社论:探索评估和案例研究

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Open Learning Pub Date : 2022-04-03 DOI:10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738
C. Douce
{"title":"社论:探索评估和案例研究","authors":"C. Douce","doi":"10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the second 2022 issue of Open Learning. The unofficial theme for this issue is: evaluations and case studies. Evaluations within open and distance learning are, of course, fundamentally important. This issue presents a number of papers that conduct evaluations in different ways. Evaluations can be used to assess what works and what does not, to determine whether improvements in practice or design help students, or understand the application and usefulness of theory. The first paper in this issue by Prifti (2022) is entitled ‘self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses’. The paper presents an interesting literature review. It addresses themes such as self-efficacy, student satisfaction and blended learning. Self-efficacy is a concept that can be considered not only in terms of how a student views themselves, but also in relation to the tools that are used, such as learning management systems. Whilst Prifti’s paper is primarily an empirical paper which uses a survey methodology, it is a theoretical paper too, exploring what can be meant by blended learning, whilst at the same time exposing the topic of student digital literacy. An interesting contribution lies in its presentation of a conceptual model, which posits links between self-efficacy and course satisfaction, also suggesting the importance of topics such as platform content, platform accessibility and critical thinking. These topics, in themselves, represent some of the many different variables that can influence the student experience. One point to note is that the term accessibility can often be used to refer to different issues. In Prifti’s study, accessibility is defined as ‘how comfortable students were with using the online platform’ rather than how usable a tool, product or set of services might be for students who have disabilities, or how available something is to a group of users who may be faced with disadvantages. Differences in terminology aside, a key point to take away from this paper is the important and obvious reflection that the technology (or tools) which students use can and do influence their experience. Close attention to the operation of learning management tools, accompanying technology, and the materials they deliver is important, and necessary. The next paper in this issue, by Yu and Watson (2022) also adopts a survey method. Rather than exploring a blended learning context, they explore MOOC learners and aim to ‘identify subtypes of attitudinal learning’ to carry out a ‘latent profile analysis’. In addition to the survey methodology, another similarity with the first paper lies in the study of learner attitudes. Their extensive literature review is split into two parts: a discussion of MOOC learner profiles, and an interesting discussion about the broad concept of attitudinal learning, which can be considered from a number of different perspectives. A particularly interesting aspect of the literature review is the discussion about how to develop attitudinal learning, with specific reference to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Methodologically OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2022, VOL. 37, NO. 2, 107–110 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738","PeriodicalId":46089,"journal":{"name":"Open Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editorial: exploring evaluations and case studies\",\"authors\":\"C. Douce\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Welcome to the second 2022 issue of Open Learning. The unofficial theme for this issue is: evaluations and case studies. Evaluations within open and distance learning are, of course, fundamentally important. This issue presents a number of papers that conduct evaluations in different ways. Evaluations can be used to assess what works and what does not, to determine whether improvements in practice or design help students, or understand the application and usefulness of theory. The first paper in this issue by Prifti (2022) is entitled ‘self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses’. The paper presents an interesting literature review. It addresses themes such as self-efficacy, student satisfaction and blended learning. Self-efficacy is a concept that can be considered not only in terms of how a student views themselves, but also in relation to the tools that are used, such as learning management systems. Whilst Prifti’s paper is primarily an empirical paper which uses a survey methodology, it is a theoretical paper too, exploring what can be meant by blended learning, whilst at the same time exposing the topic of student digital literacy. An interesting contribution lies in its presentation of a conceptual model, which posits links between self-efficacy and course satisfaction, also suggesting the importance of topics such as platform content, platform accessibility and critical thinking. These topics, in themselves, represent some of the many different variables that can influence the student experience. One point to note is that the term accessibility can often be used to refer to different issues. In Prifti’s study, accessibility is defined as ‘how comfortable students were with using the online platform’ rather than how usable a tool, product or set of services might be for students who have disabilities, or how available something is to a group of users who may be faced with disadvantages. Differences in terminology aside, a key point to take away from this paper is the important and obvious reflection that the technology (or tools) which students use can and do influence their experience. Close attention to the operation of learning management tools, accompanying technology, and the materials they deliver is important, and necessary. The next paper in this issue, by Yu and Watson (2022) also adopts a survey method. Rather than exploring a blended learning context, they explore MOOC learners and aim to ‘identify subtypes of attitudinal learning’ to carry out a ‘latent profile analysis’. In addition to the survey methodology, another similarity with the first paper lies in the study of learner attitudes. Their extensive literature review is split into two parts: a discussion of MOOC learner profiles, and an interesting discussion about the broad concept of attitudinal learning, which can be considered from a number of different perspectives. A particularly interesting aspect of the literature review is the discussion about how to develop attitudinal learning, with specific reference to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Methodologically OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2022, VOL. 37, NO. 2, 107–110 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738\",\"PeriodicalId\":46089,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738","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: 1

