Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

“I felt like I was missing out on something”: an evaluation of using remote technology in the classroom

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As technology develops in Higher Education (HE), distance learning has adopted many different guises and supports many different needs (Keane 2013). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of Double Robotics on a Doctoral (level 8) postgraduate course at a HE institution. The aim of this project was to generate an understanding of student and tutor experiences more generally, while examining the feasibility and impact of Double Robotics within a doctoral programme more specifically. Data were collected through a series of focus group interviews with the student and tutors over the course of a single semester (10-weeks). The data were subject to an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2013). The findings of the study shed light on the interactive pitfalls of the technology and contribute to understanding the experiences of distance learners’ engagement. Four key themes were identified: quality of technology, classroom familiarity, tutor facilitation and user isolation. The significance of this study lies not only in assessing the feasibility of Double Robotics but, specifically, shedding light on the nuanced understanding tutors require to enrol and engage distance learners remotely. Most notable, the ‘isolation’ of the learner points to a heightened awareness of context that can help tutors develop robust and durable environments, which embrace both traditional classroom settings and facilitate the addition of distance learners. Building upon Tucker (2013), technological advancements in the classroom must be carefully designed to appreciate the context of the learning environment, the teacher, and the pedagogic experiences of the learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Almarashdeh, I. (2016). Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behaviour, 63, 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Althaus, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with online discussions. Communication Education, 46, 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning. Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, K. (2015). Telepresence robots putting online students in class at Michigan state. http://www.educationdive.com/news/telepresence-robots-putting-online-students-in-class-at-michigan-state/368313/. Accessed June 2017.

  • Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. M. (2016). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 288–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976–993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4), 333–338.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Shang, R., & Harris, A. (2006). The efficacy of case method teaching in an online asynchronous learning environment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4, 72–86. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdet.2006040106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, D. (2004). University instructors’ reflections on their first online teaching experiences. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. B. (2013). A closer look at distance learning in the Kansas City Missouri school district. In Distance education statewide, institutional, and international applications (pp. 111–119). Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushion, C., & Townsend, R. (2018). Technology-enhanced learning in coaching: A review of literature. Educational Review, 71(5), 631–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.145701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavin, M. (2016). Technology-enhanced learning and higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(4), 632–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, A., & Paton, K. (2008). “Barriers” to participation in higher education? Depends who you ask and how. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 10(2), 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. L., Corman, S. L., Drab, S. R., Meyer, S. M., & Smith, R. B. (2009). Instructor satisfaction with a technology-based resource for diabetes education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(3), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19.

  • Hartnett, M., George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted, and situation-dependent. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 20–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information Communication and Society, 8(2), 125–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, P. (2015). The Virtual University. Science & Society, 16(2), 146–148 https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201440016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. L., & Thomas, G. L. (2013). Coaching as 'scaffolded' practice: Further insights into sport pedagogy. Sports Coaching Review, 4(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2016.1157321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kartensi, T. (2013). The MOOC. What the research says. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10, 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, K. (2013). Blending and flipping distance education. Distance Learning, 10(4), 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-classcourses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kori, K., Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., & Mäeots, M. (2014). Supporting reflection in technology-enhanced learning. Educational Research Review, 11, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(5), 593–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindolf, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., & Churchill, D. (2014). The effect of social interaction on learning engagement in a social networking environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 401–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, C., & Mathews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintyre, R., & Macdonald, J. (2011). Remote from what? Perspectives of distance learning students in remote rural areas of Scotland. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(4), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFee, G. (2014). Ethical considerations. In L. Nelson, R. Groom, & P. Potrac (Eds.), Research methods in sports coaching (pp. 98–108). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 722.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2002). Educational Psychology: Constructing learning (3rd ed.) Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclawhon, R., & Cutright, M. (2012). Instructor learning styles as indicators of online faculty satisfaction. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 341e353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milman, N. (2014). Is online learning for all learners? Distance Learning, 11(4), 13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, C. S. L., & Cheung, W. S. (2007). Comparing face to face, tutor led discussion and online discussion in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 455–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M., & Gerodimos, V. (2013). Can learning of basketball be enhanced through a web- based multimedia course? An experimental study. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3), 459–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–07, National Centre for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. DC: Department of Education. Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, M. F. (1993). The hexagon of cooperative freedom: A distance education theory attuned to computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 3(2) Retreived 1st September 2018 from http://www.nettskolen.com/forskning/21/hexagon.html

  • Rennie, F. (2003). The use of flexible learning resources for geographically distributed rural students. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, B., & Latchem, C. (2003). Teacher education: Challenge and change. In B. Robinson & C. Latchem (Eds.), Teacher education through open and distance learning (pp. 1–27). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Cordell, S. (2011). An examination of higher education students’ opinions of the lecture capture system Tegrity. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 3(1), 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., Wadsworth, D., Hastie, P., & Rudisill, M. (2014). Incorporating E-learning to enhance instruction and student experiences in collegiate physical activity courses. Kinesiology Review, 3(4), 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake R. (2005). Qualitative case studies in Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand oaks/London/New Delhi. Sage publications.

  • Steffens, K. (2015). Competences, learning theories and MOOCs: Recent developments in lifelong learning. European Journal of Education., 50(1), 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250 ERIC database.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, L. B., Cole, M. T., & Shelley, D. J. (2010). Instructor satisfaction with teaching business law: Online vs. Onground. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 6(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2011). Learning methods for teacher education: The use of online discussions to improve critical thinking. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabor, S. W. (2007). Narrowing the distance: Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, C. (2013). The basics of blended instruction. ASCD Educational Leadership: Technology Rich Learning, 70(6), 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants for their generous contribution of time and sharing of experiences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK

    Charles L. T. Corsby & Anna Bryant

Authors
  1. Charles L. T. Corsby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Bryant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles L. T. Corsby.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corsby, C.L.T., Bryant, A. “I felt like I was missing out on something”: an evaluation of using remote technology in the classroom. Educ Inf Technol 25, 4897–4914 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10207-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10207-2

Keywords