Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dissemination of Innovative E-Learning Tools in Higher Education in Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- G1: to assess the increase in familiarity with innovative e-learning tools due to forced remote education (due to the COVID-19 pandemic);
- G2: to assess the level of use of remote working tools in higher education;
- G3: to compare the ease with which students learn content in traditional and remote education;
- G4: to investigate the relationship between the level of familiarity with innovative technologies and the use of remote working tools;
- G5: to build the model of using innovative technologies among students.
- To realize these goals, we formulated the scientific hypotheses. On the basis of goal 1, we prepared hypothesis H1. Hypotheses H2 to H4 were prepared on the basis of goal 4. The process of formulating the hypotheses was also supported by the literature review. The hypotheses are as follows:
- H1: Due to forced remote education (due to the COVID-19 pandemic), there has been an increase in knowledge of innovative educational tools;
- H2: Familiarity with information technology has a positive impact on learning through e-learning;
- H3: Interest in innovative e-learning technologies positively influences the learning experience through e-learning;
- H4: The resources required for participation in e-learning positively influence e-learning.
2. Literature Review
- Introduction of a new product or a qualitative change in an existing product;
- Process innovation new to an industry;
- The opening of a new market;
- Development of new sources of apply for raw materials or other inputs;
- Changes in industrial organization;
- Innovation is any new or substantially improved [53]:
- Good or service which has been commercialized;
- Process used for the commercial production of goods and services.
- The use of the multimedia material;
- No need for visiting the university every day;
- The possibility of joint communication with other course takers;
- Elimination of anxiety which can be created by the prospect of oral expression in public situations;
- More convenient deadlines for task completion using e-learning platforms;
- Reduction in anxiety which can be created by face-to-face contact between students and lecturers.
3. Methodology
- Knowledge of information technology;
- Interest in innovative e-learning technologies;
- Access to the resources necessary to participate in e-learning.
4. Results
4.1. E-Learning Tools
- Category 1—The factor explains 23% of the variance. The factor was called popular services and applications adapted to e-learning. It includes variables such as YouTube, Skype, Discord, and Facebook.
- Category 2—The factor explains 13.5% of the variance. The factor was called popular applications for synchronous meetings adapted to e-learning. It includes three variables: MS Teams, Click Meeting, and Google Classroom.
- Category 3—The factor explains 12.1% of the variance. The factor was called other synchronous and asynchronous e-learning tools. It includes three variables: Zoom, e-learning platforms, and email.
4.2. E-Learning General Assessment
4.3. E-Learning in the Context of Technology Innovations
- Students’ self-assessment of familiarity with information technologies;
- Students’ interest in e-learning technologies;
- Assessment of the resources necessary to participate in e-learning activities.
- The greater the familiarity with information technology, the worse the assessment of traditional classes;
- The greater the interest in information technology, the worse the assessment of traditional classes;
- The better the students’ access to the resources (necessary to participate in e-learning), the worse his/her assessment of traditional classes.
- The worse a person perceives the innovation of e-learning, the more he/she prefers to use traditional classes;
- The easier a person acquires the material through traditional classes, the less often he/she wants to use e-learning in the future.
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendation for Future Research
- There is yet not much research on evaluating broadly e-learning in higher education;
- More of the reviewed research present online teaching assessment from the teacher’s point of view rather than the students’ point of view;
- Universities were not prepared for shifting into online teaching from day to day;
- Many articles prove that a common problem is the preparation of teachers for e-learning;
- Despite the development of innovative e-learning tools, it is the teacher who plays the main role in the learning process;
- Students are eager to learn online, while teaching staff is not yet necessarily ready for it;
- There is a lack of general guidelines for successful e-learning.
