--

18 (1) 2023

Đo lường trải nghiệm của người học đại học trực tuyến


Tác giả - Nơi làm việc:
Dương Diễm Châu - Trường Đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh , Việt Nam
Nguyễn Ngọc Thông - Trường Đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh , Việt Nam
Tác giả liên hệ, Email: Dương Diễm Châu - chau.dd@ou.edu.vn
Ngày nộp: 27-03-2023
Ngày duyệt đăng: 15-05-2023
Ngày xuất bản: 05-06-2023

Tóm tắt
Trải nghiệm của người học quyết định tính hiệu quả của đa số cơ sở giáo dục đại học (Higher Education Institutes - HEIs) tại Việt Nam. Hiện nay, trước áp lực của cuộc cách mạng công nghiệp 4.0 và đại dịch Covid-19, người học trực tuyến đã trở thành khách hàng chính mang lại lợi thế cạnh tranh cho HEIs. Khung Community of Inquiry (CoI) là một công cụ đo lường trải nghiệm học trực tuyến, hứa hẹn cải thiện liên tục hệ thống E-Learning. Nghiên cứu định lượng với 3,027 sinh viên học trực tuyến của một trường đại học tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, nhưng chỉ có 1,568 (51.8%) phản hồi được chọn là mẫu khảo sát. Phương pháp phân tích tập mờ (fsQCA) được sử dụng nhằm tìm ra mối quan hệ nhân quả của các thành phần trong mô hình CoI. Kết quả nghiên cứu một mặt củng cố kết luận của các nghiên cứu trước đó về ảnh hưởng của yếu tố Giảng dạy đến quá trình Nhận thức của người học trực tuyến; mặt khác, tìm ra sự khác biệt là yếu tố Xã hội không hoàn toàn gây tác động tích cực đến Nhận thức mà chỉ đề xuất một nền tảng giao tiếp website thuận tiện cho người học trực tuyến tương tác. Kết quả nghiên cứu góp phần gợi ra việc áp dụng thang đo mới của khung đo lường CoI.

Từ khóa
dạy và học số; đào tạo trực tuyến; giáo dục số; hệ thống quản lý học tập; khung CoI

Toàn văn:
PDF

Trích dẫn:

Duong, C. D., & Nguyen, T. N. (2023). Đo Lường Trải nghiệm Của Người Học Đại học Trực Tuyến [Measuring online university learners’ experience]. Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh – Khoa học xã hội, 18(1), 17-32. doi: 10.46223/HCMCOUJS.soci.vi.18.1.2708.2023


Tài liệu tham khảo

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, R. D. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. Journal Education Technology, 42(2), 233-250.


Anagnostopoulos, D., Basmadjian, K. G., & McCrory, R. S. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1699-1729.


Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., ... Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Complete edition). New York, NY: Longman.


Arbaugh, B. J., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, R. D., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet High Education, 11(3/4), 133-136.


Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). How much does “subject matter” matter? A study of disciplinary effects in on-line MBA courses. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 57-73.


Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive col- laboration in an online environment. Language Learning Technology, 10(1), 42-66.


Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums. Distance Education, 26(1), 67-87.


Boston, W., Díaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2009). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal Async Learning Network, 13(3), 67-83.


Campbell, P., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Educational presence in the community of ınquiry model: The student’s viewpoint. Paper presented at 21st Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning.


Celani, M. A. A., & Collins, H. (2005). Critical thinking in reflective sessions and in online interactions. AILA Review, 18(1), 41-57.


Celentin, P. (2007). Online training: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39-58.


Chen, A., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2017). Customers’ purchase decision-making process in social commerce: A social learning perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 627-638.


Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.


Dixon, M., Kuhlhorst, M., & Reiff, A. (2006). Creating effective online discussions: Optimal instructor and student roles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 15-28.


Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420.


Fiss, P. C., Marx, A., & Cambré, B. (2013). Configurational theory and methods in organizational research: Introduction. In Configurational theory and methods in organizational research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Garrison, D. R. (2011). Critiques & responses. Truy cập ngày 10/10/2022 tại https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/bN3gdW


Garrison, D. R. (2016). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis.


Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.


Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.


Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.


Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.


Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. Handbook of Distance Education, 1(4), 113-127.


Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: a retrospective. Internet Higher Education, 13(1/2), 5-9.


Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal Async Learning Network, 8(2), 61-74.


Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet Higher Education, 2(2/3), 87-105.


Gunawan, D. D., & Huarng, K. H. (2015). Viral effects of social network and media on consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2237-2241.


Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x


Hilliard, L. P., & Stewart, M. K. (2019). Time well spent: Creating a community of inquiry in blended first-year writing courses. The Internet and Higher Education41, 11-24.


Hoskins, B. J. (2012). Connections, engagement, and presence. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 51-53.


Hwang, A., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2006). Virtual and traditional feedback-seeking behaviors: Underlying competitive attitudes and consequent grade performance. Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 1-28.


Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), Article 479.


Kock, N. (2020). Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2(2), 1-6.


Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Wiesenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1).


Larsen, R., & Warne, R. T. (2010). Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 871-876.


Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Luebeck, J. L., & Bice, L. R. (2005). Online discussion as a mechanism of conceptual change among mathematics and science teachers. Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 21-39.


Mackie J. L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(4), 245-264.


Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work-school conflict, and school outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 277-287.


Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55-65.


Molinari, D. L. (2004). The role of social comments in problem-solving groups in an online class. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 89-101.


Murphy, E. (2004a). Recognizing and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421-431.


Murphy, E. (2004b). Identifying and measuring ill-structured problem formulation and resolution in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1), 5-20.


Nguyen, T. D., & Nguyen, T. T. M. (2015). Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to business organizations through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1332-1340.


Omar, M. S., Ismail, S. L., & Jang, J. M. J. (2022). The influence between ICT and E-learning on student satisfactıon. International Journal of Technical Vocational and Engineering Technology (iJTveT), 3(2), 11-16.


Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2014). When the recipe is more important than the ingredients: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. Journal of Service Research, 17(2), 134-149.


Ospina-Delgado, J., & Zorio-Grima, A. (2016). Innovation at universities: A fuzzy-set approach for MOOCintensiveness. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1325-1328.


Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce (Vol. 217). Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.


Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.


Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, 51(8), 87-121.


Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629-1646.


Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netvworks, 10(1), 35-44.


Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computer Education, 52(3), 543-553.


Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115-136.


Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). Hershey, PA: IGI global.


Williams, E. A., Duray, R., & Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use of teams in online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 592-616.


Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463-472.


Yoo, Y., Kanawattanachai, P., & Citurs, A. (2002). Forging into the wired wilderness: A case study of a technology-mediated distributed discussion-based class. Journal of Management Education, 26(2), 139-163.


Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Inform Control, 8, 338-353.



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.