A survey on distance learning popularity and credibility value in Ukraine

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

A survey on distance learning popularity and credibility value in Ukraine

Oliinyk O.V., PhD in Social Communication Studies, Associate Professor; Derevianko I.V., Lecturer; Kharkiv State Academy of Culture

Abstract

In this study, popularity of online mode of education was investigated by surveying 120 people, 92,6% of whom are living in Ukraine. The electronic survey was administered asking the people of different ages and background about their experience in online learning in general and learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, and learner-interface interactions in particular. In the survey, they answered questions about their satisfaction with the course in case they have taken any. In addition, the academic, social, and technical aspects of their online interactions were examined. A little bit more than a half of the participants (55,4 %) reported that their expectations such as text chat and the webcam, facilitated interaction among the students and with the instructor in the virtual classroom, were met. In describing their reasons for taking online courses, respondents most frequently cited wider resource availability, timesaving opportunities, enhancing student learning, and the availability of technology. The importance of students' ability to receive immediate feedback was highlighted across the various kinds of interaction. Nevertheless, 52,5% of the respondents stated that they would still prefer traditional learning in the traditional classroom in future, while only 35% would prefer online mode. It should be taken into account that the survey was given through a social network, i.e. participants were already digitally knowledgeable. This study has implications for those who are considering adopting virtual classroom technologies for their online or blended teaching in Ukraine.

Keywords: Synchronous, virtual classroom, learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, learner-interface, interaction, online courses, virtual classroom, technology adoption, technology uptake, technology use

Formulation of the problem

The term virtual classroom covers the different infrastructures using different technologies to create it. It is used to range from a closed-circuit interactive television system among different schools in a region or different regions, as explained by Hobbs and Christianson (8 p.37), to the variety of the internet applications of today. The infrastructure of the Internet-based synchronous virtual classroom should have some specifications. First of all, all the participants must definitely be included in the broadcasted program on the Internet. Broadcast information might include the audio and the video of the instructor, or some other information sources like animations, presentation slides, texts, stable or motion pictures. Secondly, the learners as well as the instructor can ask and answer questions or give comments during the class. These questions, answers, or comments should be shared by all the participants immediately. As stated by Pinar and Campo (18 p.1547) the effectiveness of any kind of virtual classroom depends on the infrastructure used in it. Interaction is crucial to student satisfaction in online courses.

The availability of technology and expertise with technology play an important role for faculty adopting virtual classroom technology. However, the synchronous virtual classroom is an easy-to-use tool, and requires minimal training for instructors to begin using. With regard to social factors, peer support and the ability to promote a sense of community were important. In contrast to the organizational and social factors, personal factors were more inclined to influence faculty to adopt synchronous virtual classrooms.

Synchronous virtual classrooms have an advantage over traditional courses during lecturing. During an interactive synchronous lecture, students can type questions and comments without interrupting the presenter. These questions benefit the students asking them as well as the entire class because every student can see the questions. This builds critical thinking skills by causing them to reflect on the questions and posit answers to them for themselves. It can also draw their attention to material they missed and provide information when the question is answered. Text comments additionally allow students to see the learning status of their peers and gauge their learning comparatively. However, this does require the instructor to multitask by monitoring the text chat or being present in the virtual classroom; not every instructor may be capable of multitasking in this manner. Students involved in virtual classrooms improved their problem solving skills, critical thinking, and written communication skills.

Analysis of recent research and publications

Over the course of the last decade, many changes have occurred in the emerging economies that support education programmes. One of the key changes is the wide-spread use of the internet in teaching, which facilitates communication among learners, teachers and sharing resources for learning. The cost of education is another factor driving the change. In emerging economies, with an increase in the population, the cost of conventional education has increased significantly (15); while on the other hand, the cost of storing and transmitting information has been falling due to innovations in DL technologies.

