The Effect of Learners’ Sex and STEM/non-STEM Majors on Remote Learning: A National Study of Undergraduates in Qatar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.4.2262Keywords:
remote learning, student satisfaction, STEM, COVID-19 pandemic, learners’ sex, QatarAbstract
The sudden and prolonged disruption to learning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of traditional higher education and revealed the need for a rapid transformation. Lessons from the pandemic have made it clear that the future of higher education will rely heavily on e-learning and the agility of institutions to seamlessly transition between face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and fully online learning. As institutions begin their post-pandemic planning, the online experiences of different groups of learners during the pandemic offer valuable insight into what is working and what isn’t. Consequently, this study explored the effect of learners’ sex and discipline (STEM/non-STEM) on students’ perceptions of (1) course design, (2) assessment, (3) student behavior, (4) instructor behavior, and (5) tools and technologies during forced online learning. Additionally, the researchers investigated the effect of sex and discipline on students’ overall satisfaction with remote learning and explored the influence of students’ perceptions on satisfaction. Study participants were 1,825 undergraduates at eight universities in Qatar. Using the QLT evaluation rubric, the researchers adapted a 27-item survey to measure students’ perceptions of key aspects of quality online teaching and learning and to gauge overall satisfaction. Using a SEM approach, study results showed that (1) male students had more positive perceptions of instructor behavior, assessment, and tools and technologies compared to females, (2) males were more satisfied overall with their remote learning experiences, (3) students in STEM disciplines had significantly more negative perceptions of all the aspects of online learning explored in the study, (4) students in STEM disciplines were significantly less satisfied overall with remote learning, and (5) students’ perceptions of tools and technologies, assessment, and course design most influenced their overall satisfaction. These findings have important implications for faculty development and post-pandemic planning in higher education in general and the Gulf in particular.
References
Abdelaziz, M., Kamel, S. S., Karam, O., & Abdelrahman, A., 2011. Evaluation of e-learning program versus traditional lecture instruction for undergraduate nursing students in a faculty of nursing. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, [e-journal] 6(2), pp. 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2010.10.003.
Adamus, T.; Kerres, M.; Getto, B.; Engelhardt, N., 2009. Gender and E-tutoring: A concept for gender sensitive E-tutor training programs. 5th European Symposium on Gender & ICT Digital Cultures: Participation – Empowerment – Diversity. 5-7 March 2009. University of Bremen. Available at: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/soteg/gict2009/proceedings/GICT2009_Adamus.pdf. [Accessed 17 February 2021].
Albalawi, M. S., 2007. Critical factors related to the implementation of web-based instruction by higher- education faculty at three universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. PhD. The University of West Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v2n2p124.
Alebaikan, R., 2010. Perceptions of blended learning in Saudi universities. PhD. University of Exeter. Available at: http://search.shamaa.org/FullRecord?ID=268639. [Accessed 30 January 2021].
Al-Khraif, R., Salam, A. A., Elsegaey, I., & Al-Mutairi, A., 2015. Changing age structures and ageing scenario of the Arab world. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), pp.763–785.
Al-Malki, A., Kaufer, D., Ishizaki, S., Dreher, K., 2012. Arab women in Arab news: Old stereotypes and new media. Doha, Qatar: Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Publishing.
Al-Rabiaah, A., Temsah, M., Al-Eyadhy, A., Hasan, G., Al-Zamil, F., Al-Subaie, S., Alsohime, F., Jamal, A., Alhaboob, A., Al-Saadi, B., & Somily, A., 2020. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-Corona Virus (MERS-CoV) associated stress among medical students at a university teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 13(5), pp.687–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.01.005.
American Institutes for Research, 2016. STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.air.org/system/files/downloads/report/STEM-2026-Vision-for-Innovation-September-2016.pdf>. [Accessed 03 February 2021].
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., Schuberth, F., 2020. How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management 2(57)103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003.
Beyer, S. 2008., Gender differences and intra-gender differences amongst management information systems students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(3), pp.301-310.
Bryant, J., & Bodfish, S., 2014. The relationship of student satisfaction to key indicators for colleges and universities. Noel-Levitz, Inc. 2350 Oakdale Boulevard, Coralville, IA.
Cain, G., 2017., Course rubrics: CSU’s QOLT. Brainstorm in progress, [blog] 27 September. Available at: <https://geoffcain.com/blog/course-rubrics-csus-qolt/> [Accessed 23 January 2021].
