The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Kivunja, L. Theoretical perspectives of how digital natives. Int. J. High. Educ. 2014, 3, 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veletsianos, G.; Kimmons, R. What (Some) Students Are Saying about the Switch to Remote Teaching and Learning. 2020. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/4/what-some-students-are-saying-about-the-switch-to-remote-teaching-and-learning (accessed on 4 June 2020).
- Wu, J.; Guo, S.; Liu, W.; Xiang, Y. Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 2389–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garnham, C.; Kaleta, R. Introduction to hybrid courses. In Teaching with Technology Today; University of Wisconsin System: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; Available online: http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm (accessed on 11 September 2020).
- Childs, M.; Peachey, A. Understanding Learning in Virtual Worlds; Springer: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Thorne, K. Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional Learning; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ferdig, R.; Cavanaugh, C.; Freidhoff, J. Lessons Learned from Blended Programs: Experiences and Recommendations from the Field; iNACOL: Vienna, VA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Akkoyunlu, B.; Soylu, M.Y. A study on students’ views on blended learning environment. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2006, 7, 43–56. [Google Scholar]
- Martyn, M. The hybrid online model: Good practice. Educ. Q. 2003, 26, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
- So, H.; Brush, T.A. Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 318–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staker, H.; Chan, E.; Clayton, M.; Hernandez, A.; Horn, M.B.; Mackey, K. The Rise of K–12 Blended Learning: Profiles of Emerging Models. 2011. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535181.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2020).
- Bergmann, J.; Sams, A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day, 1st ed.; ISTE: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 34–40. [Google Scholar]
- He, W.; Holton, A.; Farkas, G.; Warschauer, M. The effects of flipped instruction on out-of-class study time, exam performance, and student perceptions. Learn. Instr. 2016, 45, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; López-Belmonte, J.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.F.; Trujillo-Torres, J.M.T.; Pozo-Sánchez, S. Academic eects of the use of flipped learning in physical education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López Núñez, J.A.; López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Marín-Marín, J.A. Dietary intervention through flipped learning as a techno pedagogy for the promotion of healthy eating in secondary education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, T.; Cummins, J.; Waugh, M. Use of the flipped classroom instructional model in higher education: Instructors’ perspectives. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2017, 29, 179–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, J.L.; Dickson-Deane, C.; Galyen, K. E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet High. Educ. 2011, 14, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virtanen, M.A.; Haavisto, E.; Liikanen, E.; Kääriäinen, M. Ubiquitous learning environments in higher education: A scoping literature review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 985–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljawarneh, S.A. Reviewing and exploring innovative ubiquitous learning tools in higher education. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2020, 32, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, S.; Yang, X.; Cheng, G.; Wang, M. From learning object to learning cell: A resource organization model for ubiquitous learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2015, 18, 206–224. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-H. Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? J. Educ. Res. 2008, 102, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey, D.; Mifsud, T. Time-slicing through space: De-structuring formal learning environments with u-learning technologies. Int. J. Learn. 2005, 12, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.; Chou, C.; Chang, C. From virtual environments to physical environments: Exploring interactivity in ubiquitous-learning systems. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2008, 11, 54–66. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.11.2.54 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Xiao, J.; Sun-Lin, H.Z.; Lin, T.H.; Li, M.; Pan, Z.; Cheng, H.C.H. What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1203–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, E.; Tambe, S. Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 2015, 5, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, N.; Al-Khanjari, Z. Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. Int. J. Digit. Inf. Wirel. Commun. 2011, 1, 746–752. [Google Scholar]
- García-Ros, R.; Pérez-González, F.; Hinojosa, E. Assessing time management skills as an important aspect of student learning: The construction and evaluation of a time management scale with Spanish high school students. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2004, 25, 167–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marriott, N.; Marriott, P.; Selwyn, N. Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education. Account. Educ. 2004, 13, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beard, L.A.; Harper, C.; Riley, G. Online versus on-campus instruction: Student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends 2004, 48, 29–31. [Google Scholar]
- Osgerby, J. Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Account. Educ. 2013, 22, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, D.H.; Gorham, J. Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Commun. Educ. 2009, 37, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcock, P.; Lewis, A. Putting improvement at the heart of health care: Medical students need to learn continuous quality improvement skills as core skills. BMJ 2002, 325, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alayyar, G.M.; Fisser, P.; Voogt, J. Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: Support from blended learning. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 28, 1298–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Q.; Quek, C.L.; Hu, X. Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2017, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kington, A.; Sammons, P.; Day, C.; Regan, E. Stories and statistics: Describing a mixed methods study of effective classroom practice. J. Mix Methods Res. 2011, 5, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheerens, J. Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness. A Critical Review of the Knowledge Base; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodfellow, R.; Hewling, A. Reconceptualising culture in virtual learning environments: From an “essentialist” to a “negotiated” perspective. E-Learning 2005, 2, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reeves, T.C.; Benson, L.; Elliot, D.; Grant, M.; Holschuh, D.; Kim, B.; Kim, H.; Lauber, E.; Loh, S. Usability and instructional design heuristics for e-Learning evaluation. In Proceedings of the 14th ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, CO, USA, 24–29 June 2002; pp. 1615–1621. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477084.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2020).
