Driving value creation in the new economy following the COVID-19 crisis. Data-mining students’ satisfaction from online teaching in the virtual academic climate.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.5.1991Keywords:
Virtual academy, Online teaching, Covid-19, StudentsAbstract
This study examines the advantages of online teaching from the perspective of students at eleven institutions of higher education, universities and colleges, in Israel. The study was conducted at the end of the second semester of their academic studies, after students had experienced “face to face” studies, and they were asked to reply freely to an open question on their evaluation of the benefits of transitioning to online teaching. Students were forced to cope with a new reality, where they were compelled to study in a “digital classroom”. The academic-social climate, the conduct of lecturer-student relations, and the relations among the students themselves, changed instantaneously, with no preparation by any of those involved. Hence, the research findings can illuminate the strengths of online teaching, with a view to the future. Was the impact of teaching and learning in the coronavirus circumstances a one-time event for the students or one from which it is possible to examine and embrace new ways of learning as they see them?
Based on 1,937 fully completed surveys from eleven academic institutions, we employed a mixed methods research design. Major themes were manually tagged, and an empirical model was developed. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the model’s goodness-of-fit. Findings present a host of parameters that have a significant positive influence on students’ positive perception of the transition to online teaching.
This study is the first to thoroughly examine advantages and disadvantages of the transition to online teaching among a large group of students, from several different academic institutions, and presents both qualitative and empirical results. Ethical implications of the findings are discussed.
References
References
Almog, T., & Almog, O., 2020. All the lies of the academy, Rishon Letzion: Yedioth Ahronoth Books. [Hebrew].
Anderson, G.J., 1970. Effects of classroom social climate on individual learning. American Educational Research Journal, 7, 135-152.
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H., 1997. Online Forums (1): New Platforms for Professional Development and Group Collaboration. October 2009. Available online: http://www.jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol3/issue3/anderson.html
Blomeyer, R., 2002. Virtual schools and e-learning in K-12 environment: Emergent policy and practice. Policy issues – A research-based analysis of educational issues. NCREL – North Central Regional Educational laboratory. http://ericit.org/fulltext/iro21677.pdf.
Crane, C., 2020. Transforming our perspectives as language professionals during COVID-19. Second Language Research & Practice, 1(1), 168–173.
Davies, J., & Graff, M., 2005. Performance in e-learning: Online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 657-663.
Dyson, F.J., 1998. Imagined worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
do Nascimento, T.T., Porto, J.B., & Kwantes, C.T., 2018. Transformational leadership and follower proactivity in a volunteer workforce. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(4), 565-576. doi:10.1002/nml.21308
Eckhaus, E., & Sheaffer, Z., 2018. Happiness enrichment and sustainable happiness. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 14(4), 1079–1097. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9641-0
Felix, U., 2005. E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 17, 85-100.
Fox, R, Luszk, M.B., Schmuck, S., 1966. Diagnosing classroom learning. Chicago: Environments. Science Research Associates.
Fraser, B.J., 1982. Development of short forms of several classroom environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 221-227.
Fraser, B.J., 1986. Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.
Fraser, B.J., 1989. Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 307-327.
Fraser, B.J., & Waldberg, H.J. (Eds.), 1991. Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, consequences. London: Pergamon.
Gatfield, T., 1999. Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-369.
Guri-Rosenblit, S., 2003. A top-down strategy to enhance information technologies into Israeli higher education. Retrieved January, 2009, from www.irrodl.org/content/v2.2/rosenblit.html
Hammond, M., 1999. Issues associated with participation in online forums – the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4, 353-367.
Hativa, N., 2002. First class in the course. Al Hagova, 1, 14-15. [Hebrew]
Haythornthwaite, C., 1997. A social network study of the growth of community among distance learners. Retrieved October, 2009. Available online: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~is/publications/infres/paper49.html
Healy, J.M., 1998. Failure to connect. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Henri, F., 1991. Computer conference and content analysis. In A.R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Heidelberg: Verlag-Springer.