- The percentage of students familiar with the analyzed e-learning tools has increased significantly during the pandemic. There has been a visible rise, especially in the usage of the following tools: MS Teams, Zoom, and Google Classroom. The achieved results support hypothesis H1;
- The most frequently used e-learning tools during the COVID-19 pandemic have been mainly videoconferencing tools, such as MS Teams and Zoom. However, students also have used e-learning platforms and e-mail;
- The author’s research gave a possibility to identify three hidden factors (categories) of the used e-learning tools. They include the following categories: popular services and applications adapted to e-learning; popular applications for synchronous meetings adapted to e-learning and other synchronous and asynchronous e-learning methods;
- Students’ familiarity with information technology has a positive influence on the ease of acquiring e-learning content. The results support hypothesis H2;
- Students’ interest in innovative e-learning technologies has a positive influence on the ease of acquiring e-learning content. The results support hypothesis H3;
- Having the proper resources also positively influences the absorption of e-learning content. The results support hypothesis H4.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Belitski, M.; Guenther, C.; Kritikos, A.S.; Thurik, R. Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Small Bus. Econ. 2022, 58, 593–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalogiannidis, S.; Chatzitheodoridis, F.; Kontsas, S. An Eclectic Discussion of the Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on the World Economy during the First Stage of the Spread. Int. J. Financ. Res. 2020, 11, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohlscheen, E.; Mojon, B.; Rees, D. The macroeconomic spillover effects of the pandemic on the global economy. SSRN 2020, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farboodi, M.; Jarosch, G.; Shimer, R. Internal and external effects of social distancing in a pandemic. J. Econ. Theory 2021, 196, 105293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clair, R.; Gordon, M.; Kroon, M.; Reilly, C. The effects of social isolation on well-being and life satisfaction during pandemic. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akat, M.; Karataş, K. Psychological effects of COVID-19 pandemic on society and its reflections on education. Electron. Turkish Stud. 2020, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Cullen, W.; Gulati, G.; Kelly, B.D. Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. QJM Int. J. Med. 2020, 113, 311–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szaszi, B.; Hajdu, N.; Szecsi, P.; Tipton, E.; Aczel, B. A machine learning analysis of the relationship of demographics and social gathering attendance from 41 countries during pandemic. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamczyk, S.; Surdykowska, B. Świat pracy na bezdrożach: Refleksje wokółmożliwych skutków pandemii COVID-19. Pr. Zabezp. Społeczne 2020, 4, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Długosz, P. Trauma Pandemii COVID-19 w Polskim Społeczeństwie; CeDeWu: Warsaw, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, F.; Sun, T.; Westine, C.D. A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Comput. Educ. 2020, 159, 104009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K. From the Classic Business Model to Open Innovation and Data Sharing—The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turoń, K.; Kubik, A. Business Innovations in the New Mobility Market during the COVID-19 with the Possibility of Open Business Model Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stecuła, K. Application of Virtual Reality for Education at Technical University. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2019), Seville, Spain, 11–13 November 2019; pp. 7437–7444. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, P.; Li, J.; Liu, S. An introduction to key technology in artificial intelligence and big data driven e-learning and e-education. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2021, 26, 2123–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marks, B.; Thomas, J. Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 1287–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, A.; Wong, C.S.K.; Cheung, R.Y.H.; Im, T.S.W. Supporting flipped and gamified learning with augmented reality in higher education. In Frontiers in Education; Frontiers: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 6, p. 110. [Google Scholar]
- Neffati, O.S.; Setiawan, R.; Jayanthi, P.; Vanithamani, S.; Sharma, D.K.; Regin, R.; Mani, D.; Sengan, S. An educational tool for enhanced mobile e-Learning for technical higher education using mobile devices for augmented reality. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2021, 83, 104030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espitia, A.; Mattoo, A.; Rocha, N.; Ruta, M.; Winkler, D. Pandemic trade: COVID-19, remote work and global value chains. World Econ. 2022, 45, 561–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orzeł, B.; Wolniak, R. Digitization in the Design and Construction Industry—Remote Work in the Context of Sustainability: A Study from Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orzeł, B.; Wolniak, R. Clusters of Elements for Quality Assurance of Health Worker Protection Measures in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stecuła, K.; Brodny, J.; Tutak, M. Use of Intelligent Informatics Module for Registration and Assessment of Causes of Breaks in Selected Mining Machines; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Wroclaw, Poland, 2018; Volume 637, ISBN 9783319644646. [Google Scholar]
- Stecuła, K.; Brodny, J.; Tutak, M. Informatics platform as a tool supporting research regarding the effectiveness of the mining machines’ work. In Proceedings of the CBU International Conference Proceedings, Prague, Czechia, 22–24 March 2017; Volume 5, pp. 1215–1219. [Google Scholar]
