Editorial: exploring evaluations and case studies

Welcome to the second 2022 issue of Open Learning. The unofficial theme for this issue is: evaluations and case studies. Evaluations within open and distance learning are, of course, fundamentally important. This issue presents a number of papers that conduct evaluations in different ways. Evaluations can be used to assess what works and what does not, to determine whether improvements in practice or design help students, or understand the application and usefulness of theory.

The first paper in this issue by Prifti (2022) is entitled ‘self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses’. The paper presents an interesting literature review. It addresses themes such as self-efficacy, student satisfaction and blended learning. Self-efficacy is a concept that can be considered not only in terms of how a student views themselves, but also in relation to the tools that are used, such as learning management systems. Whilst Prifti’s paper is primarily an empirical paper which uses a survey methodology, it is a theoretical paper too, exploring what can be meant by blended learning, whilst at the same time exposing the topic of student digital literacy. An interesting contribution lies in its presentation of a conceptual model, which posits links between self-efficacy and course satisfaction, also suggesting the importance of topics such as platform content, platform accessibility and critical thinking. These topics, in themselves, represent some of the many different variables that can influence the student experience.

One point to note is that the term accessibility can often be used to refer to different issues. In Prifti’s study, accessibility is defined as ‘how comfortable students were with using the online platform’ rather than how usable a tool, product or set of services might be for students who have disabilities, or how available something is to a group of users who may be faced with disadvantages. Differences in terminology aside, a key point to take away from this paper is the important and obvious reflection that the technology (or tools) which students use can and do influence their experience. Close attention to the operation of learning management tools, accompanying technology, and the materials they deliver is important, and necessary.

The next paper in this issue, by Yu and Watson (2022) also adopts a survey method. Rather than exploring a blended learning context, they explore MOOC learners and aim to ‘identify subtypes of attitudinal learning’ to carry out a ‘latent profile analysis’. In addition to the survey methodology, another similarity with the first paper lies in the study of learner attitudes.

Their extensive literature review is split into two parts: a discussion of MOOC learner profiles, and an interesting discussion about the broad concept of attitudinal learning, which can be considered from a number of different perspectives. A particularly interesting aspect of the literature review is the discussion about how to develop attitudinal learning, with specific reference to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Methodologically this paper is also interesting since it studies three different MOOCs which are presented through different platforms. Differences between the platforms are discussed later within the paper, along with consideration about the use of video material, which is a theme that has been explored in a number of other Open Learning papers, such as those by Brott (2020), Turan and Cetintas (2020), and Harrison (2020). Readers interested in the theme of learner attitudes, might also find a paper by Hui et al. (2018) of value.

The following comment about the role and purpose of MOOCs was particularly welcome: ‘rather than MOOCs themselves providing a revolution, it is the questions they raise about learning more broadly in a global society that need to be considered’. In other words: MOOCs, like many technologies, become tools and mirrors that help us to reflect on our learning.

Continuing the theme of technologies and reflection, the next paper by Grigoryan (2022), investigates the role of mobile devices, namely iPad tablets, in the effectiveness of language learning in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) context. At its most basic level, the authors ask a very simple question: can technology really make a difference? A sophisticated mixed-method approach is applied where groups of students using iPads are compared with groups of students using a very familiar older form of learning technology: textbooks, combined with pen and paper. Grigoryan provides the reader with a rich description of the research approach by presenting a detailed diagrammatic overview of the research method, and also directly summarises the curriculum that is used. The theoretical lens of Activity Theory is used to guide the study, permitting exploration of the research domain across a number of related perspectives. Furthermore, in addition to exploring the student experience and student results, teachers are also asked to complete reflective journals. I do recommend reading the conclusion and recommendations that Grigoryan offers; a number of interesting comments are made about the subjects of interactive learning and gamification, as well as pointers to potential avenues of further research.

Keeping with the UAE context, the next paper by Awofeso and Rabih (2022), continues with the theme of evaluation, but explores distance learning and institutional policy. Designers of distance learning courses or modules who are faced with the need to implement aspects of face-to-face teaching may ask whether it is necessary (or desirable) to make certain aspects of module teaching compulsory, or whether students should be free to make their own decisions about participation. Awofeso and Rabih ask the question: does a policy for mandatory attendance influence learners’ engagement with course learning materials? It is certainly worth reviewing the final section of their paper to uncover their conclusion. It is also useful to review the other sections of this short paper to understand more about their institutional context and the broader context of the study.

The fifth paper in this issue is by Andrade et al. (2022) from Utah Valley University who ask the question: ‘online learning in schools of business: what influences faculty to teach online?’ Their literature review highlights a number of interrelated themes, such as dimensions of quality, the potential impact of class size, faculty familiarity with technology, the provision of instructional design support, and other related subjects such as the impact of faculty training. Like other papers in this issue, a survey is used to gather data. Their survey has been designed to explore ‘rationale [of online delivery]; support, training and recognition for faculty; evaluation and quality assurance measures’. Whilst their research does not explore detailed structural, organisational or pedagogic issues, it offers a summary of the significance of a number of influences that are important to the chosen sample, at a particular point in time. It was particularly appreciated that this paper provided a survey instrument. This enables other researchers to critically evaluate their questions, and consider the extent to which such research might be transferrable to other settings, or whether it might be useful to repeat the survey again at some other point in the future, to understand the extent of change.

The final paper in this issue is a case study by Gil-Jaurena et al. (2022), who carry out a study of assessment approaches ‘according to expected learning outcomes’ of courses taught at UNED, The National Distance Education University, in Spain. A two-stage approach is adopted. The first stage represents a study of courses and programmes that are specific to one institution. The objective of the second stage of the study ‘is to modify the sample courses’ according to the guidance offered by a tool that emerged from a European Union project. A number of themes and topics that are presented within the paper should be very familiar to readers, such as the concept of constructive alignment, Bloom’s taxonomy, and a shift from a focus on content to a focus on learning outcomes.

This final paper in this issue also references a number of papers that have featured within Open Learning, such as a publication by Brunton et al. (2016) which discusses a programme-focussed assessment strategy, a paper by Evans et al. (2016) which presents an institutional change agenda, and an article by Hills and Hughes (2016) which considers how perspectives on assessment can be linked to the concept of a discourse. They also highlight the work of Kirkwood and Price (2008) who discuss the link between assessment and technology. In some respects, this paper represents an example of applied educational research within a single higher education institution. It may offer readers the opportunity to consider what development and enhancement opportunities might exist within their own institution, and what tools might be helpful.

This issue concludes with a book review by Lesley Fearn who shares a review of Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies by Kevin Burden and Anna Naylor; a topic which is reflected in this issue. Fearn’s review is thorough. She concisely summarises each chapter, giving the reader a very good idea about the research that is presented and which aspects and dimensions of mobility and mobile learning are explored.

Reflecting an ongoing and important tradition of these Open Learning editorials, I would like again to express my thanks to Vicky Cole, our editorial assistant, and Paola Trimarco, our book reviews editor. Thanks are also extended to my co-editor, Denise Whitelock. Finally, I would also like to further acknowledge the continued hard and dedicated work carried out by all peer reviewers. Your contributions are invaluable.