Students’ Perceptions of Preparation for Online Graduate Course Work

  • Lin B Carver Saint Leo University
  • Georgina Rivera-Singletary Saint Leo University
Keywords: Digital Natives; Digital Immigrants; Online Learning; Graduate Students; Educational Technology.


An anonymous online survey was used to understand participants’ perceptions about their preparation for online coursework. Sixty students from five graduate programs in education completed a 1-4 Likert scale survey with 20-questions and six open-ended responses. Quantitative responses from the 20 questions were divided into two subgroups, those younger than or equal to 40 years of age, and those over 40 years of age based on Prensky's date for the beginning of the digital native group. Qualitative data were collected through 6 open-ended questions from the same survey. Data revealed that both subgroups felt well prepared when registering for online courses. However, when it came to overall preparedness for using technology, those over 40 years of age did not view themselves as well prepared as those younger than 40. Using digital resources outside of the learning management system presented more significant challenges to the older subgroup of learners. Two factors impacting graduate students’ online performance became evident through this study; the impact of technology experience rather than age and what is meant for a student to be well-prepared for online course work.

Author Biography

Lin B Carver, Saint Leo University
Associate Professor Graduate Education


[1]. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Distance learning. Fast Facts.
[2]. Lederman, D. (2018, November). Online education ascends.
[3]. Kasasa, (2019). Boomers, gen x, gen y, and gen z.
[4]. Orlando, J., & Attard, C. (2015). Digital natives come of age: The reality of today’s early career teachers using mobile devices to teach mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 107–121. doi:10.1007/s13394-015-0159-6
[5]. Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
[6]. Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20-30.
[7]. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884.
[8]. Means, B. M., 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, U. S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
[9]. Newman, D. & Dickinson, M. (2017). Preparing students for success in hybrid learning environments with academic resource centers. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2017(149), 79-88.
[10]. Zuvic-Butorac, M., Roncevic, N., Nemcanin, D., & Nebic, Z. (2011). Blended e-learning in higher education: Research on students’ perspective. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 8: 413–415.
[11]. Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2013). Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 29–37.
[12]. Melnick, J. A. (2014). The generational digital divide: Understanding adult learners’ self-efficacy in online education.
[13]. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants, On the Horizon 9(5), 1–2.,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.
[14]. Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 775–786.
[15]. Ransdell, S. (2010). Motivation, reasoning, and online activity among health science students. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1, 70–73.
[16]. Underwood, J. (2007) Rethinking the digital divide: impacts on student-tutor relationships. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 213–222.
[17]. Keengwe, J. & Anyanwu, L. (2007). Computer technology-infused learning enhancement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 387-393.
[18]. Bitter, G. G. & Legacy, J. M. (2006). Using technology in the classroom (Brief version). Allyn & Bacon.
[19]. Palfry, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. Perseus Books Group.
[20]. Fernandez, A. & Goldberg, E. (2009). The sharpbrains guide to brain fitness: 18 interviews with scientists, practical advice, and product reviews, to keep your brain sharp. SharpBrains.
[21]. Herther, N. (2009, November/December). Digital natives and immigrants: What brain research tells us [pdf]. Online, 15-21.
[22]. Small, G. W., Moddy, T. D., Siddarth, P., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2009, February). Your brain on Google: Patterns of cerebral activation during Internet searching, American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(2), 116–126.
[23]. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design--Choosing Among Five Traditions. Sage Publications Inc.
[24]. Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. The State University of New York, USA.
[25]. Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2019). Practical research: planning and design. Pearson Education.
[26]. Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: design and methods. Sage Publications.
[27]. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Ashgate Publishing Company.
How to Cite
Carver, L. B., & Rivera-Singletary, G. (2020). Students’ Perceptions of Preparation for Online Graduate Course Work. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6), 389-399.