Abstract
AbstractThe global outbreak of COVID-19 since January 2020 has forced the closure of schools and universities in over 180 countries to control the pandemic, affecting approximately 90% of students worldwide. Distance teaching has been adopted during school closures to suspend classes without suspending learning. Scholars have claimed that distance teaching is more effective than face-to-face teaching and can replace face-to-face courses. However, further investigation is required to confirm whether distance learning is suitable for all types of courses and all students. Thanks to the effective containment of COVID-19 outbreaks in Taiwan, universities in Taiwan face a less problematic situation than do those in other countries; however, plans and preparations remain essential. The present study recruited 18,085 students from a technology university in Taiwan and used the baseline data of the past three academic years before COVID-19 (2016–2018) to explore the influences of course type and gender on distance learning performance. The results revealed that compulsory courses are more suitable for distance learning courses, whereas face-to-face teaching is more suitable for elective and general education courses. The learning performance of males and females is also different: face-to-face courses are more suitable for males, whereas no significant difference between teaching methods was observed in females. This result suggests that not all courses offered by the university are suitable for distance learning courses, and not all students are adept at distance learning. Based on these results, it is recommended that a new teaching model be established for the post-COVID-19 era.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Education
Reference49 articles.
1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
2. Astleitner, H., & Steinberg, R. (2005). Are there gender differences in web-based learning? An integrated model and related effect sizes. AACE Journal, 13(1), 47–63.
3. Azeiteiro, U. M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caetano, F. J. P., & Caeiro, S. (2015). Education for sustainable development through elearning in higher education: Experiences from Portugal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.056.
4. Bambara, C. S., Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G., & Athey, S. (2009). Delicate engagement: The lived experience of community college students enrolled in high-risk courses. Community College Review, 36(3), 219–238.
5. Bernard R.M., Abrami P.C., Lou Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade A., Wozney L., … & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献