摘要

欢迎阅读《开放学习》2022年第二期。这个问题的非正式主题是:评价和案例研究。当然,开放和远程学习中的评估是至关重要的。本期提出了一些以不同方式进行评估的论文。评估可以用来评估哪些有效,哪些无效,以确定实践或设计方面的改进是否有助于学生,或理解理论的应用和有用性。Prifti(2022)在本期的第一篇论文题为“混合学习课程背景下的自我效能感和学生满意度”。这篇论文是一篇有趣的文献综述。它涉及诸如自我效能、学生满意度和混合式学习等主题。自我效能感是一个概念,不仅可以从学生如何看待自己的角度来考虑,还可以从他们使用的工具(如学习管理系统)来考虑。虽然Prifti的论文主要是一篇使用调查方法的实证论文,但它也是一篇理论论文,探讨了混合学习的含义,同时揭示了学生数字素养的主题。一个有趣的贡献在于它提出了一个概念模型,该模型假设了自我效能感和课程满意度之间的联系,也表明了平台内容、平台可访问性和批判性思维等主题的重要性。这些主题本身就代表了影响学生体验的许多不同变量中的一些。需要注意的一点是,术语可访问性通常可用于指代不同的问题。在Prifti的研究中,可访问性被定义为“学生使用在线平台的舒适程度”,而不是一个工具、产品或一组服务对残疾学生的可用性,或者对一群可能面临劣势的用户的可用性。撇开术语上的差异不谈,从这篇论文中得出的一个关键点是,学生使用的技术(或工具)可以而且确实影响了他们的体验,这是一个重要而明显的反映。密切关注学习管理工具、配套技术和它们提供的材料的操作是重要的,也是必要的。本期的下一篇论文,Yu和Watson(2022)也采用了调查法。他们不是探索混合学习环境,而是探索MOOC学习者,旨在“识别态度学习的亚型”,以进行“潜在概况分析”。除了调查方法外,与第一篇论文的另一个相似之处在于对学习者态度的研究。他们广泛的文献综述分为两部分:关于MOOC学习者概况的讨论,以及关于态度学习的广泛概念的有趣讨论,这可以从许多不同的角度来考虑。文献综述的一个特别有趣的方面是关于如何发展态度学习的讨论,具体涉及认知失调的概念。方法上的开放学习:开放、远程和电子学习期刊,2022年,第37卷,第7期。2,107 - 110 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Editorial: exploring evaluations and case studies
Welcome to the second 2022 issue of Open Learning. The unofficial theme for this issue is: evaluations and case studies. Evaluations within open and distance learning are, of course, fundamentally important. This issue presents a number of papers that conduct evaluations in different ways. Evaluations can be used to assess what works and what does not, to determine whether improvements in practice or design help students, or understand the application and usefulness of theory. The first paper in this issue by Prifti (2022) is entitled ‘self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses’. The paper presents an interesting literature review. It addresses themes such as self-efficacy, student satisfaction and blended learning. Self-efficacy is a concept that can be considered not only in terms of how a student views themselves, but also in relation to the tools that are used, such as learning management systems. Whilst Prifti’s paper is primarily an empirical paper which uses a survey methodology, it is a theoretical paper too, exploring what can be meant by blended learning, whilst at the same time exposing the topic of student digital literacy. An interesting contribution lies in its presentation of a conceptual model, which posits links between self-efficacy and course satisfaction, also suggesting the importance of topics such as platform content, platform accessibility and critical thinking. These topics, in themselves, represent some of the many different variables that can influence the student experience. One point to note is that the term accessibility can often be used to refer to different issues. In Prifti’s study, accessibility is defined as ‘how comfortable students were with using the online platform’ rather than how usable a tool, product or set of services might be for students who have disabilities, or how available something is to a group of users who may be faced with disadvantages. Differences in terminology aside, a key point to take away from this paper is the important and obvious reflection that the technology (or tools) which students use can and do influence their experience. Close attention to the operation of learning management tools, accompanying technology, and the materials they deliver is important, and necessary. The next paper in this issue, by Yu and Watson (2022) also adopts a survey method. Rather than exploring a blended learning context, they explore MOOC learners and aim to ‘identify subtypes of attitudinal learning’ to carry out a ‘latent profile analysis’. In addition to the survey methodology, another similarity with the first paper lies in the study of learner attitudes. Their extensive literature review is split into two parts: a discussion of MOOC learner profiles, and an interesting discussion about the broad concept of attitudinal learning, which can be considered from a number of different perspectives. A particularly interesting aspect of the literature review is the discussion about how to develop attitudinal learning, with specific reference to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Methodologically OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2022, VOL. 37, NO. 2, 107–110 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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