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



Abstract Views
186

Downloads
157

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 15, 2022
Published Jan 16, 2023
10.24018/ejedu.2023.4.1.553

Abstract viewed = 186 times

Table of Contents

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

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

  1. 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.
     Google Scholar
  2. Ander, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1990). Research in classrooms: the study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. New York, Macmillan Pergamon presses.
     Google Scholar
  3. 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
     Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.
     Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Study process questionnaire manual. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
     Google Scholar
  6. 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.
     Google Scholar
  7. 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.
     Google Scholar
  8. 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.
     Google Scholar
  9. 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.
     Google Scholar
  10. 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.
     Google Scholar
  11. 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.
     Google Scholar
  12. 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.
     Google Scholar
  13. 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.
     Google Scholar
  14. 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.
     Google Scholar
  15. 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.
     Google Scholar
  16. 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.
     Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, L, (2003). Student Feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–20.
     Google Scholar
  18. Hernandez, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64, 489–502. doi:10.1007/ s10734-012-9506-7.
     Google Scholar
  19. 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.
     Google Scholar
  20. Hunter, M. (1979). Teaching Is Decision Making. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 62–67.
     Google Scholar
  21. 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.
     Google Scholar
  22. 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.
     Google Scholar
  23. 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.
     Google Scholar
  24. 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.
     Google Scholar
  25. 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.
     Google Scholar
  26. 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.
     Google Scholar
  27. Marton, F. (1976). On non-verbatim learning. II. The erosion of a task induced learning algorithm. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 41–48.
     Google Scholar
  28. 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.
     Google Scholar
  29. 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.
     Google Scholar
  30. 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.
     Google Scholar
  31. 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.
     Google Scholar
  32. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.
     Google Scholar
  33. 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.
     Google Scholar
  34. 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.
     Google Scholar
  35. Säljö, R. (1975). Qualitative differences in learning as a function of the learner’s conception of a task. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     Google Scholar
  36. 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.
     Google Scholar
  37. Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 291–320.
     Google Scholar
  38. Smith, A. P. (2019). Student Workload, Wellbeing and Academic Attainment. In International Symposium on Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications (pp. 35–47). Springer.
     Google Scholar
  39. 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.
     Google Scholar
  40. 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.
     Google Scholar
  41. 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.
     Google Scholar
  42. 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.
     Google Scholar
  43. Wachtel, H. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–211.
     Google Scholar
  44. 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.
     Google Scholar