Przejdź do treści

Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach

Wydział Sztuki i Nauk o Edukacji

DEMOCRATIZING POTENTIAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

full-text article

DOI: 10.34916/el.2019.11.04

Anna Ślósarz Pedagogical University of Krakow (Poland)

Abstract: The article presents results of research for the purpose of which a hundred of exam sheets were analysed and answers to the questions related to the material covered during lectures, tutorials and via distant education (DE) modules were compared. It was found that the level of students’ understanding the lecture material varied. The research showed that  sometimes students who got the lowest grades were more familiar with issues presented via DE modules than with those discussed during lectures. The students who were experienced in using the MOODLE platform obtained 91% for questions referring to material covered in DE mode. Group 1, which did not have any DE classes before, achieved lower grades in the exam.

Keywords: lecture, tutorials, blended learning, exam, effectiveness

REFERENCES

  • Aristotle (1893). The nicomachean ethics of Aristotle. (F.H. Peters, Trans.). London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trūbner & Co., Ltd.
  • Blieck, Y. (2018). Development and validation of a conceptual quality management model for effective institutional continuous quality improvment of online and blended learning in adult education (Doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Retrieved from http://www.iwt-alo.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PhD_Blieck_Yves.pdf (accessed 20 May 2019).
  • Blieck, Y., Kauwenberghs K., Zhu Ch., Struyven K., Pynoo B., DePryck K. (2019). Investigating the relationship between success factors and student participation in online and blended learning in adult education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14: 7, 1-20. eISSN 2365-9440. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/pdf/10.1111/jcal.12351 (accessed 14 July 2019).
  • Burke, R., Christensen, L., (Eds.). (2014). Educational research. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. London: Sage.
  • Cairns, G., & Śliwa, M. (2008). The implications of Aristotle’s phronēsis for organizational inquiry. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), Handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 318–328). London: Sage.
  • Cinquin, P.-A., Guitton, P., Sauzéon, H. (2019). Online e-learning and cognitive disabilities: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 130, 152-167. ISSN 03601315.
  • Clarke, A. (2007). E-learning – nauka na odległość. (M. Klebanowski, Trans.). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Komunikacji i Łączności. ISBN 978-83-206-1615-6.
  • Fryia, G.D., Wachowiak-Smolikova, R., Wachowiak, M.P. (2009). Web accessibility in the development of an E-learning system for individuals with cognitive and learning disabilities. In proceedings from the 2009 1st International Conference on Networked Digital Technologies, NDT 2009, art. no. 5272167, pp. 153-158.ISBN: 978-142444615-5.
  • Heilbron, J., Sorá, G., Boncourt, T. (2018). The social and human sciences in global power relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Kintu, M. J., Zhu, Ch., Kagambe, E. (2017) Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14: 7, 1-20. eISSN 2365-9440.
  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Pasikowski, S., Kultura metodologiczna i raportowanie badań empirycznych publikowanych w wiodących czasopismach poświęconych zagadnieniom edukacji. Kultura i Edukacja, 2, 103-133. ISSN 1230-266X.
  • Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. New York, USA: Sloan-C.
  • Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6(1), 1–16.
  • Rzeźnik, M. (2006). Nauczanie w klasie wirtualnej i tradycyjnej – porównanie [Teaching in a virtual and traditional classroom – a comparison]. In M. Dąbrowski & M. Zając (Eds.), E-learning w kształceniu akademickim [E-learning in academic education] (pp. 129-134). Warszawa: Fundacja Promocji i Akredytacji Kierunków Ekonomicznych. ISBN: 83-922607-4-0.
  • Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Thomson, D. L. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 662-712. eISSN 21629536, ISSN 1932202X.
  • Tracy, S. J. (2007). Taking the plunge: A contextual approach to problem-based research. Communication Monographs, 74, 106–111. doi: 10.1080/03637750701196862.
  • Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Malden: Oxford University Press.
  • Zalewska, E. (2015). Jakość kursów e-learning. In P. Wdowiński (Ed.), Nauczyciel akademicki wobec nowych wyzwań edukacyjnych (pp. 105-113). Łódź: Wydawnictwo UŁ.
return to top