As a reasonable and more affordable alternative to conventional education, DL settings have begun to be used all over the world and research studies have focused on various aspects of distance learning settings in the last decade. For instance, Tricker, Rangecroft, Long and Gilroy (24 p.69) have focused on the quality of feedback, materials and tasks in DL. Fuks, Aurelio, Gerosa and De Ducena (5 p.25) motivate for the instructor's role in facilitating and managing counselling cooperative learning within the DL environment. Spangle, Hodne and Schierling (22) have meanwhile evaluated more than 1200 students in order to determine students' communication skills, the design of activities and the quality of feedback. Time management was also evaluated in DL practices, taking note of variables in technology, context and class size. Richardson and Newby (20) focused on students' responsibilities for their own learning. Puzziferro (19) investigated the relationships between student satisfaction, grades and performance in higher education. In another study, students' perspectives reflect that effective teachers should be visibly and actively involved in their learning, and should provide a flexible learning environment (26, p.69).

Following the improvements in DL systems, new features in synchronous communication augmented DL systems. Considering the idea that effective learning comes by means of real time interactions, a number of higher education institutions have begun to launch courses within synchronous settings. Virtual classrooms are one of the main components of synchronous settings, which share certain similarities with 'real' classrooms. In this context, Loniie and Andrews (10, p.10) have addressed the new technical and pedagogical roles and responsibilities of instructors in managing virtual classrooms. Stewart, Harlow and DeBacco (23) studied both student-instructor and student-student interactions. The authors found that enhanced video-conferencing, whiteboards, and chatting and discussion boards can support the interactions in synchronous DL. In addition, Lowrie (11 p.40) studied learning engagement in DL settings; Goldwater and Fogarty (6 p.1175) focused on classroom management in virtual classrooms; and Chiu, Yang, Liang and Chen (3 p.580) discussed the students' participation style and its effect on success in virtual classrooms.

Educators and researchers are concerned that quality assurance procedures for the design and delivery of DL courses have been ignored (16 p.260). Thus, with the increasing number of applications using DL, researchers have started to look at evaluations of the quality of DL at different dimensions. For example, Mo- hono-Mahlatsi and Van Tonder (14) studied evaluations of the mentoring system, with a focus on effective mentoring. Recommendations are made for different stakeholders on how the mentoring system can be improved for DL. Chaney, Dorman, Glessner, Green & Lara-Alecio (2) listed common quality indicators, including: clear analysis of audience; institutional support and resources; faculty support services; mission of the institution; reliability of technology; and review of instructional materials. Wang, Solan and Ghods (25) noticed that course quality and system quality interact with one another, and both lead to changes in the DL environment. They found that course quality significantly affects both system flexibility and the faculty- perceived impact of distance education.

Some studies have found no significant differences in assessing interaction between students in a synchronous and asynchronous course (13). On the other hand, several studies have found that well-designed courses can be more interactive than others (7). Roblyer and Ekhaml (20) designed a four-dimensional rubric that helps to score the interactivity of distance education based on four criteria: 1) social goals of interaction, 2) instructional goals of interaction, 3) types and uses of technologies, and 4) impact of interactive qualities as reflected in learner response. Northrup (17) proposed five different purposes for interaction: to interact with content, to collaborate, to converse, to help monitor and regulate learning, and to support performance.

Unsolved part of the problem

Certain broader implications were found for DL in higher education. For instance, when instructors become increasingly familiar with synchronous technologies, they will organise the learning environments more effectively. Instructors also need to be pioneers in terms of having the flexibility to make adjustments when the technology does not work as expected. Managers should choose software with the flexibility to support different levels of course design (25). Furthermore, learners should be taught how to use DL systems and be able to gain experience in new tasks such as researching, solving problems, and making collaborative studies in new settings.

The problem of trust in the effectiveness and credibility value of distance education has been gaining more and more importance in the recent years. More and more people are ready to try this new format; however, their first negative experience as well as some common prejudice can prevent the further spread and popularity of online mode.

