Abstract
Technology continues to disrupt higher education around the world. The fast adoption of blended and online learning coupled with growing interest in offering MOOCs by higher education institutions warrants a systematic study of the learning environment and how learners perceive it. This study builds on previous studies that investigated digital status, online practices and learners’ preferences for learning environments in Pacific Island Countries. A total of 945 learners (873 undergraduate and 72 postgraduate) were investigated for their preferences towards psycho-social features of their preferred learning environments. In addition, 112 instructors’ perceptions demonstrated their understanding of learners’ preferences and the gaps in their understanding of their learners. The undergraduate learners place highest preference for learner interaction and collaboration and authentic learning, whereas postgraduate learners opted for instructor support, active learning and authentic learning. The instructors’ perceptions highlighted the importance they place on their role by rating their assumption for learners’ highest preference for instructor support and least satisfaction of learners towards distance education. The learners and instructors’ contradictory perceptions indicate the need for instructors to ‘listen’ to their learners and redesign technology integrated learning environments. These findings have implications on course design and delivery in higher education and MOOCs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Ethics approval (ref. FALE07/13) granted for this study does not allow data/data set to be shared with anyone.
References
Abuhassna, H., & Yahaya, N. (2018). Students’ utilization of distance learning through an interventional online module based on Moore transactional distance theory. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3043–3052.
Baba, T., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Student attitudes to UNDP social science curriculum in Fiji: Personal and environmental influences. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fürErziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale De L’education, 29(43), 465–483.
Burgess, J.V. (2006). Transactional Distance Theory and Student Satisfaction with Web-based Distance Learning Courses, DEd Thesis. The University of West Florida.
Cantu, P & Kazen, H. (2020, June 20). Engagement to Autonomy: Four Strategies for Face-to-Face or Online Learning in First-Year Experience Courses. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/engagement-to-autonomy-four-strategies-for-face-to-face-or-online-learning-in-first-year-experience-courses/
Cohen, A., Shimony, U., Nachmias, R., & Soffer, T. (2019). Active learners’ characterization in MOOC forums and their generated knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 177–198.
Fernandez-Pascual, M. D., Ferrer-Cascales, R., Reig-Ferrer, A., Albaladejo-Blazquez, N., & Walker, S. (2015). Validation of Spanish version of Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES) in Spain. Learning Environment Research, 18, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9179-0
Ferrer-Cascales, R., Walker, S. C., Reigh-Ferrer, A., Fernandez-Pascual, M. D., & Albadejo-Blazquez, N. (2011). Evaluation of hybrid and distance education learning environments in Spain. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1100–1110.
Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the learning process in distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 20(1), 95–110.
Garrison, A. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, A. (2000). Text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Henritius, E., Lofstrom, E., & Hannula, M. S. (2019). University student’s emotions in virtual learning: A review of empirical research in the 21st century. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 80–100.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
Hogan, R. (2010). Societal Issues, Legal Standards, & International Realities Universities Face in the Distance-Learning Market. In R. Hogan (Ed.), Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow (pp. 284–301). IGI Global.
Howard, S., Thompson, K., Yang, J., & Ma, J. (2019). Working the system: Development of a system model of technology integration to inform learning task design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 326–341.
Huang, H. (2002). Student perception in an online mediated environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 405–422.
Irani, T., Telg, R., Scherler, C., & Harrington, M. (2003). Personality type and its relationship to distance education students’ course perception and performance. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 445–453.
Irby, T. L., Wynn, J. T., & Strong, R. (2012). A Descriptive Evaluation of Agricultural Education eLearning Courses: Students’ Perspective. NACTA Journal, 56, 70–76.
Johnson, J. B., Reddy, P., Chand, R., & Naiker, M. (2021). Attitudes and awareness of regional Pacific Island students towards e-learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00248-z
Kaloto, A.H., Katoanga, A.N., & Tatila, L.U. (2006). Critical Success Factors for Effective use of e-learning by Pacific Learners. Final Report. Prepared for ITPNZ. Kaloto and Associates. New Zealand.
Kaymak, Z. D., & Horzum, M. B. (2013). Relationship between online learning readiness and structure and interaction of online learning students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice., 13(3), 1792–1797.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2005). Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance. Learning Environment Research, 12, 15–29.
Koohang, A., & Durante, A. (2003). Learners’ perceptions toward the web-based distance learning activities/assignments portion of an undergraduate hybrid instructional model. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 105–113.
Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 52(4), 282–290.
Manca, S., Grion, V., Armellini, A., & Devicchi, C. (2017). Editorial: Student voice. Listening to students to improve education through digital technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(5), 1075–1080.
Marsh, C., & Hogan, R. (2005). Distance education the pacific way. A multi modal teaching approach for south pacific learners. The International Journal of Learning, 12, 187–191.
Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of HigherEducation, 19(2), 661–679.
Moore, M. G. (1983). The individual adult learner. In M. Tight (Ed.), Adult Learning and Education (pp. 153–168). Croom Helm.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Moore, M. G. (2007). The Theory of Transactional Distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 89–106). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ng, S. F., & Confessore, G. J. (2010). Understanding the perceptions of perceived distance learning environment and the enhancement of learner autonomy. The International Journal of Learning, 17(2), 255–263.
