02.03.2018 Views

Advances in E-learning-Experiences and Methodologies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The Role of Institutional Factors <strong>in</strong> the Formation of E-Learn<strong>in</strong>g Practices<br />

suggested that although the majority of students<br />

tak<strong>in</strong>g traditional courses favour onl<strong>in</strong>e courses,<br />

they are less likely to enrol <strong>in</strong> them. However,<br />

the majority of students tak<strong>in</strong>g onl<strong>in</strong>e courses<br />

f<strong>in</strong>d that such courses meet their academic needs<br />

<strong>and</strong> improve their technological skills (Leonard<br />

& Guha, 2001). In a study on the effect of students’<br />

perceptions of their receptivity towards<br />

TML, a “distance learn<strong>in</strong>g receptivity model”<br />

was exam<strong>in</strong>ed (Christensen, Anakwe, & Kessler,<br />

2001). In addition to overall attitudes towards<br />

LT <strong>and</strong> various demographic characteristics <strong>and</strong><br />

technology perceptions (perceived usefulness,<br />

technological familiarity <strong>and</strong> technological accessibility),<br />

other perceived categories were explored<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g reputation (of the lecturers <strong>in</strong>volved, of<br />

the programme <strong>and</strong> of the school), constra<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

(e.g., commut<strong>in</strong>g time, work dem<strong>and</strong>s, family<br />

responsibilities), <strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g preferences perception<br />

(towards traditional learn<strong>in</strong>g). The results<br />

reveal significant relationships between many of<br />

these variables <strong>and</strong> LT receptivity. F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs also<br />

<strong>in</strong>dicate that some traditionally held assumptions,<br />

for example those regard<strong>in</strong>g accessibility, reputation,<br />

<strong>and</strong> constra<strong>in</strong>ts, may not be valid <strong>in</strong> the new<br />

high-tech learn<strong>in</strong>g environment (Christensen et<br />

al., 2001).<br />

Research explor<strong>in</strong>g op<strong>in</strong>ions shared by students<br />

on issues concern<strong>in</strong>g the application of<br />

technology to course <strong>in</strong>struction resulted <strong>in</strong> an<br />

op<strong>in</strong>ion typology. Three op<strong>in</strong>ion types were identified:<br />

(1) time <strong>and</strong> structure <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g (i.e., flexible<br />

time management that requires self-discipl<strong>in</strong>e),<br />

(2) social <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g (i.e., <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />

work lead<strong>in</strong>g to less enrichment from others) <strong>and</strong><br />

(3) convenience (i.e., commut<strong>in</strong>g factors—time<br />

<strong>and</strong> cost—less <strong>in</strong>terference with work) (Valenta,<br />

Theriault, Dieter, & Mrtek 2001). Similar results<br />

were recently reported by Song, S<strong>in</strong>gleton, Hill,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Koh (2004), <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that the ma<strong>in</strong> factors<br />

perceived by students as <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g successful<br />

onl<strong>in</strong>e learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>clude time management <strong>and</strong><br />

perceived lack of sense of community.<br />

summary <strong>and</strong> critical remarks<br />

A grow<strong>in</strong>g body of research has concentrated on<br />

factors that enhance or <strong>in</strong>hibit the adoption <strong>and</strong><br />

use of learn<strong>in</strong>g technology. Some studies have<br />

focused on factors such as the strategic approach<br />

of the university towards onl<strong>in</strong>e learn<strong>in</strong>g (Boyd-<br />

Barret, 2000) or the development of appropriate<br />

competencies <strong>and</strong> roles with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>stitution<br />

(Williams, 2003). The factors of technology<br />

availability <strong>and</strong> access were considered as were<br />

technical stability <strong>and</strong> reliability (Webster &<br />

Hackly, 1997). The <strong>in</strong>hibit<strong>in</strong>g impact of technical<br />

difficulties <strong>and</strong> communication breakdown <strong>in</strong><br />

us<strong>in</strong>g learn<strong>in</strong>g technology was highlighted (Hara<br />

& Kl<strong>in</strong>g, 2000). Instructional factors appear to<br />

be fundamental. Design issues <strong>and</strong> the role of the<br />

<strong>in</strong>structor are considered critical factors <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

students’ participation <strong>and</strong> engagement <strong>in</strong><br />

technology-mediated learn<strong>in</strong>g (Tu, 2000).<br />

The most frequently studied factors relate to<br />

students’ perceptions on learn<strong>in</strong>g technology. A<br />

more detailed review was therefore provided of the<br />

attitud<strong>in</strong>al <strong>and</strong> perceptual factors studied to date.<br />

A critique of the literature on “user perspectives,”<br />

however, concerns the tendency to study perceptions<br />

<strong>and</strong> beliefs as isolated constructs, detached<br />

from action. Studies of users’ perceptions seem<br />

to imply a straightforward, causal relationship<br />

between perceptions (e.g., assumptions about<br />

the technology) <strong>and</strong> action (i.e., actual use of the<br />

technology). Perceptions are therefore exam<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

<strong>and</strong> measured with<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> among themselves. Yet<br />

the ways <strong>in</strong> which perceptions serve to guide<br />

people’s actions may otherwise be viewed as more<br />

complex <strong>and</strong> thorny. For example, Picciano (2002)<br />

po<strong>in</strong>ts out that much of the literature is based on<br />

students’ perceptions of the quality <strong>and</strong> quantity<br />

of their <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>and</strong> performance. He suggests<br />

go<strong>in</strong>g beyond student perceptions to explore actual<br />

<strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>and</strong> performance. F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>dicate<br />

that while positive relationships between perceptions<br />

of <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>and</strong> perceived performance<br />

persist, the relationship between actual <strong>in</strong>terac-<br />

00

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!