Virtual classrooms have multiple uses, such as the ability to be accessed simultaneously from different locations, as a tool for collaboration and video calls, and as a platform to deliver and retrieve online lectures. Virtual classroom archives also provide professional development opportunities, both in terms of live virtual training and for self-review, by (re)viewing the archives of previous sessions. Synchronous systems can not only be integrated into online courses, but also into blended courses. Adding two or three virtual sessions enriches the asynchronous course and provides opportunities for students to communicate in real time with their instructor and other classmates. Encouraging instructors to talk to their peers about the use of virtual classrooms exposes fellow instructors to the knowledge of how synchronous technology may benefit them and enhance their instruction.

The purpose of the article

In emerging economies, the tendencies on using synchronous sessions of DL require assessing this kind of environments. So, identifying the advantages and limitations of the synchronous sessions in virtual classrooms when employing DL can provide crucial insights for distance educators.

Thus, this study evaluates distance learner perceptions about the quality of a course delivered in virtual classroom. The quality of the DL setting is investigated in three dimensions (teaching, learning and interaction), by a questionnaire.

The purpose of the study was to understand the capability of the synchronous virtual classroom in the modern day Ukraine. The research questions that are answered are as follows:

1. What perceptions do the Ukrainians have about the online mode?

2. Are those participants who had an online experience satisfied with the results?

3. Did the participants manage to apply the knowledge gained online in practice?

4. What goals professional or non-professional were they pursuing when taking an online course?

5. Was there enough interaction during the course?

6. Which mode traditional or virtual would they prefer in future and why?

Results

True e-learning attempts to recreate, as far as possible, more traditional face-to-face learning environments, whilst simultaneously trying to leverage the obvious differences between the bricks and mortar classroom and the virtual one.

In this study we have conducted a survey collecting data on the popularity and credibility value of online learning. 120 people, 92,6% of whom are living in Ukraine, took part in it. The questionnaire was given on a personal FB page with a request to answer. So the respondents are mostly the people who are active users of social networks. The age-groups were the following: 32,3% - under 25 years old, 37,2% - from 26 up to 40 years old, 28,9% - from 41 up to 55%. As for the sex differentiation mostly women were very active (79,6%) and only 23,1% were men. Out of those who responded 42,1% hold Master's Degree, 24% are undergraduate students and 11,6% have Bachelor's.

47,9% of respondents have no experience in online education, which is quite a high figure, while the 50,4% took an online course at least once. Though 75,2% would like to take an online course and only 18,2% are against such an idea.

Out of 80 answers 52,5% participants confirmed completing the course, while 32,5% dropped out and that is quite a high rate. These figures correlate with the rate of satisfaction with the courses. 55,4% of the respondents were satisfied and 33,8% were disappointed. Though the next piece of data gives us the following 66,7% managed to implement the knowledge gained in such a way in practice and only 28% didn't do it. 61.3% took an online course for professional purposes and for 25,3% it was a hobby. 50% state that the teacher-student interaction was satisfying and for 41,7% it was not. That as well as practically the same figures about student-student interaction (49,3% and 41,1% respectively) probably accounts for the general preferences towards traditional mode. The technical side was mostly satisfactory (58,9%) and only 32,9% encountered technical difficulties.

So though online tutoring, by extension, is similar to face-to-face tutoring, with the most obvious difference being that online tutors will rarely meet course participants and will therefore need to work harder to emulate the social atmosphere and group dynamic characteristic of the face-to-face course. That seems to be the biggest obstacle on the way to popularizing such modes in Ukraine. Online tutoring is part pastoral, part technical, part pedagogical and very hard work. It is neither a cheap nor an easy option - a point worth bearing in mind when considering the jump to online courses, whether you are a centre director, a course director or a potential tutor. Much more time is needed in online courses in what is often called the socialisation, 'getting to know each other' phase. Whilst 30 minutes may often suffice with a face-to-face group, it's often necessary to spend up to a week online to achieve the same feelings of group identity and collegiality.