- Carliner, S. An Overview of Online Learning, 2nd ed.; Human Resource Development Press: Armherst, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Conrad, D. Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. J. Distance Educ. 2002, 217, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yılmaz, A.; Soyer, F. Efect of physical education and play applications on school social behaviors of mild-level intellectually disabled children. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moser, A.; Korstjens, I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 2018, 24, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Mixed Metho-Dology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Dey, I. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Userfriendly Guide for Social Scientists; Routledge: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Elo, S.; Kyng€as, A. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Smaling, A. Inductive, analogical, and communicative generalization. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2003, 2, 5. Available online: http://www.ualberta.ca/iiqm/backissues/2_1/html/smaling.html (accessed on 22 April 2019). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, J.; Park, T.; Davis, R.O. What affects learner engagement in flipped learning and what predicts its outcomes? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 1, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, B.; Foon, K.; Kwan, C. Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2019, 27, 1106–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Belmonte, J.; Segura-Robles, A.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.; Parra-González, M.E. Evaluating activation and absence of negative effect: Gamification and Escape Rooms for learning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López, J.A.; López, J.; Moreno, A.J.; Pozo, S. Effectiveness of innovate educational practices with flipped learning and remote sensing in earth and environmental sciences—A case study. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sánchez, S.P.; López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; Sola-Reche, J.M.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A. Eect of bring-your-own-device program on flipped learning in higher education students. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores Cuevas, F. La formación pedagógica y el uso de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación dentro del proceso enseñanza aprendizaje como una propuesta para mejorar su actividad docente. Edmetic Rev. Educ. Med. TIC 2018, 7, 151–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerezo, R.; Bernardo, A.; Esteban, M.; Sánchez, M.; Tuero, E. Programas para la promoción de la Autorregulación en educación superior: Un estudio de la satisfacción diferencial entre metodología presencial y virtual. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fulton, K. Upside down and inside out: Flip your classroom to improve student learning. Learn. Lead. Technol. 2012, 39, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Talbert, R. Inverting the linear algebra classroom. Primus 2014, 24, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, K.A.; Newman, D.; Deyoe, M.M. Flipping a classroom: A continual process of refinement. In Proceedings of the 121st ASEE: American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 15–18 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Z.; Xie, K.; Anderman, L.H. The role of self-regulated learning in students’ success in flipped undergraduate math courses. Internet High. Educ. 2018, 36, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tse, W.S.; Choi, L.Y.; Tang, W.S. Eects of video-based flipped class instruction on subject reading motivation. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tourón, J.; Santiago, R. El modelo Flipped learning y el desarrollo del talento en la escuela. Rev. Educ. 2015, 1, 196–231. [Google Scholar]
- Rojas, G.D.; Castillejo, A.J.A.; Fernández, J.S. Las TIC como herramientas para el desarrollo de la competencia intrcultural. Edmetic Rev. Educ. Med. TIC 2018, 7, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khine, M.S.; Ali, N.; Afari, E. Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Educ. Inf. Technoogies 2017, 22, 1605–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.D.; Chang, C.K.; Wang, C.Y. Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware techniques. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermans, R.J.; Tondeur, J.; van Braak, M.; Valcke, M. The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 1499–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lui, S.-H. Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 1012–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Msila, V. Teacher readiness and information and communications technology (ICT) use in classrooms: A South African case study. Creat. Educ. 2015, 6, 1973–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teo, T.; Zhou, M.; Noyes, J. Teachers and technology: Development of an extended theory of planned behavior. