The Temporal Perspective in Higher Education Learners: Comparisons between Online and Onsite Learning

• Authors: Margarida Romero , Mireia Usart
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Higher Education increases flexibility with online learning solutions. Nevertheless, dropout rates in online university are large. Among the reasons, one aspect deserving further study is students’ Time Perspective (TP), which has been studied in onsite HE. It is necessary to know the TP profile of the growing population of online students, and consider its relation with students’ preference and convenience factors for choosing online or onsite contexts. In this study, learners’ TP in an online and an onsite Catalan HE institutions are compared. Results show that HE students present a high future orientation in general, while online students showed a higher orientation to past negativism. Basic guides are given to help institutions and students in the choice of the better suited learning context according to their TP.

Keywords

EN

Online learning; Distance education; Lifelong Learning; Temporal Perspectives; Drop out; Higher Education

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 190-209

Dates

published

2014-07-01

online

2014-12-11

Contributors

author

Margarida Romero

• Université Laval, Canada

author

Mireia Usart

• ESADE, Av. de Pedralbes, 60-62 E-08034 Barcelona, Spain

References

• 1. Altbach, P.; Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.
• 2. Artino, A.R. (2010). Internet and Higher Education Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal factors that predict students’ choice of instructional format. In The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), (pp. 272-276).
• 3. Bates, A.T. (2004). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge.
• 4. Bishop, M.J.; Hyclak, T. and Yerk-Zwicki, S. (2007). The clipper project: Lessons learned teaching an online economics course. In Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(2), (pp. 99-120).
• 5. Boeren, E.; Nicaise, I.; Baert, H. (2010). Theoretical models of participation in adult education: The need for an integrated model. In International journal of lifelong education, 29(1), (pp. 45-61).
• 6. Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass
• 7. Bosato, G. (2001). Time perspective, academic motivation, and procrastination. Master’s thesis. San Jose State University.
• 8. Carnoy, M.; Jarillo B.; Castano-Munoz, J.; Duart, J.M.; Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2012). Who attends and completes virtual universities: the case of the open University of Catalonia (UOC). In Higher Education, 63, (pp. 53-82).[Crossref]
• 9. Clay, M.; Rowland, S. and Packard, A. (2009). Improving undergraduate online retention through gated advisement and redundant communication. In Journal of college student retention, 10(1), (pp. 93-102).
• 10. Clayton, K.; Blumberg, F. and Auld, D.P. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), (pp. 349-364).[Crossref]
• 11. Cocea, M. and Weibelzahl, S. (2011). Disengagement Detection in Online Learning: Validation Studies and Perspectives. In IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 4(2), (pp. 114-124).
• 12. Collier, C. and Morse, F.K. (2002). Requiring independent learners to collaborate: Redesign of an online course. In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(1), (pp. 1-9).
• 13. Concannon, F.; Flynn, A. and Campbell, M.(2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), (pp. 501-512).[Crossref]
• 14. Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1992). NEO personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa, FA: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• 15. Cuthrell, K. and Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? In MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, (pp. 357-362).
• 16. Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical models for E-Learning: A theory-based design framework.In International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), (pp. 25-44).
• 17. Daugherty, M. and Funke, B.L. (2007). University faculty and student perceptions of webbased instruction. In The Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), (pp. 21-39). Retrieved from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewArticle/134
• 18. de Bilde, J.; Vansteenkiste, M. and Lens, W. (2011). Understanding the association between future time perspective and self-regulated learning through the lens of self-determination theory. In Learning and Instruction, 21(3), (pp. 332-344).
• 19. de Volder, M.L. and Lens, W. (1982). Academic Achievement and Future Time Perspective as a Cognitive-Motivational Concept. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3), (pp. 566-571).
• 20. Deal III, W. (2002). Distance Learning: Teaching technology online. In The Technology Teacher, 61, (pp. 21-26).
• 21. Delfino, M.; Manca, S.; Persico, D.; Sarti, L. (2004). Online Learning: Attitudes, Expectations and Prejudices of Adult Novices. In Proceedings of the IASTED Web Based Education Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, (pp. 31-36).
• 22. Diaz, D. (2002). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. In Chronicle of Higher Education, (p. A39).
• 23. Diaz, D.P. and Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students’ Learning Styles in Two Classes and Equivalent On-Campus. In College teaching, 47(4), (pp. 130-135).
• 24. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2006). Estructura factorial y fiabilidad del Inventario de Perspectiva Temporal de Zimbardo. In Psicothema, 18(3), (pp. 565-571).
• 25. Eren, A. (2009). Exploring the effects of changes in future time perspective and perceived instrumentality on graded performance. In Electronic Journal of Educational Research, 19(7), (pp. 1217-1248).