Another negative is that institutions who implement e-learning often see it as the 'cheap' alternative to face-to-face teaching, and underestimate the amount of hours that an online tutor will need to put in to run a successful online course. Luckily this rather blinkered view is becoming less prevalent, as online course providers realise that offering quality online courses is the only way forward - and that this implies some investment in effective materials design, and in tutor training and tutor time.

Students perceived the virtual classroom as a means of enhancing learner-learner, learner-instructor, learner-content, and learner-interface interaction. The tools and strategies recommended by the students, instructor, and the archive analysis have implications for those who are considering teaching synchronously using the virtual classroom or adding synchronous components to asynchronous courses. The synchronous virtual classroom tools support authentic forms of interaction with reduced cost of travel and added flexibility. Instructors who use synchronous systems to teach are able to immediately address student understanding of the instructional concepts in an online setting. The best practices recommended in this study can help instructors conduct effective synchronous class sessions with enhanced interaction. This study recommends using different features such as text, audio, and video chat, polling, emoticons, application sharing, eboard, and breakout rooms to enhance interaction. The technical difficulties and disadvantages can be minimized by a) training the students ahead of time to use the applications, b) asking students to use the setup wizard before each class session, c) having students login ahead of time to help troubleshoot any potential technical difficulties, and d) providing a reference guide to address technical difficulties.

online learning interface student

Conclusion

Online learning requires active learning individuals who are responsible for their own learning, who can motivate themselves, who are aware of their weaknesses and strengths and who can use the appropriate strategies for facilitating their learning and overcoming the obstacles. When we consider that these learners are the nominees of training the next generations, becoming autonomous becomes much more important for them in training their own learners to become autonomous, because as Kumaravadivelu (9) points out, autonomous learners deserve autonomous teachers. Therefore, it can be concluded that one of the biggest advantages of the virtual classroom is the opportunity it gives to the students in encouraging them to become autonomous.

Basing on their findings, Chou and Liu (4) conclude in their study that students learning in a technology based virtual learning environment have better learning effectiveness than their counterparts in traditional classrooms. They also have better performances, have higher computer self-efficacy because of having higher control on their learning, are more willing to join the class interaction with the other students and the instructor. As a result, it can be concluded that the virtual classroom application facilitated increased authentic interaction, and allowed greater learner autonomy. Especially shy students stated that they could participate in the lesson much easily when they did not feel spotlighted as in a traditional classroom. When the number of answers given to the teachers' questions was considered, the positive effect of virtual classroom can be understood easily in engaging the learners to the lesson actively.

Beyth-Marom, Saporta and Caspi (1) strongly argue that students should not be perceived as a homogenous group, but as different individuals with different learning habits, learning styles, preferences and needs. While some students prefer to be autonomous and control their own learning fully, others may need more guidance of the teachers. Therefore, while designing courses we have to find out their preferences, and as they state, we have to be more creative in responding to various styles. While no single instructional method or educational technology can be effective for all types of students, advances in technologies can help us in providing variety in our instruction.

If the degree of enjoyment the learners get by the content and the method of delivery is considered as the criterion of evaluating the success of the program, as argued by Mantyla and Gividen (12), virtual classroom could be regarded as an effective and successful online course. When the learners' different learning styles and preferences are considered, however, it would be advisable to include a face-to-face component in order to address to the group of students who prefer it.

Researchers are encouraged to address the following aspects and limitations as they expand upon the work done in this study. Some methodological limitations of this study include the sample size, monomethod source bias, and use of self-report data. The survey was posted online on a personal Facebook page and unfortunately, many people did not respond. This may be due to the sampling procedure: a lack of familiarity with the material and asking people to complete a survey without any incentive or personal investment. It is also recommended that researchers use larger sample sizes to examine the relationship among demographic characteristics such as age, years of professional experience, and rank/title. Future research can ascertain whether people using virtual classroom technology take online courses at the undergraduate or graduate levels, or some combination of the two, or in some areas of life-long education. Scholars should also incorporate information about the specific courses taught within virtual classrooms. An examination of virtual classroom use by the same instructors over time could help to demonstrate whether instructional strategies within synchronous online environments diminish, expand, or remain constant over time. The subject of the course and the student audience taught also has an influence on the use and adoption of virtual classroom technologies that should be examined. This study did not analyze the data based on the subject area or propose best practices for specific types of content delivery based on subject area; however, it would benefit instructors and administrators in Ukraine for future studies to address these areas.

