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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
APA StyleValantinaitė, I., & Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė, Ž. (2020). The Change in Students’ Attitude towards Favourable and Unfavourable Factors of Online Learning Environments. Sustainability, 12(19), 7960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197960