• 26. Evans, T.N. (2009). An investigative study of factors that influence the retention rates in online programs at selected state, state-affiliated, and private universities. PhD Dissertation. UMI Number: 3388741.ProQuest.
• 27. Favretto, G.; Caramia, G. and Guardini, M. (2005). E-learning measurement of the learning differences between traditional lessons and online lessons. In European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 8(2). Available online at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2005&halfyear=2&article=187
• 28. Fillion, G.; Limayem, M.; Laferrière, T. and Robert, M. (2007). Integrating ICT into higher education: a study of onsite vs. online students. In Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2).
• 29. Fischer, G.; Rohde, M. and Wulf, W. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. In Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, (pp. 9-40).
• 30. Fourez, M. (2009). Impoverished students’ perspectives of time. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
• 31. Gallagher, J.G. (2007). Online Learning: Strategy or Sophistry? In European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 10(1). Available online at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2007&halfyear=1&article=257
• 32. Gibbs, G. (2003). The future of student retention in open and distance learning. In The future of open and distance learning, (pp. 37-48).
• 33. Gilbert, N. (2001). Researching Social Life. SAGE.
• 34. Glenn, M. and D’Agostino, D. (2008). The Future of Higher Education: How Technology Will Shape Learning. New Media Consortium, 2008, October 1. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED505103. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from ERIC database.
• 35. Glover, L. and Lewis, V. (2012). Student preference online versus traditional courses. In The Global eLearning Journal, 1(3), (pp. 1-28).
• 36. Green, K.C. (1996). The coming ubiquity of information technology. In Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(2), (pp. 24-28).
• 37. Halsne, A.M. and Gatta, L.A. (2002). Online versus Traditionally-Delivered Instruction: A Descriptive Study of Learner Characteristics in a Community College Setting. In Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1), (p. 1).
• 38. Harrington, R. and Loffredo, D.A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. In The Internet and Higher Education, 13, (pp. 89-95).
• 39. Hiltz, S.R.; Coppola, N.; Rotter, N.; Toroff, M.; Benbunan-Fich, R. (2000). Measuring the Importance of Collaborative Learning for the Effectiveness of ALN: A Multi-Measure. In J.Bourne (ed.), Online Education: Learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction: Volume 1. (p. 101-119).Needham, MA.: Sloan-C.
• 40. Horstmanshof, L. and Zimitat, C. (2007). Future time orientation predicts academic engagement among first-year university students. In British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), (pp. 703-718).[Crossref]
• 41. Hu, S.; Katherine, L. and Kuh, G.D. (2011). Student typologies in higher education. In New Directions for Institutional Research, (pp. 5-15)
• 42. Jacobs, J. and King, R.B. (2002). Age and college completion: A life-history analysis of women aged 15-44. In Sociology of Education, 75, (pp. 211-230).
• 43. Karber, D. (2003). Comparisons and contrasts in traditional versus online teaching in management. In Higher Education in Europe, 26, (pp. 533-536).
• 44. Kell, C. (2006). Undergraduates’ learning profile development: what is happening to the men? In Medical Teacher, 28(1), (pp. 16-24).[Crossref]
• 45. Kim, T.; Welch, S.M.; Nam, S. (2012). Examining Graduate Students’ Perceptions of and Preferences for Online Courses. In proceedings of Academic and Business Research Institute, International Conference - Las Vegas 2012, October 4 - 6, 2012. Available online at: http://www.aabri.com/LV2012Manuscripts/LV12065.pdf
• 46. Koons, K. (2012). New study - students prefer online college classes to traditional classes.
• 47. Lee, Y.; Choi, J. and Kim, T. (2012). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), (pp. 328-337). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01306.x[Crossref]
• 48. Leidner, D.E. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: a theoretical view. In MIS Quarterly, 19(3), (pp. 265-91).[Crossref]
• 49. Lens, W.; Simons, J. and Dewitte, S. (2001). Student motivation and self-regulation as a function of future time perspective and perceived instrumentality Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications, (pp. 233-248), Pergamon: New York.
• 50. MacGregor, C.J. (2000). Does personality matter? A comparison of student experiences in traditional and online classrooms. In Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1696A.
• 51. Malka, A. and Covington, M. V. (2005). Perceiving school performance as instrumental to future attainment: effects on graded performance. In Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), (pp. 60-80).
• 52. Mello, Z.R. and Worrell, F.C. (2006). The Relationship of Time Perspective to Age, Gender, and Academic Achievement among Academically Talented Adolescents. In Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(3), (pp. 271-289).
• 53. Miller, R.B. and Brickman, S.J. (2004). A model of future-oriented motivation and selfregulation: effects of time perspective on student motivation. In Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), (pp. 9-33).
• 54. Mortagy, Y. and Boghikian-Whitby, S. (2010). A longitudinal comparative study of student perceptions in online education. In Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6(1), (pp. 23-44).
• 55. Northrup, P. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. In The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), (pp. 219-226).
• 56. Oppedisano, V. (2011). The (adverse) effects of expanding higher education: Evidence from Italy. In Economics of Education Review, 30(12).
