the importance of establishing multicultural presence in an online course and suggests best pedagogical methods for teaching minority students in an online course.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24059/olj.v20i4.577

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Yeboah and Smith (2016) found a positive relationship for minority students between the number of online courses taken and academic performance.

    “In the other direction, Yeboah and Smith (2016) found a positive relationship for minority students (defined as African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American or Pacific Islander, including international students) between the number of online courses taken and academic performance.”

    From Post-secondary online learning in the U.S.: an integrative review of the literature on undergraduate student characteristics (2022) · cites this paper as Yeboah and Smith (2016)

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the number of online courses taken was highly related to minority students’ academic performance, and the Data Source Sample matches the cited definition of minority students. But neither the Discussion nor the Descriptive Analysis specifies that the relationship was positive; the reported chi-square test does not establish its direction. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Adeoye, B., & Wentling, R. M. (2007). The relationship between national culture and the usability of an e-learning system. International Journal of E-Learning, 6(1), 119-146.
  2. Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the on-line classroom: a study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.
  3. Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses-An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learning, 33(3), 331-347.
  4. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.
  5. Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White Men Can't Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.
  6. 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.
  7. Artino, A. R. (2008). Promoting academic motivation and self-regulation: Practical guidelines for online instructors. TechTrends, 52(3), 37-45.
  8. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning. The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 199-209.
  9. Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Self-regulation across time of first- generation online learners. Research in Learning Technology, 18(1), 61-70.
  10. Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: A re-evaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 339-352.
  11. Bollinger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67.
  12. Bothma, F., & Monteith, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning as a prerequisite for successful distance learning. South Africa Journal of Education, 24(2), 141-147.
  13. Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92(2), 444-448.
  14. Chavous, T. M., Debra, H. B., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L. L., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74(4), 1076.
  15. Coates, D., Humphreys, B. R., Kane, J., & Vachris, M. A. (2004). "No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23, 533-546.
  16. Corbeil, J. R. (2003). Online technologies, self-efficacy, self-directed learning readiness, and locus of control of learners in a graduate-level web-based distance education program. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Croizet J. C., Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype and threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588-594.
  20. Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215-235.
  21. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with online courses: principles and examples from the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(2).
  22. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143-152. doi:10.1177/0022487109347320. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Gonzales, P. M., Blanton H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659-670.
  24. Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (2002). Learner characteristics affecting success in electronic distance learning. In H.B. Long & Associates, Twenty-First Century Advances in Self-Directed Leaning. Boynton Beach, FL: Motorola University Press
  25. Gunawardena, C., Wilson, P., & Nolla, A. (2003). Culture and online education. In M. Morre, & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 753-775). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  26. Hiltz, S. R., & Shea, P. (2005). The student in the online classroom. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 145- 168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  27. Hodges, C. B., & Kim, C. (2010). Email, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and achievement in a college online mathematics course. Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 207-223.
  28. Hughes, H., & Bruce, C. (2006). Cultural diversity and educational inclusivity: International students' use of online information. International Journal of Learning, 12, (9), 33-40.
  29. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-25.
  30. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
  31. Kanuka, H., & Nocente, N. (2003). Exploring the effects of personality type on perceived satisfaction with web-based learning in continuing professional development. Decision Education, 24(2), 227-245.
  32. Ke, F., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Solitary learner in online collaborative learning: a disappointing experience. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 249-265.
  33. King, F. B., Harner, M., & Brown, S. W. (2000). Self-regulatory behavior influences in distance learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(2), 147-156.
  34. Kearsley, G. (2002). Is online learning for everybody. Educational Technology, 42(1), 41-44.
  35. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence- based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  36. Massey, S. D., Charles, C. Z., Lundy, G. F., & Fischer, M. J. (2003). The source of the river: The social origins of freshmen at America's selective colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  37. Marx D. M., & Stapel D. A. (2006). It's all in the timing: Measuring emotional reactions to stereotype threat before and after taking a test. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 687-698.
  38. Matuga, J.M. (2009). Self-regulation, goal orientation, and academic achievement of secondary students in online university courses. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 4-11.
  39. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  40. Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Choustoulakis (2009). Designing collaborative learning environments using educational scenarios based on self-regulation. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 2(1), 42-49.
  41. Peterson, S. (2011). Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 71(10A) (UMI No. 3466080).
  42. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.
  43. Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72-89.
  44. Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., Wighting, M. J., & Baker, J. D. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and E-learning courses. International. Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 413-432.
  45. Schmader T, Johns M., & Forbes C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review. 115, 336-356.
  46. Shapiro, A. (2000). The effect of interactive overviews on the development of conceptual structure in novices learning from hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 9, 57-78.
  47. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
  48. Smith, D., & Ayers, D. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning: implications for the globalized community college. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 30(5/6), 401-415.
  49. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
  50. Stone J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat on self- handicapping in White athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 1667- 1678.
  51. Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning: An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50 (4), 1183-1202.
  52. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  53. Thurmond, V. A., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-26.
  54. Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a Web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169-189.
  55. Williams, M. (1996). Learner control and instructional technologies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 957-983). New York: Scholastic.
  56. Wang, M. (2007). Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 294-311, Retrieved January 30, 2015, from ERIC database.
  57. Wong, F., & Trinidad, S. (2004). Using ICT in web-based distance learning to reduce the cultural distance. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3, 1-13.
  58. Yen, H. J., & Liu, S. (2009). Learner autonomy as a predictor of course success and final grades in community college online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 347-367.
  59. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumi Yeboah, A., & Smith, P.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
ORCID
Smith, Patriann
Venue
Online Learning
Publisher
The Online Learning Consortium
Published
2016-12-16
Volume
20
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1092-8235 (ISSN-L)
  • 2472-5730
  • 2472-5749
DOI
10.24059/olj.v20i4.577
OpenAlex
W2587067220
Cited by
68
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Online Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education during COVID-19 pandemic
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
minority students, academic performance, technology use, social media, student satisfaction, online course registration, program of study, student self-regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review