Facing COVID-19 Challenges: 1st-Year Students’ Experience with the Romanian Hybrid Higher Educational System
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology and Methods
- What are the particularities of the face-to-face educational system perceived by 1st-year students in a technical university?
- How is the online system perceived by these students?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the hybrid approach in the COVID-19 pandemic situation?
3. Interviews Responses Processing and Results
3.1. Data Processing Based on GT Approach
3.2. Literature Sorting, Discussions and Final Theoretical Model Proposal
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1. | What have been your expectations regarding your faculty/university before starting classes? |
2. | Has it been beneficial for you to start the seminars and laboratories in a face-to-face system? If yes, in what way has it helped you? Would you repeat the experience in the current pandemic situation? |
3. | What was the impact of the online system after the first month of hybrid education? Has it helped you coming to the faculty to understand/accommodate with online courses? The transition towards online education has been easier in this way? |
4. | Please detail your interactions with colleagues and teachers in both systems: face-to-face and online. Are these social interactions important for you/your learning activity? |
5. | Have you opted for student dorm rooms? If yes, what was the influence of this ac-commodation on your interpersonal relationships’ development opportunities and your learning process? |
6. | Are teachers prepared to teach online? Have they adapted their discipline materi-als/content? In which of the two systems have they better explained the con-cepts/problems? |
7. | How interactive, appealing and practical is the Virtual Campus (specific online edu-cational platform for UPT)? What improvements would you suggest for its optimiza-tion? |
8. | Subjects are easier to retain/understand in face-to-face or online systems? Tasks/homework have been more/harder in the online or traditional system? |
9. | Is the structure of the courses appropriate for both systems (face-to-face and online)? Mention (if it is the case) what should be added, changed or adapted, in your opinion. |
10. | Do you learn better face-to-face or online? Have you changed recently the way in which you listen/learn? Can you concentrate in the online environment better or the same as in the traditional version? What are the challenges the online education brought in this sense? |
11. | Your presence has improved in the online environment? Is it easier/convenient this way? Do you save time compared to the traditional face-to-face presence? |
12. | The hybrid system is adequate for the current situation? Do you see it possible for the next year? Or do you prefer exclusive face-to-face or exclusive online education? |
13. | Age: |
14. | Gender: |
15. | Faculty: |
16. | Specialty: |
References
- Paura, L.; Arhipova, I. Cause Analysis of students’ dropout rate in higher education study program. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 109, 1282–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pena-Calvo, J.V.; Inda-Caro, M.; Rodriguez-Menendez, C.; Fernandez-Garcia, C. Perceived Supports and Barriers for Career Development for Second-Year STEM Students. J. Eng. Educ. 2016, 105, 341–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez, N.L.; Callejas, Z.; Griol, D. Predicting Computer Engineering Students’ Dropout in Cuban Higher Education with Pre-enrollment and early performance data. J. Technol. Sci. Educ 2020, 10, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, Y.; Zhang, G.; Long, R.A.; Anderson, T.J.; Ohland, M.W. Nonparametric Survival Analysis of the Loss rate of the Undergraduate Engineering Students. J. Eng. Educ. 2011, 100, 349–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, O.B.; Feldman, D.B.; Margalit, M. A Focused Intervention for 1st Year College Students Promoting Hope, Sense of Coherence, and Self-Efficacy. J. Psychol. 2012, 146, 333–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breier, M. From “financial considerations” to “poverty”: towards a reconceptualisation of the role of finances in higher education student drop out. High. Educ. 2010, 60, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, J.; Butler-Henderson, K.; Rudolph, J.; Malkawi, B.; Glowatz, M.; Burton, R.; Magni, P.; Lam, S. COVID_19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2020, 3, 9–28. [Google Scholar]
- Fatani, T.H. Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiRamio, D.; Wolverton, M. Integrating learning communities and distance education: possibility or pipedream? Innov. High. Educ 2006, 31, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolliger, D.U.; Supanakorn, S.; Boggs, C. Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Comput. Educ 2010, 55, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potra, S.A.; Pugna, A.P.; Pop, M.-D.; Dungan, L. Romanian University Hybrid Educational System: A Grounded Theory Approach of 1st Year Students Experience. Available online: https://iated.org/inted/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Fish, L.A.; Snodgrass, C.R. A Preliminary Study of Business Student Perceptions of Online versus Face-to-Face Education. BRC J. Adv. Educ. 2014, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castle, S.R. An Analysis of Student Self-Assessment of Online, Blended, and Face-toface Learning Environments: Implications for Sustainable Education delivery. Int. Educ. Stud 2010, 3, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, I.; Seaman, J. Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States; The Sloan Consortium (Sloan-C): Newburyport, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Fish, L.A.; Snodgrass, C.R. Business Student Perceptions of Online versus Face-to-face Education: Student Characteristics. Bus. Educ. Innov. J. 2015, 7, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