California State University, 2021. CSU Quality learning and teaching (QLT) rubric sections and objectives. Available at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ilqtDHjYfuJfjq1f8lG_bGhH9Xskcad-2a8aaPmnHG8/edit?usp=sharing [Accessed 09 September 2020].
Cangur, S., & Ercan, I., 2015. Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), p.14-21.
Carr Chellman, A., 2014. Where the boys are: Understanding online learning and gender. eLearn Magazine, [online] 03 August. Available at: <https://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=2662455> [Accessed 17 December 2020].
Cheema, S., Maisonneuve, P., Abraham, A., Chaabna, K., Tom, A., Ibrahim, H., Mushannen, T., Yousuf, W., Lowenfels, A. & Mamtani, R., 2021. Factors associated with perceived stress in Middle Eastern university students, Journal of American College Health. 10.1080/07448481.2020.1865979.
Chen, B., Bastedo, K., & Howard, W., 2018. Exploring design elements for online STEM courses: Active learning, engagement & assessment design. Online Learning, 22(2), pp.59- 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1369.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F., 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin 39(7), 3-7.
Cutler, Z., 2014. Unexpected ways millennials are impacting education. The Huffington Post. [online] 21 July. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-cutler/how-millennials-impact- education_b_5604865.html. [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Drugas, M. I., 2020. Teaching psychology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges for online courses. Psychological Thought, 13(2), pp.273-285. https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v13i2.541.
Faize, F., & Nawaz, M., 2020. Evaluation and improvement of students’ satisfaction in online learning during COVID-19. Open Praxis, 12(4), pp.495-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.4.1153.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), pp.39-50.
General Secretariat for Development Planning, 2011. Qatar National Development Strategy 2011-2016: Towards Qatar National Vision 2030. [pdf] Gulf Publishing and Printing Company, Doha. Available at: https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/nds1/Documents/Downloads/NDS_EN_0.pdf [Accessed 21 January 2021].
Golkowska, K. U., 2014. Arab women in the Gulf and the narrative of change: The case of Qatar.
Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 16(1), pp.51-64.
Gregory, M., 2020. How the pandemic is changing STEM education: How in person does science have to be? Sierra Magazine, [online] 28 September. Available at: <https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/how-pandemic-changing-stem-education> [Accessed February 13 2021].
Guangul, F., Suhail, A., Khalit, M., & Khidhir, B., 2020. Challenges of remote assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: A case study of Middle East College. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(4), pp.519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09340-w.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M., 2016. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M., 2019. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Harvey, H., & Parahoo, S., 2017. Should gender differences be considered when assessing student satisfaction in the online learning environment for millennials? Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-5224. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12116.
He, J. & Freeman, L., 2010. Are men more technology- oriented than women? The role of gender on the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), pp.203-212.
Hegeman, J., 2015. Using instructor-generated video lectures in online mathematics courses improves student learning. Online Learning, 19(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.484.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., & Calantone, R. J., 2014. Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. 2013. Organizational research methods, 17(2), pp.182-209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. 2009. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Henseler, J., 2018. Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quantity, 52(1), pp.1-8.
Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A., 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. 27 March. Available at: < https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=The+difference+between+emergency+remote+teaching+and+online+learning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8> [Accessed on 27 November 2020].
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M., 2008. Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. In: 7th European Conference on research methodology for business and management studies. Regent’s College, June 2008. London, United Kingdom. (pp. 195-200). https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73.
JISC., 2007. Effective practice with e-assessment: An overview of technologies, policies and practice in further and higher education. [pdf] Joint Information Systems Committee. Available at: https://goo.gl/4MA3ts [Accessed on 13 January 2021].
Kapilan, N., Vidhya, P., Gao, X. Z., 2020. Virtual laboratory: A boon to the mechanical engineering
education during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education for the Future, 8. 10.1177/2347631120970757.
Karim, M., 2021. Hybrid and online synchronous delivery of environmental engineering during
COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study on perception, attitude, and assessment. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9688.
Lee, J., 2014. An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate students of mathematics education associated with human and design factors of an online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15(1), pp.111–132. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1638.
Liloia, A., 2019. Gender and nation building in Qatar: Qatari women negotiate modernity. Journal of Middle Eastern Women’s Studies, 15(3), pp.344-367.
Lim, J. & Richardson, J. C., 2021. Predictive effects of undergraduate students’ perceptions of social, cognitive, and teaching presence on affective learning outcomes according to disciplines. Computers & Education, 161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104063.