- Marion, T.J.; Fixson, S.K. The transformation of the innovation process: How digital tools are changing work, collaboration, and organizations in new product development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2021, 38, 192–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A. Accelerating remote work after COVID-19. Cent. Growth Oppor. 2022, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-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]
- Volery, T.; Lord, D. Critical success factors in online education. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2000, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Khairnar, C.M. Advance pedagogy: Innovative methods of teaching and learning. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2015, 5, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naz, F.; Murad, H.S. Innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of diverse students. SAGE Open 2017, 7, 2158244017734022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senthilkumar, V.; Kannappa, R. Impact of Innovative Teaching and Learning Methodologies for Higher Educational Institutions with reference to Trichirappalli District. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2017, 19, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayashree, R. A study on innovative teaching learning methods for undergraduate students. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Invent. 2017, 6, 32–34. [Google Scholar]
- Puranik, S. Innovative teaching methods in higher education. BSSS J. Educ. ISSN 2020, 9, 1258–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alawawdeh, N.; Ma’moun, A. Foreign languages e-learning: Challenges, obstacles and behaviours during COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 2020, 17, 11536–11554. [Google Scholar]
- Dagiene, V.; Jasute, E.; Navickiene, V.; Butkiene, R.; Gudoniene, D. Opportunities, quality factors, and required changes during the pandemic based on higher education leaders’ perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irfan, M.; Kusumaningrum, B.; Yulia, Y.; Widodo, S.A. Challenges during the pandemic: Use of e-learning in mathematics learning in higher education. Infin. J. 2020, 9, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, J.R.; Andres, L. COVID-19 and rapid adoption and improvisation of online teaching: Curating resources for extensive versus intensive online learning experiences. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2020, 44, 608–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijaya, H.; Sumule, L.; Weismann, I.T.J.; Supartini, T.; Tari, E. Online Learning Evaluation in Higher Education: Study Survey Method. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 5, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yustina, Y.; Syafii, W.; Vebrianto, R. The Effects of Blended Learning and Project-Based Learning on Pre-Service Biology Teachersâ€TM Creative Thinking through Online Learning in the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Pendidik. IPA Indones. 2020, 9, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibrahim, A.F.; Attia, A.S.; Asma’M, B.; Ali, H.H. Evaluation of the online teaching of architectural design and basic design courses case study: College of Architecture at JUST, Jordan. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 2345–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldrop, M.M. The virtual lab: Confronted with the explosive popularity of online learning, researchers are seeking new ways to teach the practical skills of science. Nature 2013, 499, 268–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DiPietro, M.; Ferdig, R.E.; Black, E.W.; Preston, M. Best practices in teaching K-12 online: Lessons learned from Michigan Virtual School teachers. J. Interact. Online Learn. 2008, 7, 10–35. [Google Scholar]
- Houlden, S.; Veletsianos, G. Coronavirus pushes universities to switch to online classes—But are they ready. Conversation 2020, 12, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Cutri, R.M.; Mena, J.; Whiting, E.F. Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meishar-Tal, H.; Levenberg, A. In times of trouble: Higher education lecturers’ emotional reaction to online instruction during COVID-19 outbreak. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7145–7161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, L.; Wu, S.; Zhou, M.; Li, F. ‘School’s out, but class’ on’, the largest online education in the world today: Taking China’s practical exploration during the COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control as an example. Best Evid. Chin. Edu. 2020, 4, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, L. Putting in more: Emotional work in adopting online tools in teaching and learning practices. Teach. High. Educ. 2014, 19, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jacques, S.; Ouahabi, A.; Lequeu, T. Synchronous E-learning in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Vienna, Austria, 21–23 April 2021; pp. 1102–1109. [Google Scholar]
- Turnbull, D.; Chugh, R.; Luck, J. Transitioning to E-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have Higher Education Institutions responded to the challenge? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 6401–6419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harijanto, B.; Apriyani, M.E.; Hamdana, E.N. Online Learning System for Kampus Merdeka: Innovative Learning In COVID-19 Pandemic. IJORER Int. J. Recent Educ. Res. 2021, 2, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, M.; Rogers, M. The Definition and Measurement of Innovation; Citeseer: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 98. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. The Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data; European Commission: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat Statistics Explained. Available online: www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ (accessed on 21 March 2022).