Pearson, J., & Trinidad, S. (2005). OLES: an instrument for refining the design of e-learning e-learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 396–404.
Raturi, S. (2010). Learners’ satisfaction of, and preference for, different instructional delivery modes: a case study from the University of the South Pacific. Master of Education Unpublished Thesis.
Raturi, S. (2018). Understanding Learners’ preferences for learning environments in higher education. The Online Journal of Distance Education and Elearning, 6(3), 84–100.
Raturi, S. (2019). Gauging the extent of online practices along the eLearning continuum. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 11(4), 303–334.
Raturi, S., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2014). Shaping beliefs about teaching and learning in higher education in the Pacific. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 67–84.
Raturi, S., & Chandra, S. (2016). Learners and Instructors’ digital status and satisfaction with Learning Environnements in Higher Education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 13(5&6), 31–52.
Raturi, S., Hogan, R., & Thaman, K. H. (2011). Learners’ Access to tools and experience with technology at the University of the South Pacific: Readiness for e-learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 411–427.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.4
Sharma, A. N. (2008). ICT in Teacher Education: The USP Experience. In J. Dorovolomo, C. F. Koya, H. P. Phan, J. Veramu, & U. Nabobo-Baba (Eds.), Pacific Education: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 165–179). University of South Pacific.
Shehab, S. A. J. (2007): Undergraduate Learners’ Perceptions of Blended Learning and its Relationship with Some Demographic and Experiential Variables at the Arab Open University- Bahrain Branch. MSc Thesis. United Arab Emirates University.
Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and Validation of an instrument for Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES). PhD Thesis, Curtin Univ of Technology, Australia.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environment Survey (DELES). Learning Environment Research, 8(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3
Wheeler, S. (2002). Student perceptions of learning support in distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 419–429.
Wheeler, S. (2012). Digital literacies for engagement in emerging online cultures. eLC Research Paper Series, 5, 14–25.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Chandra for his critical comments and suggestions and all the participants in this research study, and Dr. Greg Burnett for his assistance with proof reading this paper.
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The only author listed as Shikha Raturi is responsible for the entire research study right from its inception to writing of this paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
DELES survey (preferences)
Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES) Preferred Form (Scott Walker, 2005)*
This survey contains 34 statements about how you prefer practices to take place in this class, followed by eight statements regarding your opinion about distance education.
There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers. Your opinion is what is wanted on each item. Please think about how well each statement describes what this class could be like for you.
Rating: Never = 1; Seldom = 2; Sometimes = 3; Often = 4; Always = 5.
Note: Focus on one of the modes of instruction (Print, Face-to-face, Blended, Online) that you would like to focus on for this survey.
Scale 1: instructor support
In this class, I prefer that …
Item 1: If I have an inquiry, the instructor finds time to respond.
Item 2: The instructor helps me identify problem areas in my study.
Item 3: The instructor responds promptly to my questions.
Item 4: The instructor gives me valuable feedback on my assignments.
Item 5: The instructor adequately addresses my questions.
Item 6: The instructor encourages my participation.
Item 7: It is easy to contact the instructor.
Item 8: The instructor provides me positive and negative feedback on my work.
Scale 2: learner interaction and collaboration
In this class, I prefer to …
Item 9: Work with others.
Item 10: Relate my work to other's work.
Item 11: Share information with other students.
Item 12: Discuss my ideas with other students.
Item 13: Collaborate with other students in the class.
Item 14: that group work is a part of my activities.
Scale 3: personal relevance
In this class, I prefer that …
Item 15: I can relate what I learn to my life outside of university.
Item 16: I am able to pursue topics that interest me.
Item 17: I can connect my studies to my activities outside of class.
Item 18: I apply my everyday experiences in class.
Item 19: I link class work to my life outside of university.
Item 20: I learn things about the world outside of university.
Item 21: I apply my out-of-class experience.
Scale 4: authentic learning
In this class, I prefer that …
Item 22: I study real cases related to the class.
Item 23: I use real facts in class activities.
Item 24: I work on assignments that deal with real-world information.
Item 25: I work with real examples.
Item 26: I enter the real world of the topic of study.
Scale 5: learner autonomy
In this class, I prefer that …
Item 27: I explore my own strategies for learning.
Item 28: I seek my own answers.
Item 29: I solve my own problems.
Scale 6: active learning
In this class, I prefer that …
Item 30: I make decisions about my learning.
Item 31: I work during times I find convenient.
Item 32: I am in control of my learning.
Item 33: I play an important role in my learning.
Item 34: I approach learning in my own way.
The following items refer to your preferences about satisfaction with distance education
Item 35: Distance education is stimulating.
Item 36: I prefer distance education.
Item 37: Distance education is exciting.
Item 38: Distance education is worth my time.
Item 39: I enjoy studying by distance.
Item 40: I look forward to learning by distance.
Item 41: I would enjoy my education more if all my classes were by distance.
Item 42: I am satisfied with DE mode.
*This is the survey for Learners. The survey for instructors replaced ‘I’ with ‘Student’.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raturi, S. Learners’ preferences versus instructors’ beliefs in technology-enabled learning environments in Pacific Island countries: are we listening to the learners?. J. Comput. Educ. 9, 403–426 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00208-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00208-6