Measuring usage versus preferences for online study materials among business-majored undergraduates

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Open Learning Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.2478/eurodl-2023-0002
Hoa Phuong Le, J. Elen, A. Cosemans
{"title":"Measuring usage versus preferences for online study materials among business-majored undergraduates","authors":"Hoa Phuong Le, J. Elen, A. Cosemans","doi":"10.2478/eurodl-2023-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As online learning becomes a recurrent component of higher education, there have been growing interests in the interaction between students and educational resources within digital environments so as to understand and facilitate students’ initiative in managing those resources. The present study is an explorative inquiry into the relationships between students’ self-reported preferences of study materials, their actual usage of those materials and their learning performances in online learning. It focuses on analysing the learning management system’s log files, test results and students’ responses to an evaluative survey of a bachelor business course at a large Belgian university, which was a blended course turned fully online due to the pandemic circumstance. The first research question concerns how preferences relate to the usage of materials. A cluster analysis was conducted to classify students based on their perceived interest and actual access to learning resources. The results show three clusters of students with different preferences and levels of usage towards the four types of study materials provided in the course. However, the majority showed strong favour for multimedia online learning, with Web lectures being prioritised both in perception and access behaviour, while discussion boards receive mixed opinions and the lowest actual participation. The second question follows these up by linking the preference–usage patterns with academic performances. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to compare the learning performances of students with different preference–usage patterns. The results show no significant differences, which means the students’ preferences and/or usage of study materials has little to no impact on their learning performances in the online course.","PeriodicalId":46089,"journal":{"name":"Open Learning","volume":"25 1","pages":"16 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2023-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract As online learning becomes a recurrent component of higher education, there have been growing interests in the interaction between students and educational resources within digital environments so as to understand and facilitate students’ initiative in managing those resources. The present study is an explorative inquiry into the relationships between students’ self-reported preferences of study materials, their actual usage of those materials and their learning performances in online learning. It focuses on analysing the learning management system’s log files, test results and students’ responses to an evaluative survey of a bachelor business course at a large Belgian university, which was a blended course turned fully online due to the pandemic circumstance. The first research question concerns how preferences relate to the usage of materials. A cluster analysis was conducted to classify students based on their perceived interest and actual access to learning resources. The results show three clusters of students with different preferences and levels of usage towards the four types of study materials provided in the course. However, the majority showed strong favour for multimedia online learning, with Web lectures being prioritised both in perception and access behaviour, while discussion boards receive mixed opinions and the lowest actual participation. The second question follows these up by linking the preference–usage patterns with academic performances. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to compare the learning performances of students with different preference–usage patterns. The results show no significant differences, which means the students’ preferences and/or usage of study materials has little to no impact on their learning performances in the online course.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量商科专业本科生对在线学习材料的使用与偏好
随着在线学习成为高等教育的一个经常性组成部分,人们对数字环境中学生与教育资源之间的互动越来越感兴趣,以便了解和促进学生管理这些资源的主动性。本研究旨在探讨学生自述的学习材料偏好、实际使用的学习材料与在线学习表现之间的关系。它的重点是分析学习管理系统的日志文件、测试结果和学生对比利时一所大型大学本科商业课程的评估调查的反应,该课程是一门混合式课程,由于疫情的情况而完全在线。第一个研究问题是关于偏好与材料使用的关系。采用聚类分析,根据学生的感知兴趣和实际获得学习资源的情况对学生进行分类。结果显示,三组学生对课程中提供的四种学习材料有不同的偏好和使用水平。然而,大多数人对多媒体在线学习表现出强烈的支持,网络讲座在感知和访问行为上都是优先考虑的,而讨论版的意见不一,实际参与度最低。第二个问题将偏好使用模式与学习成绩联系起来。采用多元方差分析比较不同偏好使用模式学生的学习表现。结果显示没有显著差异,这意味着学生对学习材料的偏好和/或使用对他们在网络课程中的学习表现几乎没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Learning
Open Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Best practices for mentoring in online programs: supporting faculty and students in higher education Best practices for mentoring in online programs: supporting faculty and students in higher education , edited by Susan Ko and Olena Zhadko, New York, Routledge, 2022, 170 pp., £26.39(paperback), ISBN9781138352476 (e-book), ISBN9780429434754 The mediating role of online learning readiness in the relationship between course satisfaction and self-efficacy to learn statistics in online classes Open and online learning: opportunities and challenges Interactions in an xMOOC: perspectives of learners who completed the course The metaphors of Ed Tech
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1