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

Margarida Romero; Mireia Usart

doi:10.2478/eurodl-2014-0013

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

European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning

Volume 17 (2014): Issue 1

By: Margarida Romero and Mireia Usart

Open Access

|Dec 2014

Abstract

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.

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.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
3. Bates, A.T. (2004). Technology, e-learning and distance education. Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
6. Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass
Search in Google Scholar
7. Bosato, G. (2001). Time perspective, academic motivation, and procrastination. Master’s thesis. San Jose State University.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
14. Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1992). NEO personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R). Odessa, FA: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
20. Deal III, W. (2002). Distance Learning: Teaching technology online. In The Technology Teacher, 61, (pp. 21-26).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
22. Diaz, D. (2002). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. In Chronicle of Higher Education, (p. A39).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
24. Díaz-Morales, J. F. (2006). Estructura factorial y fiabilidad del Inventario de Perspectiva Temporal de Zimbardo. In Psicothema, 18(3), (pp. 565-571).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
30. Fourez, M. (2009). Impoverished students’ perspectives of time. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
33. Gilbert, N. (2001). Researching Social Life. SAGE.
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
35. Glover, L. and Lewis, V. (2012). Student preference online versus traditional courses. In The Global eLearning Journal, 1(3), (pp. 1-28).
Search in Google Scholar
36. Green, K.C. (1996). The coming ubiquity of information technology. In Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(2), (pp. 24-28).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
41. Hu, S.; Katherine, L. and Kuh, G.D. (2011). Student typologies in higher education. In New Directions for Institutional Research, (pp. 5-15)
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
43. Karber, D. (2003). Comparisons and contrasts in traditional versus online teaching in management. In Higher Education in Europe, 26, (pp. 533-536).
Search in Google Scholar
44. Kell, C. (2006). Undergraduates’ learning profile development: what is happening to the men? In Medical Teacher, 28(1), (pp. 16-24).
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
46. Koons, K. (2012). New study - students prefer online college classes to traditional classes.
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
50. MacGregor, C.J. (2000). Does personality matter? A comparison of student experiences in traditional and online classrooms. In Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1696A.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
55. Northrup, P. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. In The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), (pp. 219-226).
Search in Google Scholar
56. Oppedisano, V. (2011). The (adverse) effects of expanding higher education: Evidence from Italy. In Economics of Education Review, 30(12).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
58. Palloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. Jossey-Bass.
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
68. Siemens, G. and Matheos, K. (2012). Systemic changes in higher education. In Education, 16(1).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
71. Sursock, A. and Smidtt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher Education.European University Association. ISBN: 9789078997177.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
73. Taniguchi, H. and Kaufman, G. (2005). Degree completion among nontraditional college students. In Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), (pp. 912-927).
Search in Google Scholar
74. Thomas, E. and Quinn, J. (2007). First generation entry into higher education. McGraw-Hill International.
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
78. Volery, T. and Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. In International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), (pp. 216 - 223).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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
Search in Google Scholar
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]
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar
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)
Search in Google Scholar
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).
Search in Google Scholar

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0013 | Journal eISSN: 1027-5207

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 190 - 209

Published on: Dec 11, 2014

Published by: EDEN Digital Learning Europe

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Online learning,

Distance education,

Lifelong Learning,

Temporal Perspectives,

Drop out,

Higher Education

© 2014 Margarida Romero, Mireia Usart, published by EDEN Digital Learning Europe
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 17 (2014): Issue 1