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2016, 64, 1033–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wartella, E.; O’Keefe, B.; Scantlin, R. Children and Interactive Media: Compendium of Current Research and Directions for the Future; Markle Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, M.Z.; Zhong, Z.-J. Loneliness, social contacts and Internet addiction: A cross-lagged panel study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, P. Internet addiction disorder and youth. EMBO Rep. 2014, 15, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guan, S.-S.A.; Subrahmanyam, K. Youth internet use: Risks and opportunities. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2009, 22, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qahtani, A.A.; Higgins, S.E. Effects of traditional, blended and e-learning on students’ achievement in higher education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2013, 29, 220–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klein, D.; Ware, M. E-learning: New opportunities in continuing professional development. Learn. Publ. 2003, 16, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Beginning of Educational Project | End of Educational Project | ||
---|---|---|---|
Category | Subcategory | Category | Subcategory |
1. Material resources/base (36) | Technical resources possessed by an individual and university (29) | 1. Conditions of using OLE (47) | Continuous uploading of materials to OLE and its use for learning all the study subjects (17) |
Software (5) | Convenience of use (11) | ||
Allocated finances (2) | Accessibility Simple logging in (9) | ||
Favourable conditions (8) | |||
Promotion of using OLE (2) | |||
Clarity of use (1) | |||
2. Student personality (28) | Individual practical preparation (11) | 2a. Student personality (23) | Student, motivation, interest (11) |
Motivation, willingness, enthusiasm (9) | Individual aspirations, goals set by a student (9) | ||
Individual goals (4) | Time planning (3) | ||
Presence of all conditions (4) | |||
3a. Teacher personality (24) | Teachers’ willingness to use OLE (13) | 2b. Teacher personality (23) | Teachers’ internal disposition—willingness to work with OLE (21) |
Teachers’ practical ability to use OLE (11) | Teachers’ ability to work with OLE (2) | ||
3b. Information presentation (24) | Clarity of information (6) | 3. Material resources/base (22) | Good technical resources of an individual and university (13) |
Conciseness of information (6) | Well-functioning internet (9) | ||
Accuracy of information (4) | |||
Systemisation of information (4) | |||
Updating of information (4) | |||
4. Increase of accessibility at the institutional level (16) | Instructions for OLE users (9) | 4. Information presentation (16) | Variety (7) |
Instructions to teachers about OLE (5) | Information presented in an interesting way (4) | ||
Accountability of both teachers and students (2) | Possibility of selecting information (3) | ||
Abundance (2) |
Beginning of Educational Project | End of Educational Project | ||
---|---|---|---|
Category | Subcategory | Category | Subcategory |
1. Student personality (60) | Internal attitudes of student—passivity, lack of motivation (28) | 1. Organizational weaknesses (40) | Lack of appropriate computers (13) |
Internet disruptions (10) | |||
No disruptions are identified (15) | Too little instruction to students (6) | ||
Excessive workload (10) | Logging problems (5) | ||
Insufficient financing (3) | |||
Time planning (7) | Lack of software (3) | ||
2. Teacher personality (32) | Unwillingness of teacher to use OLE (18) | 2. Teacher personality (36) | Internal attitudes of teacher—unwillingness to use OLE (19) |
Outdated attitude of teacher (7) | Teacher’s activity in uploading materials to OLE (10) | ||
Incapability of teacher to use OLE (7) | Incapability of teacher to use OLE (7) | ||
3. Organizational weaknesses (25) | Unavailability of internet and its interruptions (13) | 3. Student personality (32) | Unwillingness of student to use OLE (11) |
Accessibility (5) | No disruptions (8) | ||
Financial resources (3) | Insufficient ability of student to use OLE (7) | ||
Time planning (6) | |||
4. Characteristics of information (22) | Absence of attractiveness (6) | 4. Characteristics of information (23) | Uninteresting presentation (8) |
Delayed uploading of material to OLE (5) | Abundance—too much information (5) | ||
Documents of different format (5) | Advantage of contact lectures (3) | ||
Shortage of information in OLE (3) | Language barriers—lack of information in the Lithuanian language (3) | ||
OLE cannot replace the teacher, face-to-face classes (3) | Over-simplicity (2) | ||
Irrelevance (2) |
© 2020 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
Valantinaitė, I.; Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė, Ž. The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197960
Valantinaitė I, Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė Ž. The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments. Sustainability. 2020; 12(19):7960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197960
Chicago/Turabian StyleValantinaitė, Ilona, and Živilė Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė. 2020. "The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments" Sustainability 12, no. 19: 7960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197960