Lin, M. C., Tutwiler, S., & Chang, C. Y., 2012. Gender bias in virtual learning environments: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(2), pp.59– 63.
Means, B., & Neisler, J., with Langer Research Associates., 2020. Suddenly Online: A National Survey of Undergraduates During the COVID-19 Pandemic. San Mateo, CA: Digital Promise.
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J., 2020. Emergency remote teaching during Coronavirus pandemic: the current trend and future directive at Middle East College Oman. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 5(72). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00326-7.
Morante, A., Djenidi, V., Clark, H., & West, S., 2017. Gender differences in online participation: examining a history and a mathematics open foundation course. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 57(2), pp.267-293.
Nastasić, A. & Banjević, K. & Gardašević, D., 2019. Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution. Journal of Innovative Business and Management. 11, pp.67-76. https://doi.org/10.32015/JIBM/2019-11-2-8.
Nelson Laird, T. F., McCormick, A., Sullivan, D., & Zimmerman, C., 2011. STEM/non-STEM differences in engagement at US institutions. American Association of American Colleges & Universities. 13(3). Available at: https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/stemnon-stem-differences-engagement-us-institutions. [Accessed 16 February 2021].
O’Driscoll, F., 2012. What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of satisfaction among first year hotel/hospitality management students. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), pp. 237–258.
Placencia, G., & Muljana, P., 2019. The effects of online course design on student course satisfaction. Proceedings of the 2019 American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Section Meeting. Los Angeles, California. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/31845. [Accessed 23 January 2021].
Qatar Public Statistics Authority, 2018. Woman and man in Qatar: A statistical profile. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical%20Releases/Social/GenrealSocialStatistics/MenWomenProfile/2018/Woman_Man_2018_EN.pdf> [Accessed 22 January 2021].
Qatar Public Statistics Authority, 2019. Education Statistics. [pdf] Chapter 4-2019, Table 78 & Table 84. Available at: <https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/statistics1/pages/topicslisting.aspx?parent=Social&child=Education> [Accessed 22 January 2021].
Rashid, S., & Yadav, S.S., 2020. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on higher education and research. Indian Journal of Human Development 14(2), pp.340-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703020946700.
Richards-Babb, M., Curtis, R., Georgieva, Z., & Penn, J. H., 2015. Student perceptions of online homework use for formative assessment of learning in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 92(11), pp.1813–1819. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00294.
Schlesinger, W., Cervera, A. Y., & Pérez-Cabañero, C., 2016. Sticking with your university: The
importance of satisfaction, trust, image, and shared values. Studies in Higher Education 4(1), pp.1-17.
Senel, S., & Senel, H., 2021. Remote assessment in higher education during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), pp.181-199. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.820140.
Sharadgah, T., & Sa’di, R., 2020. Preparedness of institutions of higher education for assessment in virtual learning environments during the Covid-19 lockdown: Evidence of bona fide challenges and pragmatic solutions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19(1), pp.755–774.
Shieh, J., & Cefai, C., 2017. Assessment of learning and teaching in higher education: A case analysis of a university in the south of Europe. Malta Review of Educational Research 11(1), pp.29–47.
Smimou, K., & Dahl, D., 2012. On the relationship between students’ perceptions of teaching quality, methods of assessment, and satisfaction, Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 22-35, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.550339.
Smith, G. G., Torres-Ayala, A. T., & Heindel, A. J., 2008. Disciplinary differences in E-learning instructional design. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 22(3), pp.63–88.
Steiger, J. H., 2007. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), pp.893-898.
Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y., 2012. Service quality in a higher education context: An integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), pp.755–784.
Tucker, R., 2014. Sex does not matter: Gender bias and gender differences in peer assessments of contributions to group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39(3), pp.293-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.830282.
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M., 2003. Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, pp.607-634.
Vajravelu, K., & Muhs, T., 2016. Integration of digital technology and innovative strategies for learning and teaching large classes: A calculus case study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science 2(2), pp.379–395.
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C., 2006. Learning styles and formative
assessment strategy: Enhancing student achievement in Web-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22(3), pp.207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00166.x.
Watkins, J., & Mazur, E., 2013. Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), pp.36–41.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Mary Newsome, Anthony Piña, Mohammad Mollazehi, Khalid Al-Ali, Yousef Alshaboul
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.