References

1. Beyth-Marom R., Saporta K., Caspi A. (2005) Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Tutorials: Factors Affecting Students' Preferences and Choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.V:37, № 3, pp. 245-262.

2. Chaney B.H., Eddy J.M., Dorman S.M., Glessner L., Green B.L., Lara-Alecio R. 2007. Development of an instrument to assess student opinions of the quality of distance education courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3): 145-164.

3. Chiu C.H., Yang H.Y., Liang T.H., Chen H.P. 2010. Elementary students' participation style in synchronous online communication and collaboration. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(6): 571-586.

4. Chou S.H., Liu C.H. (2005) Learning Effectiveness in a web-based Virtual Learning Environment: A Learner Control Perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. V: 21, pp. 65-76.

5. Fuks A, Gerosa MA & Lucena CJP 2002. The development and application of distance learning courses on the internet. The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 17(1): 23-38.

6. Goldwater P.M., Fogarty T.J. 2012. Location does not have to be destiny: student evaluation and integrity controls in a management accounting class. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(12): 1173-1179.

7. Hirumi A., Bermudez A. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 116.

8. Hobbs Vicki, M. Christianson, J Scott (1997) Virtual Classrooms: Educational Opportunity through Two-Way Interactive Television, Technomic Publication, Lancaster.

9. Kumaravadivelu B. Method, antimethod, postmethod. In Alan Pulverness (Ed.) IATEFL 2002 Conference Selections (pp. 11-22). London: International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.

10. Loniie A.L., Andrews T. 2009. Creating a rich learning environment for remote postgraduate learners. Education in Rural Australia, 19(1):3-13.

11. Lowrie T. 2007. Learning engagement in distance and rural settings: Four Australian cases. Learning Environments Research, 10(1):35-51.

12. Mantyla K., Gividen J.R. (1997) Distance Learning: A Step-by-Step Guide for Trainers, ASTD Publication, Alexandria.

13. Miller W.W., Webster J. (1997, December). A comparison of interaction needs and performances of distance learners in synchronous and a synchronous classes. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention, Las Vegas, NV.

14. Mohono-Mahlatsi L., Van Tonder F. 2006. The effectiveness of mentoring in the Distance Teacher Education Programme at the Lesotho College of Education: Student teachers' and tutors' perceptions. South African Journal of Education, 26: 383-396.

15. Moore M., Kearsley G. 1996. Distance education: a systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

16. Motiwalla L., Tello S. 2000. Distance learning on the Internet: An exploratory study. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4):253-264.

17. Northrup P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2), 31-39.

18. Pinar F.J.R., Campo A.F.D., (1998) “Multimedia Systems Based on Satellite Technology”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, V: 30, pp: 15431549.

19. Puzziferro M. 2008. Online technologies selfefficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2):72-89.

20. Richardson J.C., Newby T. 2006. The role of students' cognitive engagement in online learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1):23-37.

21. Roblyer M., Ekhaml L. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.

22. Spangle M., Hodne G., Schierling D. 2002. Approaching value-centered education through the eyes of an electronic generation: Strategies for distance learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

23. Stewart A.R., Harlow D.B., DeBacco K. 2011. Students' experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3): 357- 381.

24. Tricker M., Rangecroft M., Long P., Gilroy P. 2001. Evaluating distance education courses: the student perception. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2):165-177.

25. Wang J., Solan D., Ghods A. 2010. Distance learning success - a perspective from sociotechnical systems theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(3):321-329.

26. Young S. 2006. Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2):65-77.

Размещено на Allbest.ru