Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the different views of educators and students on Forced Online Distance Education during the Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lock-down. Such differences in views can be a source of misunderstanding, leading to unintended side effects. Online open-ended surveys resulted in 1341 comments received from 210 university educators and 347 students. The coding, based on the principles of Grounded Theory, resulted in 35 concepts, organized into 6 categories. The main findings were that students and educators shared most of the negative and positive views; however, there exist unique views that are not shared between the two groups. The negative views outweigh the positive ones, and educators are more negative than students. The category 'Perceived usefulness' is the most positive and 'Technology' the most negative category. Positive views were attributed to the quality of life, not the quality of the study. The most important contribution of the work to the existing body of knowledge is the comparative analysis of the unconstrained views of students and their educators about Online Learning Environments (OLE) as the workhorse of Forced Online Distance Education (FODE). The results of this study can be helpful for institutional evaluators, since they reveal undesirable side effects that are usually overlooked. The study brings a new, deeper look at Forced Online Distance Education and the non-neutral role of digital technology in it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- FODE:
-
Forced Online Distance Education
- COVID-19:
-
Corona virus disease 2019
- TAM:
-
Technology Acceptance Model
- UTAUT:
-
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
- GETAMEL:
-
General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for e-learning
- CCUM:
-
Computer Center of the University of Maribor
- OLE:
-
Online Learning Environments
- POCs:
-
Preliminary Organizing Categories
- LA:
-
Level of Agreement
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analyzing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036.
Afip, L. A., Norshazrina, N., & Hassan, A. A. (2020). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of emergency forced remote education in learning english. Kresna Social Science and Humanities Research, 1, 1–6.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), em1860. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8240.
Al-Samarraie, H., Teng, B. K., Alzahrani, A. I., & Alalwan, N. (2018). E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 2003–2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1298088.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.
Banno, M. (2016). Confidence intervals for Cohen's h effect size. Stack exchange. Retrieved from https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/80082/confidence-intervals-for-cohens-h-effect-size. Accessed 12 Dec 2020.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001.
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage.
Chen, T., Peng, L., Yin, X., Rong, J., Yang, J. & Cong, G. (2020). Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Healthcare, 8(3), 200. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030200.
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., ... & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7.
Czerepaniak-Walczak, M. (2020). Respect for the right to education in the COVID-19 pandemic time. Towards reimagining education and reimagining ways of respecting the right to education. The New Educational Review, 62(4), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2020.62.4.05.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
Dilmaç, S. (2020). Students’ opinions about the distance education to art and design courses in the pandemic process. World Journal of Education, 10(3), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n3p113.
Downes, S. (2010). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking, 1–26. IGI global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001.
Flores, M. A., & Gago, M. (2020). Teacher education in times of COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: National, institutional and pedagogical responses. Journal of Education for Teaching, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1799709.
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173661.
Gray, M. L. (2016). Student Satisfaction as an Outcome of the Frequency and Type of Teacher Interaction in Online Courses. Northcentral University.
Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience—a research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331.
Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.113.
Howell, D. (2001). Elements of effective e-learning: Three design methods to minimize side effects of online courses. College Teaching, 49(3), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550109595855.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J. J. (1996). A motivational model of microcomputer usage. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518115.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 279e305. https://doi.org/10.2307/249498.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 7–41. https://doi.org/10.5465/256350.
Kamaludin, K., Chinna, K., Sundarasen, S., Khoshaim, H., Nurunnabi, M., Baloch, G. M., ... & Hossain, S. F. A. (2020). Coping with COVID-19 and movement control order (MCO): experiences of university students in Malaysia. Heliyon, e05339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05339.
Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713.
Lee, D. K. (2016). Alternatives to P value: Confidence interval and effect size. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 69(6), 555. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2016.69.6.555.
Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2).
Liao, C., Palvia, P. C., & Chen, J. (2009). Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). International Journal of Information Management, 29, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.004.
Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature review–faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and motivators. Online journal of distance learning administration, 8(1), 1–16.
Martorella, P. H. (1997). Technology and the social studies—or: Which way to the sleeping giant? Theory & Research in Social Education, 25(4), 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1997.10505828.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning online learning and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001.
Mseleku, Z. (2020). A literature review of e-learning and e-teaching in the era of Covid-19 pandemic. SAGE, 57(52), 588–597.
Pearcy, M. (2014). Student, teacher, professor: Three perspectives on online education. The History Teacher, 47(2), 169–185.
Ploj Virtič, M., Dolenc, K., Šorgo, A. (2021). Changes in online distance learning behaviour of university students during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, and development of the model of forced distance online learning preferences. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.393.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press.
Rogowska, A. M., Kuśnierz, C., & Bokszczanin, A. (2020). Examining anxiety, life satisfaction, general health, stress and coping styles during COVID-19 pandemic in Polish sample of university students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 13, 797–811. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S266511.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.
Sepulveda-Escobar, P., & Morrison, A. (2020). Online teaching placement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820981.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm, last accessed on Nov 22th 2020.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189–202.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124e143. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443.
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686.
Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1–A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Witze, A. (2020). Universities will never be the same after the coronavirus crisis. Nature, 582(7811), 162–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01518-y.
Zhao, Y., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., Smith, B., & Tan, H. S. (2004). The non-neutrality of technology: A theoretical analysis and empirical study of computer mediated communication technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1–2), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.2190/5N93-BJQR-3H4Q-7704.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the help of Dr Michelle Gadpaille in polishing the language. The authors would like to thank the students and educators who have been involved in the research, without whom this work would not have been possible.
Funding
This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency under the core projects: “Information Systems”, grant no. P2-0057 (Šorgo, Andrej) and “Computationally Intensive Complex Systems”, grant no. P1-0403 (Ploj Virtič, Mateja).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dolenc K. (D.K.), Šorgo A. (Š.A.), and Ploj Virtič M. (P.V.M.) designed the study and the instrument. D.K. collected data, D.K., A.Š. and P.V.M. coded and analysed the results, A.Š. developed a theoretical framework, which was discussed and accepted by D.K., A.Š. and P.V.M.. D.K. wrote the draft of the paper which was reviewed and improved by input of A.Š. and P.V.M.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The article is an original work of all the authors, and has not been submitted elsewhere, nor is it under consideration for publication in any other journal. No copyrighted material is included in the paper.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dolenc, K., Šorgo, A. & Ploj Virtič, M. The difference in views of educators and students on Forced Online Distance Education can lead to unintentional side effects. Educ Inf Technol 26, 7079–7105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10558-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10558-4