- Pedchenko, M.; Pedchenko, L.; Nesterenko, T.; Dyczko, A. Technological Solutions for the Realization of NGH-Technology for Gas Transportation and Storage in Gas Hydrate Form. Solid State Phenom. 2018, 277, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikhaylov, A. Cryptocurrency market analysis from the open innovation perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikhaylov, A. Development of Friedrich von Hayek’s theory of private money and economic implications for digital currencies. Terra Econ. 2021, 19, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavitt, K. The objectives of technology policy. Sci. Public Policy 1987, 14, 182–188. [Google Scholar]
- Ingrassia, M.; Bellia, C.; Giurdanella, C.; Columba, P.; Chironi, S. Digital Influencers, Food and Tourism—A New Model of Open Innovation for Businesses in the Ho.Re.Ca. Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, P.; Nunes, S.; Oliva, S.; Lazzeretti, L. Open Innovation, Soft Branding and Green Influencers: Critiquing ‘Fast Fashion’and ‘Overtourism’. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, P.A.; Johl, S.K.; Akhtar, S.; Asif, M.; Salameh, A.A.; Kanesan, T. Open Innovation of Institutional Investors and Higher Education System in Creating Open Approach for SDG-4 Quality Education: A Conceptual Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valdez-Juárez, L.E.; Castillo-Vergara, M.; Ramos-Escobar, E.A. Innovative Business Strategies in the Face of COVID-19: An Approach to Open Innovation of SMEs in the Sonora Region of Mexico. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naqshbandi, M.M.; Jasimuddin, S.M. The linkage between open innovation, absorptive capacity and managerial ties: A cross-country perspective. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuana, R.; Prasetio, E.A.; Syarief, R.; Arkeman, Y.; Suroso, A.I. System Dynamic and Simulation of Business Model Innovation in Digital Companies: An Open Innovation Approach. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S. Business Models in the Industry 4.0 Environment—Results of Web of Science Bibliometric Analysis. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peñarroya-Farell, M.; Miralles, F. Business Model Adaptation to the COVID-19 Crisis: Strategic Response of the Spanish Cultural and Creative Firms. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrov, A.I.; Petrova, D.A. Open Business Model of COVID-19 Transformation of an Urban Public Transport System: The Experience of a Large Russian City. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, B.; Kim, J. Changes and Challenges in Museum Management after the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priyono, A.; Moin, A.; Putri, V.N.A.O. Identifying Digital Transformation Paths in the Business Model of SMEs during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrucco, A.S.; Trabucchi, D.; Frattini, F.; Lynch, J. The impact of COVID-19 on innovation policies promoting Open Innovation. R&D Manag. 2022, 52, 273–293. [Google Scholar]
- Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S. Assessment of the Competitiveness and Effectiveness of an Open Business Model in the Industry 4.0 Environment. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, L.; Shao, W. The effect of firm size on regional innovation efficiency in China. Mod. Econ. 2016, 7, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dixit, A.; Jakhar, S.K.; Kumar, P. Does lean and sustainable manufacturing lead to Industry 4.0 adoption: The mediating role of ambidextrous innovation capabilities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 175, 121328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, D.; Ganzarain, J.; Igartua, J.I. Business model innovation through Industry 4.0: A review. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amabile, T.M. Creativity and Innovation in Organizations; Harvard Business School Boston: Boston, MA, USA, 1996; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
- Fukawa, N.; Zhang, Y.; Erevelles, S. Dynamic Capability and Open-Source Strategy in the Age of Digital Transformation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lekan, A.; Clinton, A.; James, O. The disruptive adaptations of construction 4.0 and industry 4.0 as a pathway to a sustainable innovation and inclusive industrial technological development. Buildings 2021, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almgren, R.; Skobelev, D. Evolution of Technology and Technology Governance. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hizam-Hanafiah, M.; Soomro, M.A. The situation of technology companies in industry 4.0 and the open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casquejo, M.N.; Himang, C.; Ocampo, L.; Ancheta, R.; Himang, M.; Bongo, M. The Way of Expanding Technology Acceptance—Open Innovation Dynamics. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nazarko, L. Responsible Research and Innovation in Enterprises: Benefits, Barriers and the Problem of Assessment. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cherian, J.; Jacob, J.; Qureshi, R.; Gaikar, V. Relationship between Entry Grades and Attrition Trends in the Context of Higher Education: Implication for Open Innovation of Education Policy. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvarez-Meaza, I.; Pikatza-Gorrotxategi, N.; Rio-Belver, R.M. Knowledge Sharing and Transfer in an Open Innovation Context: Mapping Scientific Evolution. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vélez-Rolón, A.M.; Méndez-Pinzón, M.; Acevedo, O.L. Open Innovation Community for University–Industry Knowledge Transfer: A Colombian Case. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apei, S.; Zhongyuan, R. Distressing experiences of Chinese schooling winners: School infiltration in Chinese family parenting. Cogent Educ. 2022, 9, 2034245. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro-and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J. Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. Eur. Manag. J. 2015, 33, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miranda, J.; Rosas-Fernández, J.B.; Molina, A. Achieving Innovation and Entrepreneurship by Applying Education 4.0 and Open Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Cardiff, UK, 15–17 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Castillo-Martínez, I.M.; Sanabria-Z, J.; Miranda, J. Complex thinking in the framework of Education 4.0 and Open Innovation—A systematic literature review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sloane, P. A Guide to Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing: Advice from Leading Experts in the Field; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 0749463147. