Integrating students' perspectives about online learning: a hierarchy of factors

被引：60

作者：

Van Wart, Montgomery ^{[1
]}

Ni, Anna ^{[1
]}

Medina, Pamela ^{[1
]}

Canelon, Jesus ^{[1
]}

Kordrostami, Melika ^{[1
]}

Zhang, Jing ^{[1
]}

Liu, Yu ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Dev JHB Coll Business & Publ Adm, 5500 Univ Pkwy, San Bernardino, CA 92407 USA

来源：

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION | 2020年 / 17卷 / 01期

关键词：

Online education; Online teaching; Student perceptions; Online quality; Teaching presence; Cognitive presence; Student presence; SOCIAL PRESENCE; CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION; FACULTY PERCEPTIONS; FLIPPED CLASSROOMS; TEACHING ONLINE; SELF-EFFICACY; SATISFACTION; EDUCATION; COMMUNITY; MODEL;

D O I：

10.1186/s41239-020-00229-8

中图分类号：

G40 [教育学];

学科分类号：

040101 ; 120403 ;

摘要：

This article reports on a large-scale (n = 987), exploratory factor analysis study incorporating various concepts identified in the literature as critical success factors for online learning from the students' perspective, and then determines their hierarchical significance. Seven factors--Basic Online Modality, Instructional Support, Teaching Presence, Cognitive Presence, Online Social Comfort, Online Interactive Modality, and Social Presence--were identified as significant and reliable. Regression analysis indicates the minimal factors for enrollment in future classes-when students consider convenience and scheduling-were Basic Online Modality, Cognitive Presence, and Online Social Comfort. Students who accepted or embraced online courses on their own merits wanted a minimum of Basic Online Modality, Teaching Presence, Cognitive Presence, Online Social Comfort, and Social Presence. Students, who preferred face-to-face classes and demanded a comparable experience, valued Online Interactive Modality and Instructional Support more highly. Recommendations for online course design, policy, and future research are provided.

引用

页数：22

共 94 条

[1]

Al-Gahtani S.S., 2016, Applied Computing and Informatics, V12, P27, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.ACI.2014.09.001

[2]

Alqurashi E., 2016, Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), V9, P45, DOI [10.19030/cier.v9i1.9549, DOI 10.19030/CIER.V9I1.9549]

[3]

Anderson T., 2016, A fourth presence for the Community of Inquiry model

[4] Social Presence within the Community of Inquiry Framework [J].

Annand, David .

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED LEARNING, 2011, 12 (05) :40-56

[5]

[Anonymous], 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis

[6]

[Anonymous], 2012, Education Next, DOI DOI 10.4236/OALIB.1107398

[7] Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample [J].

Arbaugh, J. B. ;

Cleveland-Innes, Martha ;

Diaz, Sebastian R. ;

Garrison, D. Randy ;

Ice, Philip ;

Richardson, Jennifer C. ;

Swan, Karen P. .

INTERNET AND HIGHER EDUCATION, 2008, 11 (3-4) :133-136

[8] How much does "Subject matter" matter? A study of disciplinary effects in on-line MBA courses [J].

Arbaugh, JB .

ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 2005, 4 (01) :57-73

[9] Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework [J].

Armellini, Alejandro ;

De Stefani, Magdalena .

BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 47 (06) :1202-1216

[10] Integration of good practices of active methodologies with the reuse of student-generated content [J].

Arruabarrena, Rosa ;

Sanchez, Ana ;

Blanco, Jose M. ;

Vadillo, Jose A. ;

Usandizaga, Imanol .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2019, 16 (1)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 →