- Potra, S.; Pugna, A. When do working consumers become prosumers? Exploring prosumer characteristics for organizational value creation strategies. Encycl. Organ. Knowl. Adm. Technol. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Transactions: Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Urquhart, C.; Lehmann, H.; Myers, M.D. Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 2010, 20, 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfswinkel, J.F.; Furtmueller, E.; Wilderom, C.P. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst 2013, 22, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izvercian, M.; Potra, S.; Ivascu, L. Job Satisfaction Variables: A Grounded Theory Approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci 2016, 221, 86–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thornberg, R. Informed Grounded Theory. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2012, 56, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- East, L.; Jackson, D.; O’Brien, L.; Peters, K. The benefits of computer-mediated communication in nursing research. Contemp. Nurse 2008, 30, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratislavova, K.; Ratislav, J. Asynchronous email interview as a qualitative research method in the humanities. Hum. Aff. 2014, 24, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaic-Maniu, A.; Mitrut, C.; Voineagu, V. Statistics; Editura Economica: Bucuresti, Romania, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Grofman, B.; Owen, G. A Game Theoretic Approach to Measuring Degree of Centrality in Social Networks. Soc. Netw. 1982, 4, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaser, B.G. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions; Sociology Press: Millvalley, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Summers, J.J.; Waigandt, A.; Whittaker, T.A. A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online Versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class. Innov. High Educ. 2005, 29, 233–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soffer, T.; Nachmias, R. Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face-to-face courses in higher education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn 2018, 34, 534–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Facts: Is Online Learning as Good as Face-To-Face Learning? Available online: https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/online-learning-good-as-face-to-face-learning/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Ellis, R.A.; Goodyear, P.; O’Hara, A.; Prosser, M. The University Student Experience of Face-to-Face and Online Discussions: Coherence, Reflection and Meaning. Res. Learn. Technol. 2007, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, J.; Han, J.; Liu, J.; Yang, F.; Chen, S. The Analysis of Influencing Factors of College Students’ Learning Effect in Face-to-Face, Online and Blended Learning. In Network Computing and Information Security; Lei, J., Wang, F.L., Li, M., Luo, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 345, pp. 528–538. ISBN 9783642352102. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, T. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunications; University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Phipps, R.; Merisotis, J. What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education; Institute for Higher Education Policy: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Maunder, R.E.; Cunliffe, M.; Galvin, J.; Mjali, S.; Rogers, J. Listening to Student Voices: Student Researchers Exploring Undergraduate Experiences of University Transition. High Educ. 2013, 66, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laird, T.F.N.; Kuh, G.D. Student Experiences with Information Technology and Their Relationship to Other Aspects of Student Engagement. Res. High Educ. 2005, 46, 211–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youde, A. “Face-to-Face Trumps Everything”: An Exploration of Tutor Perceptions, Beliefs and Practice Within Blended Learning Environments. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goñi, J.; Cortázar, C.; Alvares, D.; Donoso, U.; Miranda, C. Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ożadowicz, A. Modified Blended Learning in Engineering Higher Education during the COVID-19 Lockdown—Building Automation Courses Case Study. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marler, H.; Ditton, A. “I’m smiling back at you”: Exploring the impact of mark wearing on communication in healthcare. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2020, 56, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardan, M.; Rahman, F.F.; Geroda, G.B. The Influence of Physical Distance to Student Anxiety on COVID-10, Indonesia. J. Crit. Rev. 2020, 7, 1126–1132. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, S.; Lagace, M.; Bongue, B.; Ndeye, N.; Guyot, J.; Bechard, L.; Tougas, F. Ageism and COVID-19: What does our society’s response say about us? Age Ageing 2020, 49, 692–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, J. Making Sense of Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility. 2012. Available online: www.academicpartnerships.com (accessed on 14 February 2021).
