Face-to-Face, Online or Hybrid, Which Model is Preferred by University Students And Why?

Abstract

Teaching model preferences of current university students and the factors explaining them indicate educators and decision makers how to design future higher education system. The literatüre indicates the importance of teaching, social and cognitive presence, gender and experience for sustainability of online environments. Therefore, this study aims to examine to what degree university students' experiences and opinions affect their teaching model preferences (face-to-face, online, hybrid). 5504 university students participated to the study and the data were collected by an online questionnaire. gender, opinions about the complexity of the learning management system, the sufficiency of digital materials, knowing how to solve problems during online learning, course participation preferences, online teaching methods (synchronous, asynchronous, both) preferences and teaching, social and cognitive presence levels are the factors of the study. Two-way contingency table analyses using Pearson \chi^2 and multinomial logistic regression model (MLR) were applied to determine the factors affecting the teaching model preferences. The results indicated that 71.2 prefered online supported methods (online, hybrid) while only 25.8% preferred wholly face to face methods. Interestingly, more than half of the females preferred face-to-face and hybrid, while more than half of the males preferred online education. the teaching preferences of the students are dependent of the determined variables and Community of Inquiry elements that addressed in this study.

Keywords

• Teaching model preference
• Distance education
• Online learning
• Hybrid learning

References

1. Abi Raad, M. E., & Odhabi, H. (2021). Hybrid learning here to stay! Frontiers in Education Technology, 4(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.22158/fet.v4n2p121
2. Akcil, U., & Bastas, M. (2021). Examination of university students' attitudes towards e-learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic process and the relationship of digital citizenship. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(1), 291. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/9341
3. Aktas, S.G., Kumtepe, E.G., Kantar, Y.M. et al. (2019). Improving gender equality in higher education in Turkey. Appl. Spatial Analysis, 12, 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-017-9235-5
4. Al-Azzam, N., Elsalem, L. & Gombedza, F. (2020). A cross-sectional study to determine factors affecting dental and medical students’ preference for virtual learning during the COVID-19 outbreak, Heliyon, 6(12), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05704
5. Ali, W. (2020). Online and Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutes: A Necessity in light of COVID COVID-19 Pandemic. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n3p16
6. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN). 5(2), 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875.
7. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
8. Baran, B., Kılıc, E., Bakar, A. & Çağıltay, K. (2010). Turkish university students, technology use profile and their thoughts about distance education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 235-242.

9. Basuony, M.A.K., EmadEldeen, R., Farghaly, M., El-Bassiouny, N. & Mohamed, E.K.A. (2020), "The factors affecting student satisfaction with online education during the COVID-19 pandemic: an empirical study of an emerging Muslim country", Journal of Islamic Marketing, 12(3), 631-648. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-09-2020-0301.
10. Baturay, M.H. & Yukselturk, E. (2015). The Role of Online Education Preferences On Student’s Achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 16(3), 1-12.
11. Beyth-Marom, R. et al. (2003). Internet-assisted versus traditional distance learning environments: factors affecting students’ preferences. Computers & Education, 41(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00026-5.
12. Carretero Gomez, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y., (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use, Publications Office of the European Union, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281.
13. Chen, T., Peng, L., Jing, B., Wu, C., Yang, J., & Cong, G. (2020). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on User Experience with Online Education Platforms in China. Sustainability, 12(18), 7329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187329.
14. Council of Higher Education in Turkey-COHE (2021). YÖK: COVID-19 Bilgilendirme. Retrieved April 22, 2021 from https://covid19.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/HaberDuyuru/yok-un-yaptigi-anket-sonuclari-aciklandi.aspx
15. Collins, K., Groff, S., Mathena, C., & Kupczynski, L. (2019). Asynchronous Video and the Development of Instructor Social Presence and Student Engagement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.522378.
16. El-Habil, A. M. (2012). An Application on Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 8(2), 271-291. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v8i2.234
17. European Commission. (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning, Publications Office. Retrieved May 22, 2021 from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/291008.
18. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
19. Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007. 04.001.
20. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (3-21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
21. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data (7th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
22. Gulbahar, Y. (2012). e-Öğrenme (2nd Edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
23. Guven Ozdemir, N., & Sonmez, M. (2020). The relationship between nursing students' technology addiction levels and attitudes toward e‐learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A cross‐sectional study. Perspect Psychiatr Care, 57(3), 1442–1448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12710.
24. Hilton, R., Moos, C., & Barnes, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Students’ Perceptions of Learning in Online Versus Traditional Courses. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 14(3), 2-11.
25. Horzum, M. B. (2015). Interaction, Structure, Social Presence, and Satisfaction in Online Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 505-512. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1324a.
26. Jafari, S. M., Salem, S. F., Moaddab, M. S., & Salem, S. O. (2015). Learning management system (lms) success: An investigation among the university students, 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). IEEE, 2015 (pp. 64–69). https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403488.
27. Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Allman, B. (2021). Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, Twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends, 65, 125-136.
28. Klobas, J.E. and McGill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22, 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-010-9032-5.
29. Law, K.M.Y., Geng, S. & Li, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021
30. Long, S. J. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
31. Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sanchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018). Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers & Education, 123(2018), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012.
32. Müller, F.A., & Wulf, T. (2022). Blended learning environments and learning outcomes: The mediating role of flow experience. The International Journal of Management Education, 20 (3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100694.
33. O'Byrne, W.I. & Pytash, K. E. (2015). Hybrid and Blended Learning Modifying Pedagogy Across Path, Pace, Time, and Place. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 59(2) doi:10.1002/jaal.463.
34. OECD (2021), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved May 13, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en.
35. Olpak, Y.Z., & Kiliç Çakmak, E. (2018). Examining the reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the community of inquiry survey. Online Learning, 22(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.990
36. Ozonur, M., Yanpar-Yelken, T., & Sancar-Tokmak, H. (2018). Social presence and motivation in online environments: Second Life versus the Enocta Learning Management System/Adobe Connect. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3128.
37. Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., de Vries, P., Hennis, T., Joksimović, S., Gašević, D. & Dawson, S. (2018). Social Presence in Massive Open Online Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3370
38. Rahman, N.A.A., Hussein, N. And Aluwi A. H. (2015). Satisfaction on Blended Learning in a Public Higher Education Institution: What Factors Matter?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211(2015), 768-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.107.
39. Sakal, M. (2017). Çevrimiçi Öğrenmede Öğrencilerin Hazırbulunuşluk Düzeylerinin Demografik Özelliklerine Göre İncelenmesi [Investigation on the Demographic Characteristics of Readiness Levels of Online Educated Students]. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, 18(39), 81-102.
40. Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 4, 279-312.
41. Syarifuddin, Setyosari, P., Sulton, Kuswandi, D., & Sartika, D. (2020). The effect of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) learning model and learning style towards social skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 569-578. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.569.
42. Turkish Higher Education Quality Council-THEQC (2020). Yükseköğretim Kurumları 2020 Yılı Uzaktan/Karma Eğitim Faaliyetleri Kalite Güvencesi Durum Raporu [Quality Assurance Status Report for 2020 Distance/Blended Education Activities of Higher Education Institutions]. Retrieved May 01, 2021 from https://www.yokak.gov.tr/yuksekogretim-kurumlari-2020-yili-uzaktankarma-egitim-faaliyetleri-kalite-guvencesi-durum-raporu-ya-192.
43. UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 response – hybrid learning [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved January 10, 2023 from https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/unesco-covid-19-response-toolkit-hybrid-learning.pdf