Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students' perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (∼180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach.(undefined

Dunn, Meg

Lazar, Irina

Marzano, Adelaide

Munoz de Escalona, Patricia

Soares, Filomena

Vichare, Parag

English

Crossref

E-Learning tools: Engaging Our Students?

Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students' perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (~180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach

Muñoz-Escalona, Patricia

Soares , Filomena

Research Repository and Portal - University of the West of Scotland

 UWS Academic PortalE-learning tools Muñoz-Escalona, Patricia ; Dunn, Meg; Soares , Filomena; Marzano, Adelaide; Vichare,Parag; Lazar, IrinaPublished in:Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)DOI:10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125251Published: 25/06/2020Document VersionPeer reviewed versionLink to publication on the UWS Academic PortalCitation for published version (APA):Muñoz-Escalona, P., Dunn, M., Soares , F., Marzano, A., Vichare, P., & Lazar, I. (2020). E-learning tools:engaging our students? In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125251General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the UWS Academic Portal are retained by the authors and/or othercopyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated withthese rights.Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact pure@uws.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to thework immediately and investigate your claim.Download date: 29 Jul 2020“© © 2020 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.”XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE E-Learning tools: Engaging Our Students?  Patricia Muñoz-Escalona  School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow, UK 0000-0002-0757-6999 Adelaide Marzano School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Science  University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK adelaide.marzano@uws.ac.ukDunn Meg Dep. People Org. and Development. University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK meg.dunn@uws.ac.uk Vichare Parag School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Science  University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK parag.vichare@uws.ac.uk Filomena Soares University of Minho  ALGORITMI Research Centre Guimarães, Portugal 0000-0002-4438-6713 Irina Lazar Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Bristol Bristol,UK irina.lazar@bristol.ac.uk   Abstract— Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students’ perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (~180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach. Keywords— E-Learning; Generation Z; Teaching Approach;online resources I. INTRODUCTION ( As academics, it is important to recognise the value of incorporating e-learning activities in our teaching approaches in order to motivate students and provide them with an opportunity to interact and engage with peers in cooperative and collaborative learning. The majority of our audience is Generation  Z students, who have been defined as a unique and truly digital native generation of students born between the mid-1990s and 2012 [1]. These students were born at the apex of technology and the internet and have grown up around WiFi- laptops, video games, etc. They are interactive, experts in technology and have high expectations of immediacy [2]. They expect the incorporation of more technology in our teaching approaches, accompanied by more hands-on activities in classes [3]. However, since not all students belong to Generation Z (such as mature students), a more realistic approach is to refer to ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’ which is the term for digital users/online engagement [4].  . II. LITERATURE Due to the evolution of technology, E-Learning tools are not been defined as a single term, and different research refers to them as “an information system that can integrate a wide variety of instructional material” others as “technology intervention in the learning process” [5 -6]. Students’ motivation and engagement in their learning process should be subjected to constant review, in order to enhance students learning experience. Motivation is an essential factor for students to learn and despite Generation Z students being born in the apex of a technological era and their expectation that technology must be included as part of the teaching approaches [2], they also must have a positive attitude towards IT [5]. Previous research also highlighted that, in order to provide a successful learning experience and make activities    interesting to learners, proper and clear instructions must be provided [7]. Figure 1 shows the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)    Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model, TAM [8]The Technology Acceptance Model outlines the stages involved prior to a system being used. External variables, in this situation, are represented by the use of virtual learning environment (e.g. Moodle-Blackboard) as a learning platform and by the insistence, of academics, that students make used of this system. i.e. its perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use: if positive attitudes are developed towards the system, then users develop the intention to make use of it.  