Role Ambiguity in Online Courses: An Analysis of Student and Instructor Expectations
Open accessAbstract
This paper uses data from a qualitative investigation of online courses at two community colleges and a framework of role and socialization theory to examine how expectations about the roles of online student and online instructor differ among students and instructors. The findings suggest that a misalignment of student and instructor expectations of one another’s actions and behaviors leads to role ambiguity in the online context. Role ambiguity tends to cause frustration, confusion, and tension among both students and instructors, as they struggle to understand how their online roles differ from their roles in face-to-face settings. The mutual misalignment of expectations, coupled with a lack of exposure to the typical socialization processes that would be present in a face-to-face course, suggests that colleges need to implement institutional-level interventions, such as student readiness and faculty development activities, to bring online student and instructor expectations into better alignment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Greater student control over the pace of learning in online instruction may pose challenges, particularly for those with limited self-directed learning skills.
“However, the greater degree of student control over the pace of their learning in online instruction may also pose challenges, particularly for those with limited self-directed learning skills (Bambara et al., 2009;Bork & Rucks-Ahidiana, 2013;Doherty, 2006;Guglielmino & Guglielmino, 2003;Nash, 2005;Rovai, 2003).”
From Online Student Performance Under Synchronous and Asynchronous Instruction in California Community Colleges (2026) · cites this paper as Bork & Rucks-Ahidiana, 2013
Cites
Introduction to faculty learning communities
Cox, M. D. (2004) · New Directions for Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1002/tl.129 · Cited by 613 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Faculty learning communities, in particular, may be a fruitful way to establish connections for isolated faculty and to increase collaboration around pedagogical innovations (Cox, 2004; Furco & Moely, 2012).”
BackgroundXu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2011) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373711413814 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Bambara, C. S., Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G., & Athey, S. (2009) · Community College Review · doi:10.1177/0091552108327187 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.001 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.1080/00221546.2014.11777343 · Cited by 568 · see citing works
Hart, C. M. D., Baker, R., Hill, M., Alonso, E., & Xu, D. (2026) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s11162-025-09873-3
- Authors
- Bork, R. J. H., & Rucks-Ahidiana, Z.
- Venue
- Columbia University
- Publisher
- Columbia University
- Published
- 2013
- OpenAlex
- W1479716377
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 12.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
- Keywords
- role ambiguity, online courses, student expectations, instructor expectations, community colleges, online learning, student readiness, faculty development, teacher-student relationship
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