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Lin, R.; Lu, Y. A Visualized Analysis of the Research Current Hotspots and Trends on Innovation Chain Based on the Knowledge Map. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuad, D.R.S.M.; Musa, K.; Yusof, H. Innovation in Education. Innovation 2020, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Hare, W. The concept of innovation in education. Educ. Theory 1978, 28, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, C. The future of a concept: The case for sustaining’innovation’in education. In AARE 2006: Conference Papers, Abstracts and Symposia; Australian Association for Research in Education: Deakin, VIC, Australia, 2006; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Mykhailyshyn, H.; Kondur, O.; Serman, L. Innovation of education and educational innovations in conditions of modern higher education institution. J. Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian Natl. Univ. 2018, 5, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wai, C.P.M. Innovation and social impact in higher education: Some lessons from Tohoku university and the open university of Hong Kong. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 5, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brewer, D.J.; Tierney, W.G. Barriers to Innovation in US Higher Education. In Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation; Wildavsky, B., Kelly, A.P., Carey, K., Eds.; Academia: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 11–40. [Google Scholar]
- Findikoglu, F.; İlhan, D. Realization of a Desired Future: Innovation in Education. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 4, 2574–2580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serdyukov, P. Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2017, 10, 4–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foray, D.; Raffo, J. The emergence of an educational tool industry: Opportunities and challenges for innovation in education. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1707–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, A.M.; Spangehl, S.D. Innovations in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success. The ACE Series on Higher Education; ERIC: Minesota, CA, USA, 2011; ISBN 144220446X. [Google Scholar]
- Król, S. E–learning as an innovative method of education. World Sci. News 2016, 48, 178–182. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y.; Watterston, J. The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. J. Educ. Change 2021, 22, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, I.-F.; Chen, M.C.; Sun, Y.S.; Wible, D.; Kuo, C.-H. Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 600–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tkacová, H.; Králik, R.; Tvrdo\vn, M.; Jenisová, Z.; Martin, J.G. Credibility and Involvement of Social Media in Education—Recommendations for Mitigating the Negative Effects of the Pandemic among High School Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, A.G.; Pearce, S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2013, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, D.H. Cross cultural differences in online learning motivation. Educ. Media Int. 2004, 41, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, D.; Almusharraf, N.; Hatcher, R. Finding satisfaction: Intrinsic motivation for synchronous and asynchronous communication in the online language learning context. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 2563–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Esra, M.; Sevilen, Ç. Factors influencing EFL students’ motivation in online learning: A qualitative case study. J. Educ. Technol. Online Learn. 2021, 4, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, M.H.A.; Uddin, M.S.; Dey, A. Investigating the mediating role of online learning motivation in the COVID-19 pandemic situation in Bangladesh. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021, 37, 1513–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donath, J.; Boyd, D. Public displays of connection. BT Technol. J. 2004, 22, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukminin, A.; Muhaimin, M.; Prasojo, L.D.; Khaeruddin, K.; Habibi, A.; Marzulina, L.; Harto, K. Analyzing social media use in Tefl via the technology acceptance model in Indonesian higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Teach. Engl. Technol. 2022, 22, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Zoom | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.62 |
MS Teams | 0.13 | 0.61 | 0.52 |
E-learning platforms | 0.21 | 0.50 | 0.65 |
YouTube | 0.73 | 0.14 | 0.00 |
Skype | 0.58 | 0.14 | 0.04 |
Google Classroom | 0.42 | 0.61 | 0.03 |
Click Meeting | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.18 |
Discord | 0.52 | 0.22 | 0.26 |
0.77 | 0.08 | 0.16 | |
−0.05 | 0.22 | 0.62 | |
Explained value | 2.37 | 1.35 | 1.21 |
E-Learning | Traditional Learning | |
---|---|---|
Familiarity with information technologies | 0.25 | −0.14 |
Students’ interest in innovative e-learning technologies | 0.40 | −0.24 |
Resources necessary to participate in e-learning activities | 0.36 | −0.12 |
E-Learning | Traditional Learning | |
---|---|---|
Innovation of e-learning solutions | 0.32 | −0.10 |
The possibility of the future use of innovative e-learning | 0.58 | −0.30 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stecuła, K.; Wolniak, R. Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dissemination of Innovative E-Learning Tools in Higher Education in Poland. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020089
Stecuła K, Wolniak R. Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dissemination of Innovative E-Learning Tools in Higher Education in Poland. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022; 8(2):89. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020089
Chicago/Turabian StyleStecuła, Kinga, and Radosław Wolniak. 2022. "Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dissemination of Innovative E-Learning Tools in Higher Education in Poland" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 2: 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020089