Analysis of Factors Affecting Online Learning at Nommensen HKBP University of Medan

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Mian Siahaan

  •   Sanggam Pardede

  •   Lisbeth L. Silitonga

  •   Sahat Maruli

  •   Rinawati Lumbansiantar

  •   Adelina Sinaga Sinaga

Abstract

The purpose of this research is quality assurance of implementing lectures during the pandemic. Evaluation of students’ learning experiences is necessary to fully understand what influences their approach to learning and the subsequent outcomes. The Deep Learning Approach is expected to continue to be improved through lectures in order to produce Generic Skills for students, and on the contrary, the Surface Learning Approach is reduced. Researchers conducted this research at HKBP Nommensen University of the economics education study program for first- and second-year students who experienced full online learning during the disruption period of the global pandemic. The research type is quantitative descriptive research with survey techniques to be able to describe the experiences and perceptions of students to gain learning outcomes. The Course Experience Questionnaire and Study Process Questionnaire were used in this study. A total of 44 people out of 60 students submitted an online questionnaire that was distributed. Structural Equation Modeling was the main method to process the data in order to provide a more detailed depiction of the relationships between research variables. This study found there was no correlation between Appropriate Workload and intended outcomes. Appropriate Workload related to Good Teaching and Deep Learning Approach. Appropriate Workload could be improved by developing staff competencies to manage the online class. Researchers recommended examining the curriculum and developing the staff’s ability in student-centered learning. In addition, researchers provide the need for further research.


Keywords: : course satisfaction, deep learning approach, generic skills, surface learning approach, workload..

References

Asikainen, H., Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Vanthournout, G., & Coertjens, L. (2014). The development of approaches to learning and perceptions of the teaching–learning environment during bachelor level studies and their relation to study success. Higher Education Studies, 4(4), 24–36. doi:10.5539/hes.v4n4p24.

Ander, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1990). Research in classrooms: the study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. New York, Macmillan Pergamon presses.

Baeten M, Dochy F, & Struyven K. (2013). The effects of different learning environments on students’ motivation for learning and their achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02076.x

Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study process questionnaire manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Borahan, N.G., & Ziarati, R. (2002). Developing quality criteria for application in the higher education sector in Turkey. Total Quality Management, 18(4), 224–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412022000017021.

Cheung, K., Yip, T. L., Wan, C. L. J., Tsang, H., Zhang, L. W., and Parpala, A. (2020). Differences in study workload stress and its associated factors between transfer students and freshmen entrants in an Asian higher education context. PLoS One, 15, 0233022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233022.

Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students’ learning approaches through intervention in an information system learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043275.

Dolmans, D., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(5), 1087–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6.

Douglas, J., McClelland, R. & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 19–35. doi:10.1108/09684880810848396.

Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual basis of studying strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 315–345. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

Fabrigar L. R., MacCallum R. C., Wegener D. T., & Strahan E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.

Fox, Robin A., McManus, I.C., Winder, & Belinda C. (2001). The shortened Study Process Questionnaire: An investigation of its structure and longitudinal stability using confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511–530. doi:10.1348/000709901158659.

Hailikari, T., Tuononen, T., & Parpala, A. (2018). Students’ experiences of the factors affecting their study progress: Differences in study profiles. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1188898.

Hansen, H.F., Geschwind, L., Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., & Pulkkinen, K. (2019). Balancing Accountability and Trust: University Reforms in the Nordic Countries. Higher Education, 78(3), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-0358-2.

Harvey, L, (2003). Student Feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–20.

Hernandez, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64, 489–502. doi:10.1007/ s10734-012-9506-7.

Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

Hunter, M. (1979). Teaching Is Decision Making. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 62–67.

Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. (2006). Characterizing a teaching and learning environment is conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572074.

Ko, W. H., & Chung, F. M. (2014). Teaching quality, learning satisfaction, and academic performance among hospitality students in Taiwan. World Journal of Education, 4(5), 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v4n5p11.

Ko.W.H. (2012). A study of the relationships among effective learning, professional competence, and learning performance in culinary field. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11, 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.02.010.

Kyndt, E., Berghmans, I., Dochy, F., & Bulckens, L. (2014). Time is not enough. Workload in higher education: a student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 33, 4, 684–698. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.863839.

Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R.J., & Christofidou, E. (2002). Generating criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness through a self-evaluation approach: A complementary way of measuring teacher effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 291–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.3.291.3426.

Lackey, J. & Neill, N. (2001). Quantifying quality: The importance of student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1),19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320120045058.

Marton, F. (1976). On non-verbatim learning. II. The erosion of a task induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 41–48.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.). The experience of learning. Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Nijhuis, J., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2005). Influence of redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning strategies. Learning Environments Research, 8, 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-7950-3.

Patrice, M.A., Irenea, M.G., Malabuyoc, F.L.S., Sobrevilla, D.M., & Gumasing, J.J. (2022). Effect of academic workload on the mental fatigue of students during online class. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, Turkey.

Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Hailikari, T. (2017). The complex relationship between emotions, approaches to learning, study success and study progress during the transition to university. Higher Education, 73(3), 441–457. doi:10.1007/s10734-016-0096-7.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 288–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.015.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193.

Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of a task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Scully, G. & Kerr, R. (2014). Student workload and assessment: Strategies to manage expectations and inform curriculum development. Accounting Education. 23(5), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.947094.

Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 291–320.

Smith, A. P. (2019). Student Workload, Wellbeing and Academic Attainment. In International Symposium on Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications (pp. 35–47). Springer.

Stringer, M.; Stringer, K.; Hunter, J.A.; Finlay, C. (2019) Assuring quality through student evaluation. In Roger, E., Elaine, H., Eds. Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching. Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

Vermeulen, L., & Schmidt, H.G. (2008). Learning environment, learning process, academic outcomes, and career success of university graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 431–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211810.

Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49, 205−234. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6664-2.

Vermunt, J. D., & Donche, V. (2017). A learning perspective on student learning in higher education: State of the art and moving forward. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-6.

Wachtel, H. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–211.

Wilson, K.L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997) The development, validation, and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–52. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381121.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Siahaan, M. ., Pardede, S. ., Silitonga, L. L. ., Maruli, S., Lumbansiantar, R. ., & Sinaga, A. S. (2023). Analysis of Factors Affecting Online Learning at Nommensen HKBP University of Medan. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.553