Abstract

This study examines at how e-learning readiness and the Community of Inquiry framework affect higher education students' preferences for various teaching delivery modes. In the study, Latent Class Analysis was used to profile the participants based on autonomous learning attributes, which is the pedagogical sub-dimension of e-learning readiness. As a result of this analysis, three classes were obtained as LC1 (high self-directed learning, low e-learning motivation), LC2 (high self-directed learning, medium-high e-learning motivation) and LC3 (medium level in all factors). When students' overall teaching mode preferences were analyzed using the Bradley-Terry model, a hierarchy of preferences was found, with blended learning, followed by face-to-face and finally online learning. Blended learning was widely preferred by LC2 and LC3, while LC1 showed an overwhelming preference for face-to-face. The inclusion of Community of Inquiry in the model made these differences in preferences even more pronounced. For LC1, face-to-face learning dominated preferences for social presence, while, remarkably, it showed an almost exclusive preference for teaching presence and cognitive presence. The findings highlight the importance of direct guidance and interaction in face-to-face settings, which may be more effective than the flexibility of online environments for certain learner profiles. Moreover, they may emphasize the necessity of varied instructional methods in higher education to meet the diverse demands of students.

Keywords

References

• Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471249688
• Ahuja, N. J., Kumar, A., & Nayyar, A. (2023). Sustainable blended learning in STEM education for students with additional needs. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3497-3
• Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i3.66
• Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765
• Alducin-Ochoa, J. M., & Vázquez-Martínez, A. I. (2016). Hybrid learning: An effective resource in university education? International Education Studies, 9(8), 1-14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1110170.pdf
• Aydoğan, İ. (2024). Investigation of the relationship between students' habits of studying science lessons and their affective feature. Siirt Education Journal, 4(1), 1-14.
• Bartholomew, D. J. (1987). Latent variable models and factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
• Bergan, J. R. (1983). Latent-class models in educational research. Review of Research in Education, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167140
• Berger, R. L. (1997). Likelihood ratio tests and intersection-union tests. In S. Panchapakesan & N. Balakrishnan (Eds.), Advances in statistical decision theory and applications. Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2308-5_15
• Blackford, K., Birney, K., Sharma, S., Crawford, G., Tilley, M., Winter, S., & Hendriks, J. (2022). Health promotion and sexology student and teaching staff perspectives of online learning and teaching during COVID-19: A mixed methods study. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 8(2), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/23733799211037374
• Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3-4), 324-345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029
• Callo, E. C., & Yazon, A. (2020). Exploring the factors influencing the readiness of faculty and students on online teaching and learning as an alternative delivery mode for the new normal. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3509-3518. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080826
• Cattelan, M. (2012). Models for paired comparison data: A review with emphasis on dependent data. Statistical Science, 27(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-sts396
• Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
• Cooney, M. H., Gupton, P., & O’Laughlin, M. (2000). Blurring the lines of play and work to create blended classroom learning experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(3), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02694230
• Çebi, A. (2023). How e-learning readiness and motivation affect student interactions in distance learning? Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2941-2960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11312-0
• Dittrich, R., Francis, B., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (2007). A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of Likert-scale responses. Statistical Modelling, 7(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082x0600700102
• Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (1998). Modeling the effect of subject-specific covariates in paired comparison studies with an application to university rankings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 47(4), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00125
• Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (2002). Modeling dependencies in paired comparison data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 40(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-9473(01)00106-2
• Dunn, R. (1987). Research on instructional environments: Implications for student achievement and attitudes. Professional School Psychology, 2(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090528
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw‑Hill.
• Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1737
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
• Hatzinger, R., & Dittrich, R. (2012). prefmod: An R package for modeling preferences based on paired comparisons, rankings, or ratings. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(10), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i10
• Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., & Bélisle, M. (2021). An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3
• Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020397380
• Horzum, M. B., Demir-Kaymak, Z., & Gungoren, O. C. (2015). Structural equation modeling towards online learning readiness, academic motivations, and perceived learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2410
• Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004
• Imran, R., Fatima, A., Salem, I. E., & Allil, K. (2023). Teaching and learning delivery modes in higher education: Looking back to move forward post-COVID-19 era. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100805
• Joji, R. M., Kumar, A. P., Almarabheh, A., Dar, F. K., Deifalla, A. H., Tayem, Y., & Shahid, M. (2022). Perception of online and face-to-face microbiology laboratory sessions among medical students and faculty at Arabian Gulf University: A mixed-method study. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 411. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03346-2
• Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.016
• Kaur, K., & Abas, Z. (2004). An assessment of e-learning readiness at the Open University Malaysia [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2004), Melbourne, Australia.
• Keskin, S., Çınar, M., & Demir, Ö. (2022). A quantitative content analysis of Turkish state universities’ official websites in terms of their preparedness and actions during emergency distance education in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic period. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 493-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10744-4
• Lanza, S. T., & Rhoades, B. L. (2011). Latent class analysis: An alternative perspective on subgroup analysis in prevention and treatment. Prevention Science, 14(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0201-1
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Houghton Mifflin.
• Lee, S. J., & Nuatomue, J. N. (2021). Students’ perceived difficulty and satisfaction in face-to-face versus online sections of a technology-intensive course. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2021070101
• Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). polca: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i10
• Lopez, C. (2007). Evaluating e-learning readiness in a health sciences higher education institution. In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on e‑Learning (pp. 1-8). IADIS. https://web.fe.up.pt/~ctl/pubs/lopes_IADIS_2007.pdf
• Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010
• Mudau, P. K., Biccard, P., van Wyk, M. M., Kotze, C. J., & Nkuna, V. R. (2022). Student access to and competence in migrating to a fully online open distance learning space. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 21, 197-215. https://doi.org/10.28945/4976
• Ng, D. T. K. (2022). Online aviation learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong and Mainland China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 443-474. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13185
• Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
• Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
• Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002
• Prihastiwi, W. J., Prastuti, E., & Eva, N. (2020). E-learning readiness and learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. KnE Social Sciences, 4(15), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v4i15.8212
• Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2203
• Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid and online environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.584320
• Shea, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2022). Building bridges to advance the community of inquiry framework for online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089989
• Stenbom, S. (2018). A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.06.001
• Tanswell, F., Davies, B., Jones, I., & Kinnear, G. (2023). Comparative judgement for experimental philosophy: A method for assessing ordinary meaning in vehicles in the park cases. Philosophical Psychology, 38(4), 1558–1578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.2263036
• Tat, O. (2020). Uzaktan eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Assessment and evaluation in distance education]. In F. Tanhan & H. İ. Özok (Eds.), Pandemi ve eğitim [Pandemic and education] (pp. 203-224). Anı Publications.
• Taylor, M., Vaughan, N., Ghani, S. K., Atas, S., & Fairbrother, M. (2018). Looking back and looking forward: A glimpse of blended learning in higher education from 2007–2017. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 9(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAVET.2018010101
• Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y
• Wright, B. M. (2017). Blended learning: Student perception of face-to-face and online EFL lessons. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 105-116.
• Yurdugül, H. ve Demir, Ö. (2017). An investigation of pre-service teachers' readiness for e-learning at undergraduate level teacher training programs: The case of Hacettepe University. H. U. Journal of Education, 32(4), 896-915. http://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2016022763
• Zeqiri, J., Kareva, V., & Alija, S. (2020). The impact of blended learning on students’ performance and satisfaction in South East European University. Entrenova-enterprise Research Innovation, 6(1), 233-244. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224691/1/22-ENT-2020-Zeqiri-233-244.pdf
• Zine, M., Harrou, F., Terbeche, M., Bellahcene, M., Dairi, A., & Sun, Y. (2023). E-learning readiness assessment using machine learning methods. Sustainability, 15(11), 8924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118924

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.