- Coates, H.; Mahat, M. Threshold Quality Parameters in Hybrid Higher Education. High Educ. 2014, 68, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coates, H.; Xie, Z.; Hong, X. Engaging transformed fundamentals to design global hybrid higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, S.; Amaral, I.; Basílio Simőes, R. Not One Thing nor the Other: Evaluating a Hybrid Model in Higher Education Classes in Portugal during COVID-19. Available online: https://iated.org/inted/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Valantinaitė, I.; Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė, Ž. The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, A.M.; Goh, C.; Lim, L.Z.; Gao, X. COVID-19 Emergency ELearning and Beyond: Experiences and Perspectives of University Educators. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pop, M.-D.; Potra, S.A.; Pugna, A.P. Romanian Students Expectations from Educational Online Plat-forms in the Age of COVID-19. Available online: https://iated.org/inted/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Dodd, R.H.; Dadaczynski, K.; Okan, O.; McCaffery, K.J.; Pickles, K. Psychological Wellbeing and Academic Experience of University Students in Australia during COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woo, B.; Evans, K.; Wang, K.; Pitt-Catsouphes, M. Online and Hybrid Education in a Social Work PhD Program. J. Soc. Work Educ. 2019, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantoni, V.; Cellario, M.; Porta, M. Perspectives and challenges in e-learning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2004, 15, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Dosari, H. Faculty Members and Students Perceptions of E-Learning in the English Department: A Project Evaluation. J. Soc. Sci. 2011, 7, 391–407. [Google Scholar]
- Bakia, M.; Shear, L.; Toyama, Y.; Lasseter, A. Understanding the Implications of Online Learning for Educational Productivity; Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Burac, M.A.P.; Fernandez, J.M.; Cruz, M.M.A.; Cruz, J.D. Assessing the impact of e-learning system of higher education institution’s instructors and students. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 482, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maican, M.-A.; Cocoradă, E. Online Foreign Language Learning in Higher Education and Its Correlates during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coman, C.; Țîru, L.G.; Meseșan-Schmitz, L.; Stanciu, C.; Bularca, M.C. Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during the Coronavirus Pandemic: Students’ Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Survey on Online and Distance Learning—Results. Available online: https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/viewpoints/surveys/survey-on-online-teaching.htm (accessed on 14 January 2021).
- Yusuf, N.; Al-Banawi, N. The Impact of Changing Technology: The Case of E-Learning. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2013, 6, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamage, K.A.A.; Wijesuriya, D.I.; Ekanayake, S.Y.; Rennie, A.E.W.; Lambert, C.G.; Gunawardhana, N. Online Delivery of Teaching and Laboratory Practices: Continuity of University Programmes during COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboagye, E.; Yawson, J.A.; Appiah, K.N. COVID-19 and E-Learning: The Challenges of Students in Tertiary Institutions. Soc. Educ. Res. 2020, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Education Responses to COVID-19: Embracing Digital Learning and Online Collaboration. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-responses-to-covid-19-embracing-digital-learning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/ (accessed on 14 January 2021).
- Capone, V.; Caso, D.; Donizzetti, A.R.; Procentese, F. University Student Mental Well-Being during COVID-19 Outbreak: What Are the Relationships between Information Seeking, Perceived Risk and Personal Resources Related to the Academic Context? Sustainability 2020, 12, 7039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muthuprasad, T.; Aiswarya, S.; Aditya, K.S.; Jha, G.K. Students’ Perception and Preference for Online Education in India during COVID -19 Pandemic. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2021, 3, 100101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Alberti, M.; Suárez, F.; Chiyón, I.; Mosquera Feijoo, J.C. Challenges and Experiences of Online Evaluation in Courses of Civil Engineering during the Lockdown Learning Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Layers | Faculty | Number of Respondents | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
n1 | Industrial Chemistry and Environmental Engineering | 27 | 18.1 |
n2 | Mechanical Engineering | 46 | 30.8 |
n3 | Management in Production and Transportation | 76 | 51.1 |
Total | 149 | 100 |
No. | Category Name | Main Codes Describing the Category |
---|---|---|
1 | Better understanding | Easy to remember, channelled concentration, 100% attention, attention due to respect, immediate feedback, open and free environment, courage to speak |
