Abstracts
Abstract
Online surveys are widely used in social science research as well as in empirical studies of open, online, and distance education. However, students’ responses are likely to be at odds with their actual behavior. In this context, we examined the discrepancies between self-reported use and actual use (i.e., learning analytics data) among 20,646 students in an open, online, and distance education system. The ratio of consistent responses to each of the 11 questions ranged from 43% to 70%, and the actual access to learning resources was significantly lower than self-reported use. In other words, students over-reported their use of learning resources. Females were more likely to be consistent in their responses. Frequency of visits to the open, online, and distance education system, grade point average, self-reported satisfaction, and age were positively correlated with consistency; students’ current semester was negatively correlated with consistency. Although consistency was not maintained between actual use and self-reported use, consistency was maintained between some of the self-report questionnaires (i.e., use vs. satisfaction). The findings suggested that system and performance data should be considered in addition to self-reported data in order to draw more robust conclusions about the accountability of open, online, and distance education systems.
Keywords:
- open and distance learning,
- higher education,
- self-report,
- inconsistent responding,
- learning analytics
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Akbulut, Y. (2015). Predictors of inconsistent responding in web surveys. Internet Research, 25(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2014-0017
- Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O., & Dursun, Ö. Ö. (2017). Cyberloafing and social desirability bias among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.043
- Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
- Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069
- Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211199960
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
- Borgonovi, F., Ferrara, A., & Piacentini, M. (2023). From asking to observing. Behavioural measures of socio-emotional and motivational skills in large-scale assessments. Social Science Research, 112, 102874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102874
- Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Özbek, E., Onrat-Yılmazer, S., Erdoğdu, E., Uçar, H., Güler, E., Sezgin, S., Karadeniz, A., Sen, N., Göksel-Canbek, N., Dinçer, G. D., Arı, S., & Aydın, C. H. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009–2013. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 330–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953
- Castro, R. (2013). Inconsistent respondents and sensitive questions. Field Methods, 25(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x12466988
- Chao, C. M. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652
- Chen, P. H. (2010). Item order effects on attitude measures (Publication No. 778) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/778
- Chesney, T., & Penny, K. (2013). The impact of repeated lying on survey results. SAGE Open, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012472345
- DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962
- DeSimone, J. A., & Harms, P. D. (2018). Dirty data: The effects of screening respondents who provide low-quality data in survey research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9514-9
- Dönmez, O., & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Siber zorbalık çalışmalarında sosyal beğenirlik etmeni [Social desirability bias in cyberbullying research]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 6(2), 1–18. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/etku/issue/24420/258838
- Ellis, R. A., Han, F., & Pardo, A. (2017). Improving learning analytics—Combining observational and self-report data on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 158–169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196127
- Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360
- Gasevic, D., Jovanovic, J., Pardo, A., & Dawson, S. (2017). Detecting learning strategies with analytics: Links with self-reported measures and academic performance. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.10
- Gregori, A., & Baltar, F. (2013). ‘Ready to complete the survey on Facebook’: Web 2.0 as a research tool in business studies. International Journal of Market Research, 55(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-2013-010
- Grieve, R., & Elliott, J. (2013). Cyberfaking: I can, so I will? Intentions to fake in online psychological testing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(5), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0271
- Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W., Hsieh, Y., Kim, H., Thomas, G., Levin, J. R., & Robinson, D. H. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.523
- Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N. A. (2015). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038510
- Iaconelli, R., & Wolters, C. A. (2020). Insufficient effort responding in surveys assessing self-regulated learning: Nuisance or fatal flaw? Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.521
- Kara Aydemir, A. G., & Can, G. (2019). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from a critical perspective: An analysis of postgraduate theses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1087–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12780
- Keusch, F. (2013). The role of topic interest and topic salience in online panel web surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 55(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-2013-007
- Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
- Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.016
- Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008
- Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3
- Pekrun, R. (2020). Commentary: Self-report is indispensable to assess students’ learning. Frontline Learning Research, 8(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i3.637
- Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D. C., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., Bozkurt, A., Crawford, S., Czerniewicz, L., Gibson, R., Linder, K., Mason, J., & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon report teaching and learning edition. EDUCAUSE. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/219489/
- Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1991–2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09811-3
- Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.603
- Rosen, J. A., Porter, S. R., & Rogers, J. (2017). Understanding student self-reports of academic performance and course-taking behavior. AERA Open, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417711427
- Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Research on instructional strategies. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 719–730). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_3
- Schneider, S., May, M., & Stone, A. A. (2018). Careless responding in Internet-based quality of life assessments. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1767-2
- Selwyn, N. (2020). Re-imagining ‘learning analytics’… a case for starting again? The Internet and Higher Education, 46, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100745
- Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students’ ICT literacy. Educational Research Review, 27, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.007
- So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
- Steger, D., Jankowsky, K., Schroeders, U., & Wilhelm, O. (2022). The road to hell is paved with good intentions: How common practices in scale construction hurt validity. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221124846
- Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Yu, J. H., Alamri, H., & Mueller, C. (2017). Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Computers & Education, 114, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.005
- Wilson, A., Watson, C., Thompson, T. L., Drew, V., & Doyle, S. (2017). Learning analytics: Challenges and limitations. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1332026
- Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00006-1
- Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
- Yörük Açıkel, B., Turhan, U., & Akbulut, Y. (2018). Effect of multitasking on simulator sickness and performance in 3D aerodrome control training. Simulation & Gaming, 49(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878117750417
- Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9073-8
- Zhou, M., & Winne, P. H. (2012). Modeling academic achievement by self-reported versus traced goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.004
- Zhu, M., Sari, A. R., & Lee, M. M. (2020). A comprehensive systematic review of MOOC research: Research techniques, topics, and trends from 2009 to 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1685–1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09798-x