printDistance learning:
students’ perspective
Zaborova E.N.
Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Prof., Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia ezaborova@yandex.ru
Glazkova I.G.
Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Assoc. Prof., Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia glazir@mail.ru
Markova T.L.
Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Assoc. Prof., Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia tmark@mail.ru
Zaborova E.N., Glazkova I.G., Markova T.L. Distance learning: students’ perspective. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2017. No 2. P. 131-139
Distance learning has become the fastest growing segment of higher education. Numerous recent studies report that the development of digital information and communication technologies enable distance online education to compete successfully with the traditional face-to-face pattern of higher education. Despite this, significant differences still exist in the way the online distance learning is perceived. The article raises critical distance learning issues from the principal social actors’ perspective – the faculty, University management and students. As each of these groups has its own specific interests and multiple dimensions, only their in-depth understanding can result in a balanced assessment of distance learning quality. The article mainly explores the students’ perceptions as their positive or negative attitudes make a significant impact on learning satisfaction and retention rates. The authors present the findings of the students’ survey conducted at the Ural State University of Economics and the Ural Federal University in Yekaterinburg. The survey findings show that online students make up a distinct social group. We found that students overall positively assess their distance learning experiences. Their motivation for on-line learning is dominated by such factors as possibility to combine work and studies, time and place flexibility, tuition fees. Yet, the students do not attach much importance to distance learning quality. The greatest concerns are about relevant teaching practices and communication patterns. So, distance learning satisfaction greatly depends on the faculty ability to integrate ICT in the course design and delivery, as well as establish effective interactions among all online course participants. The findings support the prediction about higher quality of education in the traditional face-to-face pattern. These can be of use for the faculty, university administrators and other tertiary education stakeholders in designing strategies to enhance distance learning standards.
Analiz anketirovaniya uchastnikov setevoj distancionnoj shkoly (uchitelej, uchashchihsya, roditelej). Novosibirsk. Novosibirskaya oblast’ [The survey analysis of distance school participants (instructors, students, parents). Novosibirsk. Novosibirskaya oblast’] (2012). URL: http://www.edu54.ru/sites/default/files/upload/2013 (accessed 31.03.2016) (In Russ.)
Anderson T. (2003) Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In: Moore M.G., Anderson W., eds. Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P. 129–144.
Andreev A.A., Soldatkin V.I. (1999) Distancionnoe obrazovanie: sushchnost’, tekhnologiya i organizaciya [Distance education: concept, techniques and organization]. Moscow: MESI. (In Russ.)
Daniel, J., Marquis, C. (1988) Interaction and independence: Getting the mix right. In: Sewart D., Keegan D., Holberg B, eds. Distance education: International perspectives. London: Routledge, 1988.
DeLacey B. J., Leonard D. A. (2002). Case study on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology & Society. 2002. Vol. 5. No. 2: 13–28.
Gerasimenko S. L. (2009) Organizaciya kommunikativnogo vzaimodejstviya prepodavatelya i studentov v kontekste kompetentnostnogo podhoda [The organization of communicative interaction between teachers and students in the context of competence approach]. Psihologo-pedagogicheskij poisk [Psychological and pedagogical search]. No. 3: 87–95. (In Russ.)
Guri-Rosenblit S. (2005) ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher education. Vol. 49. No. 4: 467–493.
Kaye T., Rumble G. (1991) Open universities. Prospects. Vol. 21. No. 2: 214–226.
Mit’kina O. V. (2010) Metody interaktivnogo obucheniya v formirovanii modeli sovremennogo specialista [Methods of interactive training in forming a model of a modern specialist]. Izvestiya Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gercena [News of the Russian state pedagogical university named after A. I. Gertsen]. No. 123: 214–222 (In Russ.)
Mnenie prepodavatelej ob ehffektivnosti organizacii uchebnogo processa v IDO [Faculty opinion on learning effectiveness in the IDE] (2013). URL: http://pandia.ru/text/79/457/6777.php (accessed 03.04.2014) (In Russ.)
Moore M. (2009) Three types of interaction. In: Bernard R. M. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research. Vol. 79. No. 3: 1243–1289.
Oganesyanc N. (2008) Konstruktivistskie podhody v e-Learning [Constructivist approaches in e-Learning]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia]. No. 9: 125–127. (In Russ.)
Rumble G. (2012) The costs and economics of open and distance learning. London: Routledge.
Sloan Consortium (2002). Quick guide: Pillar reference manual. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Uddin A. (2013) Individual’nye razlichiya studentov, obuchayushchihsya po programme distancionnogo obrazovaniya (obzor zarubezhnyh istochnikov) [Individual differences of students studying at the distance learning programme]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psihologiya [Modern Foreign Psychology]. No. 3: 104–120. (In Russ.)
Wagner E. D. (1994) In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 8. No. 2: 6–26.