University Students’ Acceptance of Online Learning During the Pandemic in Indonesia

Siti Yulidhar Harunasari, Retno Dwigustini, Nurhasanah Halim, Susilawati Susillawati

Abstract


This research aimed to investigate students’ acceptance of online learning during the pandemic by describing factors that sustain their engagement. The importance of this research is that by portraying their engagement in online learning, there would be suggestions for selecting effective strategies. A descriptive method was taken as the research method. A closed-ended e-questionnaire distributed to 263 respondents was employed in collecting data and resulted in 75% response rates. The study concluded that more than 50% of students accepted that online learning was useful, but the technology was not easy to use. Their acceptance of online learning has influenced their engagement in the online learning environment and making them quite resourceful in responding to the practice of online learning during the pandemic. The most engaging factor in sustaining students’ engagement was peer collaboration. Therefore, teamwork, peer-teaching, and peer assessment were among the main activities to sustain online learning engagement. Also, the communities of practice (CoP) could be lecturers’ first choice to sustain students’ engagement in online learning to anticipate the loss of authenticity in the learning context and trade the inexistence of concrete class, supporting facilities, and peers. The CoP could also make the learning context authentic. By implementing the two strategies, effective constructivist online learning should be achieved.


Keywords


online learning, Student's Accepted, Student's Engagement, Covid 19

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bryant, J., & Bates, A. J. (2015). Creating a constructivist online instructional environment. TechTrends, 59(2), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0834-1.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Harunasari, S. Y., & Halim, N. (2019). Digital backchannel: Promoting students’ engagement in EFL large class. International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning, 14(7), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9128.

Kahn, P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3121.

Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197.

Kemal, Isthifa; Suryadi; Rosyidi, Unifah.2019.Management of Lecturers Resource Development at Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8 (5), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p246

Ketonen, E. E., Malmberg, L. E., Salmela-Aro, K., Muukkonen, H., Tuominen, H., & Lonka, K. (2019). The role of study engagement in university students’ daily experiences: A multilevel test of moderation. Learning and Individual Differences, 69(October 2018), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.001.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., & Buckley, J. A. (2006). What matters to student success : A review of the literature spearheading a dialog on student success. In Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success (Vol. 18, Issue July). http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AFA304F0-C125-40C2-96E5-7A8C98915797/0/WhatMatterstoStudentSuccessAReviewoftheLiterature.pdf.

Lee, J., Song, H., & Hong, A. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability, 11(4), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985.

Lee, K. (2018). Everyone already has their community beyond the screen: reconceptualizing online learning and expanding boundaries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1255–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9613-y.

Manzo, A. N., & Burke, J. M. (2012). Increasing response rate in web-based/internet surveys. In Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences (pp. 327–343). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_19.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications, Inc.

Ngampornchai, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Students’ acceptance and readiness for e-learning in Northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(34), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0034-x.

Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Partridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000). Response rate comparisons of e-mail- and mail-distributed student evaluations. Tech Learn Med, 12(2), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1202_4.

Schultz, R. B., & DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote learning to deep online learning experiences in geography education. Journal of Geography, 119(5), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2020.1813791.

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082.

Tugun, V., Bayanova, A. R., Erdyneeva, K. G., Mashkin, N. A., Sakhipova, Z. M., & Zasova, L. V. (2020). The opinions of technology supported education of university students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(23), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i23.18779.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i1.491

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Retno Dwigustini, Siti Yulidhar Harunasari Yulidhar Harunasari, Nurhasanah Nurhasanah Halim, Susilawati Susillawati

Al-Ishlah Jurnal Pendidikan Abstracted/Indexed by:

    

 


 

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