2 | Socialization | Better interaction, friendships, the importance of interaction, meeting colleagues psychically important, openness towards colleagues, profound interactions, a warm welcome, teamwork |
3 | University experiences | University reputation, discovering interesting faculty elements, university library at hand, student unity/guidance (student dormitory), student dorm room—life on your own |
4 | Better explanations | Trained teachers, clarifications, blackboard explanations, examples, more student feedback for teachers, higher teacher impact on students, the teacher observes non-verbal communication, pleasure to teach |
5 | Hurdles due to pandemic restrictions | Distance restrictions, restrictions to gather/discuss in a high number, higher cost but it is worth it, know colleagues even with masks |
6 | Practical activities | Laboratory understanding, focus on practical aspects, great to do yourself the experiments |
7 | Online benefits | Time savings, better presence, easy to connect, half course time, comfortable, online experience in high school helpful, online useful for documentation, Virtual Campus practical for grade/course/tasks visualization, online advantage—information at your fingertips |
8 | Information overload | Partial understanding, difficulty, no incentives, low motivation to learn, not efficient, online not helpful, low productivity, difficult to prepare for tasks/exams online, the online reason for dropout, large quantity of homework/tasks, long time to solve tasks/homework, information loss, online difficulty perceiving information details |
9 | Presence and concentration hurdles | False presence, stress due to power shortage risk/internet connection problems, low online presence due to lightness, tiring in front of a screen, vision destruction, home commodity not productive, concentration hurdle, easy to distract, concentration hurdle—family, friends, phone, not so seriously taken |
10 | Limited interaction | Difficulty to know colleagues/teachers, no student questions, difficult to speak/respond more than one student, students used to socialize online but not for deep relationships |
11 | Teacher-related hindrances | Teacher re-evaluation, teachers demotivated by student lack of attention, large information quantity in half time, high teacher demands and low offering, course structure not adapted/fitted to online teaching teachers do not upload courses on the Virtual Campus, teachers that do not open their camera—disengaged students |
12 | Improvement opportunities | The teacher demands adapted for online education, being autodidact (self-taught), time management, online listening habits need to change, responsible student, challenge to use more virtual platforms, summaries/conspectus for lessons to understand, Virtual Campus problems (connection errors, difficulty in accessing some courses), CV improvement proposition (background personalization, time limit removed/time loading changed, grades/presence visualization per student, the organization for mobile use) |
13 | Hybrid approach characteristics | Transition/adaptation towards online learning, if not face-to-face, hybrid preference, hybrid system helpful, itinerary problems, hybrid system- student life idea formation, better accommodation to faculty, hybrid optimization, face-to-face explanations about the online, hybrid system—a gradual transition, hybrid approach protects students, student’s wellbeing the priority, hybrid approach helpful to familiarize with town/university/facilities/colleagues/teachers |
Node | Category | DC | DC’ | %DC’ |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Face-to-face education | 8.000 | 0.571 | 57.1 |
2 | Better understanding | 3.000 | 0.214 | 21.4 |
3 | Socialization | 4.000 | 0.285 | 28.5 |
4 | University experience | 4.000 | 0.285 | 28.5 |
5 | Better explanations | 5.000 | 0.357 | 35.7 |
6 | Pandemic-related restrictions | 3.000 | 0.214 | 21.4 |
7 | Practical activities | 4.000 | 0.285 | 28.5 |
8 | Online education | 8.000 | 0.571 | 57.1 |
9 | Online benefits | 2.000 | 0.142 | 14.2 |
10 | Information overload | 2.000 | 0.142 | 14.2 |
11 | Presence and concentration hurdles | 3.000 | 0.214 | 21.4 |
12 | Limited interaction | 4.000 | 0.285 | 28.5 |
13 | Teacher-related hindrances | 4.000 | 0.285 | 28.5 |
14 | Improvement opportunities | 6.000 | 0.428 | 42.8 |
15 | Hybrid approach | 7.000 | 0.500 | 50.0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Potra, S.; Pugna, A.; Pop, M.-D.; Negrea, R.; Dungan, L. Facing COVID-19 Challenges: 1st-Year Students’ Experience with the Romanian Hybrid Higher Educational System. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063058
Potra S, Pugna A, Pop M-D, Negrea R, Dungan L. Facing COVID-19 Challenges: 1st-Year Students’ Experience with the Romanian Hybrid Higher Educational System. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(6):3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063058
Chicago/Turabian StylePotra, Sabina, Adrian Pugna, Mădălin-Dorin Pop, Romeo Negrea, and Luisa Dungan. 2021. "Facing COVID-19 Challenges: 1st-Year Students’ Experience with the Romanian Hybrid Higher Educational System" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6: 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063058