Online course satisfaction in a holistic flipped classroom approach

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the satisfaction of pre-service teachers with the completely online course instructed with the flipped classroom model. The study was conducted with the explanatory sequential mixed design. The participants included 117 pre-service teachers. Data were collected during the 2020-2021 academic year fall semester with the Online Course Satisfaction Scale and face-to-face interviews. The study findings demonstrated that the pre-service teachers were satisfied with the online course. The satisfaction level of female participants was higher, and the differences were not significant based on the student department. On the other hand, the participants stated that there were systemic and instructor-oriented problems. Furthermore, it was determined that ease of use was an important factor in predicting satisfaction. Ease of use varied based on PC ownership, but not based on tablet ownership. Satisfaction did not differ based on both PC and tablet ownership. It was found that the flipped classroom model exhibited interactional challenges. However, the model had advantages due to its structure that allowed flexibility. It could be suggested that the findings of the present study would contribute to future studies that would address flipped classroom method and satisfaction with online courses.

Keywords

• Online course satisfaction
• Flipped classroom
• Pre-service teachers
• Covid-19

References

1. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları: Sık kullanılan istatiksel analizler ve açıklamalı SPSS çözümleri. İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
2. Akgün, Ö., & Topal, M. (2015). Information security awareness of the senior teacher students: Sakarya University sample. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(2), 98-121.
3. Amelink, C. T., Scales, G., & Tront, J. G. (2012). Student use of the tablet PC: Impact on student learning behaviors. Advances in Engineering Education, 1–17.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
5. Bayrak, F, Tıbı, M, & Altun, A. (2020). Development of online course satisfaction scale. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 110-123. DOI: 10.17718/tojde.803378
6. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
7. Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped classroom: A Survey of the research. In Proceedings of the ASEE national conference proceedings, Atlanta, GA (Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 1-18).
8. Bolliger, D.U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61-67.

9. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi.
10. Britto, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive student support services for online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29–42.
11. Cavas, B., Cavas, P., Karaoglan, B., & Kisla, T. (2009). A study on science teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies in education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 20–32.
12. Chen, N.-S., Ko, H.-C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181-194.
13. Chen, S. J. (2014). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72-86.
14. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27.
15. Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers’ private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 251–254.
16. Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314-325.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.), California, CA: Sage.
18. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
19. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
20. Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students’ perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-13.
21. Filiz, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2015). Flipped learning: Misunderstandings and the truth. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 5(1), 215-229.
22. Flipped Learning Network (FLN) (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf
23. Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471-485.
24. Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906–914.
25. Gökal, H., Sönmez, A., & Ercan, O. (2019). Examination of attitudes of computer science teachers about self-efficacy and computer assisted instruction for educational internet usage in terms of different variables. Folklore-Literature, 25(97), 47-63.
26. George, D. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.
27. Gonzalez-Gomez, F., Guardiola, J., Rodriguez, O. M., & Alonso, M. A. M. (2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.017
28. Gündüz, A. Y., & İşman, A. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ perception of distance education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1). 125-129.
29. Haag, G. S., Folkestad, L. S., & Dietrich, S. W. (2004). Faculty incentives and development for online learning. In C. Vrasidas, & G. V. Glass (Eds.), Online professional development for teachers. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
30. Hadlington, L. J. (2015). Cognitive failures in daily life: Exploring the link with internet addiction and problematic mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 75–81.
31. Harvey, H. L., Parahoo, S., & Santally, M. (2017). Should gender differences be considered when assessing student satisfaction in the online learning environment for millennials?. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(2), 141-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12116.
32. Harvey, T. J., & Wilson, B. (1985). Gender differences in attitudes towards microcomputers shown by primary and secondary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 183-187.
33. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Hattie ranking: Influences and effect sizes related to student achievement. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1krblRE.
34. İlic, U. (2020). A old-new department in distance education in higher education: CEIT. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 11(2) , 395-409.
35. Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?. Computers & Education, 95, 270-284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014.
36. Kahveci, A., Sahin, N., & Genc, S. (2011). Computer perceptions of secondary school teachers and İmpacting demographics: A Turkish perspective. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(1), 71-80.
37. Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1-13.
38. Kharma, Q. (2019). Investigating students’ acceptance of online courses at Al-Ahliyya Amman University. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl, 10(7), 202-208.
39. Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20-37.
40. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126-140.
41. Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: The laptop effectiveness scale (LES). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151–163.
42. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015
43. Lister, M. (2014). Trends in the design of e-learning and online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 671-680.
44. Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia story: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive ınstructional technology program. Beverly Hills, CA: Milken Family Foundation with the West Virginia Department of Education, Charleston.
45. Manuguerra, M., & Petocz, P. (2011). Promoting student engagement by integrating new technology into tertiary education: The role of the iPad. Asian Social Science, 7(11), 61–65. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n11p614
46. Martin-Rodriguez, O., Fernandez-Molina, J. C., Montero-Alonso, M. A., & Gonzalez-Gomez, F. (2015). The main components of satisfaction with e-learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), 267-277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.888370
47. McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159-177.
48. McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., ... & Mumper, R. J. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 77(9), 1-8.
49. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view of online leraning. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.
50. Nunnally, J. C., & I. H. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw‐Hill.
51. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The qualitative report, 11(3), 474-498.
52. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
53. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities, effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey.
54. Pamukkale University (2020, August 28). 2020-2021 Eğitim Öğretim Yılı Güz Yarıyılı Eğitim Duyurusu. Retrieved from https://www.pau.edu.tr/pau/tr/duyuru/2020-2021-egitim-ogretim-yili-guz-yariyilii-egitim-duyurusu
55. Pamukkale University (2020, September 30). 2020-2021 Güz Dönemi Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulaması Bilgilendirmesi. Retrieved from https://www.pau.edu.tr/pau/tr/duyuru/2020-2021-guz-donemi-uzaktan-egitim-uygulamasi-bilgilendirmesi
56. Patton, Q. M. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.), London: Sage Publication.
57. Pratama, A. R., & Scarlatos, L. L. (2020). The roles of device ownership and infrastructure in promoting E-learning and M-learning in Indonesia. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 12(4), 1-16.
58. Rahimi, M. (2011). The impact of computer-based activities on Iranian high-school students’ attitudes towards computer-assisted language learning. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 183-190.
59. Ralston-Berg, P., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., & Hixon, E. (2015). Students’ perceptions of online course quality: How do they measure up to the research? Internet Learning Journal, 4(1), 38–55.
60. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health (2021, May 3). Covid-19 Information Page Retrieved from https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr/?_Dil=2
61. Roper, A. R. (2007). How students develop online learning skills. Educause Quarterly, 30(1), 62-65.
62. Roussos, P. (2007) The Greek computer attitudes scale: Construction and assessment of psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior. 23(1), 578-590
63. Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). MLearning and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 644-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.061
64. Selwyn, N. (1998). The effect of using a home computer on students’ educational use of IT. Computers & Education, 31(2), 211-227.
65. Shimada, A., Okubo, F., Yin, C., & Ogata, H. (2017). Automatic summarization of lecture slides for enhanced student preview- Technical report and user study-. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2), 165-178.
66. Smit, K., de Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environment in prevocational secondary education: Psychological needs, and motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821090
67. Sun, J. C. Y., Wu, Y. T., & Lee, W. I. (2017). The Effect of the flipped classroom approach to OpenCourseWare instruction on students’ self‐regulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 713-729.
68. Teo, H.-H., Wan, W., Chan, H., & Lim, C.-Y. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: The effects of home computer ownership and school IT environment on self-directed learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2002 (pp. 641–650). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2002/59
69. Tibi, M. H. (2015). Improving collaborative skills by computer science students through structured discussion forums. Journal of Technologies in Education, 10(3-4), 27-41. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.995
70. Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (2020, October 30). 2020-2021 Güz Dönemi Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulaması Bilgilendirmesi. Retrieved from https://www.pau.edu.tr/uzem/tr/sayfa/ters-yuz-sinif
71. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
72. Xu, D., & Wang, H. (2006). Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.033
73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (8th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin.
74. Yukselturk, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Investigation of interaction, online support, course structure and flexibility as the contributing factors to students’ satisfaction in an online certifcate program. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 51-65.
75. Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu - YÖK. (2020, April 26) Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/YKS%20Ertelenmesi%20Bas%C4%B1n%20A%C3%A7%C4%B1klamas%C4%B1.aspx
76. Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication, and Information, 3(2), 241-280. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310303143
77. WHO (2021, May 3). Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
78. Worldometer (2021, May 3). COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
79. Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1766–1783.