• 57. Paechter, M. and Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. In The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), (pp. 292-297).
• 58. Palloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. Jossey-Bass.
• 59. Paunescu, M. (2013). Students’ Attitudes towards Technology-Enabled Learning: A Change in Learning Patterns? The Case of a Master’s Course in Political Science. In European Journal of Open and Distance e-Learning, 16(1). Available online at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2013&halfyear=1&article=554
• 60. Peetsma, T.T.D. (2000). Future time perspective as a predictor of school investment. In Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(2), (pp. 177-192).[Crossref]
• 61. Pérez-Cereijo, M.V. (2006). Attitude as Predictor of Success in Online Training. In International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), (pp. 623-639).
• 62. Robai, A.P. and Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. In International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).
• 63. Romero, M. and Usart, M. (2012). Game Based Learning Time-on-Task and Learning Performance According to the Students’ Temporal Perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Games Based Learning, (pp. 4-5).
• 64. Romero, M. and Barberà, E. (2013). Identificación de las dificultades de regulación del tiempo de los estudiantes universitarios en formación a distancia. RED. In Revista de Educación a Distancia, 38.
• 65. Sangrà, A. (2001). La calidad en las experiencias virtuales de educación superior, Actas de la conferencia internacional sobre educación, formación y nuevas tecnologías, (pp. 614-625).
• 66. Sangrà, A. (2002). A New Learning Model for the Information and Knowledge Society: The case of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). In The international review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2), (pp. 1-8).
• 67. Schmidt J.T. and Werner C.H. (2007). Designing Online Instruction for Success: Future Oriented Motivation and Self-Regulation. In The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 5(1), (pp. 69 -78).
• 68. Siemens, G. and Matheos, K. (2012). Systemic changes in higher education. In Education, 16(1).
• 69. Simons, J.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Lens, W. and Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. In Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), (pp. 121-139).
• 70. Sullivan, P. (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: Male and female college students evaluate their experiences. In Community College Journal of Research &Practice, 25(10), (pp. 805-818).
• 71. Sursock, A. and Smidtt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education.European University Association. ISBN: 9789078997177.
• 72. Swan, K.; Shea, P.; Fredericksen, E.; Pickett, A.; Pelz, W.; Maher, G. et al. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. In Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), (pp. 359-383).
• 73. Taniguchi, H. and Kaufman, G. (2005). Degree completion among nontraditional college students. In Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), (pp. 912-927).[Crossref]
• 74. Thomas, E. and Quinn, J. (2007). First generation entry into higher education. McGraw-Hill International.
• 75. Van der Veen, I. and Peetsma, T. (2011). Motivated for leisure in the future: A personcentred longitudinal study in the lowest level of secondary education. In Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), (pp. 233-238).
• 76. Varela, O.E.; Cater, J.J. and Michel, N. (2012). Online learning in management education: an empirical study of the role of personality traits. In Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(3), (pp. 209-225).
• 77. Vermeulen, L. and Schmidt, H.G. (2008). Learning environments, learning process, academic outcomes and career success of university graduates. In Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), (pp. 431-451).
• 78. Volery, T. and Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. In International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), (pp. 216 - 223).
• 79. Wetterich, N.C. and Melo, M.R. (2007). Sociodemographic profile of undergraduate nursing students. In Rev Latino-am Enfermagem, 15(3), (pp. 404-410).
• 80. Yang, F.Y. and Tsai, C.C. (2008). Investigating university student preferences and beliefs about learning in the Web-based context. In Computers & Education, 50(4), (pp. 1284-1303).
• 81. Young, A. and Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. In The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), (pp. 107-115). doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.001[Crossref]
• 82. Yukselturk, E.; Ozekes, S. and Türel, Y.K. (2014).Predicting Dropout Student: An Application of Data Mining Methods in an Online Education Program. In European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(1). Available online at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=current&article=616
• 83. Zabel, A. (1995). Correspondence course completion rates. PhD dissertation. Retrieved from https://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/16268/31295009342592.pdf [01/06/2014]
• 84. Zimbardo, P.G.; Keough, K.A. and Boyd, J.N. (1997). Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. In Personality and Individual Differences, 23, (pp. 1007-1023).
• 85. Zimbardo, P.G. and Boyd, J.N. (1999). Putting time into perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, (pp. 1271-1288)
• 86. Žuvic-Butorac, M.; Roncevic, N.; Nemcanin, D. and Nebic, Z. (2011). Blended E-Learning in Higher Education: Research on Students’ Perspective. In Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, (pp. 409-429).

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/eurodl-2014-0013