And, thus, Moodle/Blackboard is successfully introduced as a key component of the student experience [8].   III. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH In order to collect information regarding students’ perception towards E-learning tools a survey for engineering students at different levels of mechanical engineering degree at four different institutions was conducted. The survey was conducted to full time undergraduate students and to Graduate Apprentice (GA) students.   Table I and Table II shows number of participants and demographic details.      TABLE I. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN FULL TIME EDUCATION  Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 50 A Scotland 2 2 Mechanical Engineering 41 A Scotland 3 3 Computer Aided Mechanical 21 B Scotland 4 3 Mechanical Engineering 24 C England 5 1 Integrated Master of Industrial Electronics Engineering and Computers 41 D Portugal  TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 7 A Scotland 2 1 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland 3 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 A Scotland 4 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland  In order to further obtain and compare students’ perception towards E-learning tools a focus group of 7 students in Level 2 from University A in mechanical engineering degree was also conducted. The session lasted an hour and questions followed the TAM model as described in the literature review. Appendix shows the questions involved.  TABLE III. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Age Gender Student 1 22 F Erasmus 2 20 M Home Student 3 19 M Home Student 4 19 M Home Student 5 21 F Home Student 6 22 M Home Student 7 21 M Home Student   The focus group results were analysed following a qualitative approach. Limitations that should be considered are i) small number of respondent and ii) high degree of subjectivity. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results from the survey regarding students’ knowledge towards E-learning tools are observed in Fig 2. for Undergraduate students and Fig 3. for Graduate Apprentice students.  Fig 2. Undergraduate students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools.  Fig 3. Graduate Apprenticeship students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools.  When analysing Fig 2. and Fig 3. it was observed that at least 37.5% of undergraduate students have an understanding of what E-learning tools are, with a maximum of 81% of the students in undergraduate full time (Level 2) and 100% for GA at level 3, however this outcome does not seem to be very clear as when asking if they have used E-learning tools in the past 39.6% of students (Level 2), answered that they were not sure and 29% of GA students answered that they haven’t used E-learning tools. Figures 4 and 5 shows the results of students’ likeability towards E-learning tools   Fig 4. E-Learning tools likeability for full time undergradute students.   Fig 5. E-Learning tools likeability for Graduate Apprenticeship students. From Fig 4 it can be observed that the majority of the students rated their likeability towards E-learning tools between 3 and 4, compared to Fig 3, where Graduate Apprenticeship (GA) rate their knowledge of E-Learning tools at a higher level, and in Fig 5, where it can be observed that GA students’ likeability toward E-learning tools is rated more at levels 4-5.  This latter result is probably related to the fact that the GA Programme involves more distance learning, making students more prompt of using E-learning resources. When asking students to provide 3 words to define e-learning tool, the most popular for all levels was accessible, fast and easy. When asking for 3 words to define worst thing about E-learning tools, the most popular were: internet dependency, confusing. and impersonal/crash (both rated at same level). Having students including the word “confusing” as one of the most popular words to define worst thing about e-learning tools, flags up the importance of providing clear instructions if we want students to engage on the activity. This is in agreement with research conducted by Keller and Suzuki 2010.  From the Focus Group conducted to Level 2 undergraduate students, 89% of the students felt that computers/laptops helped them to use E-leaning tools and that they were great to use as these tools avoid arranging physical meetings since everything is done online, however it was highlighted the importance of reliable internet connection to undertake any task involving E-learning tools. In regards to the usefulness of E-learning tools in engineering courses, 87% of the students agreed that if time is not an issue, assessment/activities involving E-learning tools will engage them, however 80% of the students prefer a blended approach as everything online can be an issue for some students (e.g. migraines). A positive thing is that by doing online activities, no paper is printed contributing to the environment. Students highlighted that digital material is easy to download, however the major problem is related to the submission process as 68% of students commented that they had doubts if the submission was conducted correctly due to lack of a notification on their submission. This created anxiety issues for some of them. When discussing the attitude/enjoyment towards using E-Learning tools, 35% of the students