Hiltz, S.R., 1995. Teaching in a virtual classroom. International conference on Computer Assisted Instruction ICCAI 95'.
Ivzori-Erel, A., Bar-Sela, G., & Cohen, M. Introducing the concept sense of place: A mediator between place of care and emotional distress of patients with cancer at the end of life. Psycho-Oncology, n/a. doi:10.1002/pon.5530
Keith, H. (Ed.), 1999. Higher education through open and distance learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & D’Apollonia, S., 2001. Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449-521.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003449Mayo, P., 2020. The Corona challenge to higher education. Culture e Studi del Sociale, 5(1, Special), 371-376.
Meister, J., 2002. Pillars of e-learning success. New York, NY: Corporate University Exchange.
Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O., & Oren, A., 1999. Web-based learning environments: Current pedagogical and technological state. International Journal of Research in Computers in Education, 33(1), 55–76.
Moos, R.H., 1979. Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nachmias, R., & Mioduser, D., 2001. Integrating the internet in education. Eureka – Journal for the Instruction of Sciences and Technology in Elementary Schools, 14, 6–16 [Hebrew].
Nachmias R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Lahav, O., 1999. Taxonomy of educational websites – A tool for supporting research development and implementation of web-based learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(2), 141–158.
Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., & Shemla, A., 2000. Internet usage by students in an Israeli high school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), 55-73.
Nachmias, R., & Segev, L., 2003. Usage of content in web-supported academic courses. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(1), 5–15.
Passig, D., 2003. A taxonomy of future higher thinking skills. Informatics in Education – An International Journal, 2(1), 79–92.
Pifarré, M., 2007. Scaffolding through the network: Analysing the promotion of improved online scaffolds among university students. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 389-408.
Renshaw, P.D., 1992. On the experimental context: Parents’ interpretations of the education motive during teaching. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Children’s development within social context. PA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogers, D.L., 2000. A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. Educational Technology Review, 20, 19-33.
Saba, F., 2001. Distance education: Covering distance education since 1995. Retrieved May 3, 2007, from http://www.distance-educator.com/portals/research_dintro.html
Salmon, G., 2000. E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan-Page.
Salmon, G., 2019. E-moderating: The key to online teaching and learning. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
Salpeter, J., 1998. Taking stock: What’s the research saying? Technology and Learning, 18, 24–40.
Schubert, W.H., 1986. Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York.
Sherry-Steinberg, O., 2000. The development of social climate in discussion forums integrated in different models of distance learning courses. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, School of Education, Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]
Smith, J.K., Smith, L.F., & de Lisi, R., 2001. Natural classroom assessment: Designing seamless instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Tel Aviv University., 2003. Activity report on academic online learning at Tel Aviv University 2001–2002 [Hebrew].
Terrell, S.R., 2012. Mixed-methods research methodologies. Qualitative Report, 17(1), 254-280.
Vygotzky, L.S., 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadmany, R., 2017. Digital pedagogy – from theory to practice. Tel Aviv: Mofet, Kibbutzim College. [Hebrew]
Wadmany, R., 2018. Digital pedagogy – opportunities for different learning. Tel Aviv: Mofet, Kibbutzim College. [Hebrew]
Wenglinsky, H., 1998. Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Wodecki, A., 2006. Why e-learning at university? Dialogue & Universalism, 16, 81-87. Retrieved May 1, 2009 from Academic Search Premier Database.
Wolcott, L., 1995. The distance teacher as reflective practitioner. Education in Technology, 34(3), 49-55.
Wright, J., 2008. Web-based versus in-class: An exploration of how instructional methods influence postsecondary students' environmental literacy. Journal of Environmental Education, 39, 33-46.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Eyal Eckhaus, Nitza Davidovitch
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access Publishing
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning operates an Open Access Policy. This means that users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, is that authors control the integrity of their work, which should be properly acknowledged and cited.
