Student Attitudes about Distance Education: Focusing on Context and Effective Practices

Abstract

There has been an unquestionable upsurge in distance education in recent years. Given this, it is extremely important to understand the experience of online courses from students' perspectives.The purpose of the current qualitative study is to understand student attitudes about distance education in a specific context, namely that of a Mid-Atlantic mid-sized state university. We then translate our findings into practical recommendations for instructors. Data sources consist of journal entries written by 36 teacher candidates taking the course, Teaching English Language Learners PreK-12. Findings are categorized according to Course Characteristics, e.g. students have definite opinions about the use of the discussion forum, some of them negative, InstructorCharacteristics, e.g. students see the need for interaction/synchronous communication and effective assessment, and Learner Characteristics, e.g. the appropriateness of distance education depends on student learning style and practical factors.

EFL Students’ Views on Distance English Language Learning in a Public University in Turkey

“…Similar to the argument of the Smidt et al (2014), the current study shows that some students prefer direct interaction with their teachers or peers. In addition, students do not participate in oral activities in virtual classes because they participate in the lessons in the computers in the library or in Internet cafes, so they cannot comfortably speak there.…”

“…Students' computer anxiety (Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008) and personality may affect students' attitudes or views. Smidt, Bunk, McGrory, Li and Gatenby (2014) argue that personality differences such as extroversion may affect students' views about distance language learning in that extrovert students may prefer face-to-face interaction because they like direct interaction with the teacher and their peers. There is also evidence in the literature that students liked studying the course through mobile device and that they thought it was motivating.…”

Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map

“…Indicators of student disengagement (see Table 4) were identified considerably less often across the corpus, which could be explained by the purpose of the studies being to primarily address/measure positive engagement, but on the other hand this could potentially be due to a form of self-selected or publication bias, due to less frequently reporting and/or publishing studies with negative results. The three disengagement indicators that were most often indicated were frustration (n = 33, 14%) e.g., (Ikpeze, 2007), opposition/rejection (n = 20, 8%) e.g., (Smidt, Bunk, McGrory, Li, & Gatenby, 2014) and disappointment e.g., (Granberg, 2010), as well as other affective disengagement (n = 18, 7% each). Following a slightly modified version of Bower's (2016) educational tools typology, 17 broad categories of tools were identified (see Additional file 4 for classification, and 3.2 for further information).…”

Attitudes of teacher education students and class teachers to distance education

“…The difference is that we have more tasks". According to the study by Smidt et al (2014) on students' attitudes to distance education, students believe that this form of teaching has a large workload and requires a greater level of student autonomy in learning. In contrast to face-to-face teaching where students would be given tasks only on the day when the class was held, in distance education students are given assignments throughout the week regardless of the schedule.…”