mentioned that using the word “enjoyment” was too strong as sometimes it can be ambiguous; and that the activity involving E-learning tools is only enjoyable when is 100% structured and no doubts are raised. Also 93% of students mentioned that a schedule for each activity was expected as this makes things easier and sometimes academics don’t provide this. When following the TAM (Fig. 1), students were asked to describe E-learning to a non-student (Behavioral Intention to Use), the majority described it as “E-learning is learning using internet; is like having the information in paper but online”. When discussing if they could choose between E-learning approaches and face-to-face, 80% of the students attending the focus group preferred a face-to-face approach as they could ask questions and things were easier to understand if an explanation was required.   V. CONCLUSIONS - E-learning tools are enjoyable if they are well explained, however 80% of the students would prefer a face-to-face approach. - 68% of the students have doubts if submissions have been done correctly as sometimes no notifications are received (internet/technology not trusted 100%). - Students seemed not to be 100% clear on what E-Learning tools are. - The 3 most popular words defining E-Learning tools are: accessible, fast and easy. - The 3 most popular words defining worst thing about E-Learning tools are: internet dependency, impersonal and confusing. The Graduate Apprenticeship Programme allows more involvement with online activities (E-learning tool) increasing students’ likeability and recognizing its important towards them, especially at later years in their degree         REFERENCES  [1] Seemiller G. (2016). Generation Z Goes to College. Jossey-Bass, San Franicsco, CA [2] Correia Barreiro S and Bozutti D.F. (2017). Challenges and Difficulties to Teaching Engineering to Generation Z: A Case Research. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159414.pdf (accessed 10/09/19) [3] Malat, l., Vostok, T., & Eveland, A. (2015). Getting to know Gen Z. Available at https://next.bncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gen-Z-Research-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed 9/08/18 [4] White D and Le Courne A, 2011. Visitors and residents:  A new Typology for online engagement. Available at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049. Accessed 13/09/2019 [5] Sun, P.C; Tsai, . R.J; Finger G; Chen Y.Y; Yeh, D (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50 (4), Pp. 1183-1202 [6] Lee, Y.H; Hsieh, Y.C;  Hsum C.N.  (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14 (4) [7] Keller J, & Suzuki K (2010), Learner Motivation and e-Learning Design: A Multinationally Validated Process, Journal of Educational Media, Vol 29, No 3, Pp 229-239  [8] Davis, F.D. Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshad, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. Vol 35. No 8.  Pp 982-1003.  APPENDIX  Questions for Focus Group: External Variables What sort of things help you use e-Technology? What sort of things prevent you, like lack of time, no access to computers, etc? Do you use e-Learning in all of your modules?  How do you feel about that? Perceived Usefulness: Do you find eLearning useful to you in your course? Why / why not? What’s the biggest benefit to you in using eLearning approaches? What’s the biggest problem in using eLearning? Perceived Ease of Use Is eLearning easy for you?  In what way? Is it easy to access? Easy to operate? Easy to download and submit material? Attitudes Towards Using: Do you enjoy eLearning? In what way? Do you prefer other approaches?  Which approaches / why? Do you look forward to using eLearning tools?  In what way / why not? eLearning should be easy to access and use – is this the case for you?  Describe that; Behavioural Intention to Use: So – if you were describing eLearning to a non-student, what would you say? Would you recommend, to other lecturers, that they use eLearning?  What would you say? If you had to choose between eLearning approaches and face-to-face contact, which would you prefer and why?  Actual System Use: Do you like the system used in this university (Moodle or Blackboard?) What do you like best? What would you change, if you could?     

E-learning tools:engaging our students?

Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students’ perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (~180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach

ResearchOnline@GCU

E-learning tools: engaging our students?Munoz de Escalona, Patricia; Dunn, Meg; Soares, Filomena; Marzano, Adelaide; Vichare,Parag; Lazar, IrinaPublished in:2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)DOI:10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125251Publication date:2020Document VersionAuthor accepted manuscriptLink to publication in ResearchOnlineCitation for published version (Harvard):Munoz de Escalona, P, Dunn, M, Soares, F, Marzano, A, Vichare, P & Lazar, I 2020, E-learning tools: engagingour students? in 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, pp. 1783-1786, IEEEGlobal Engineering Education Conference 2020, Porto, Portugal, 28/04/20.https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125251General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please view our takedown policy at https://edshare.gcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/5179 for detailsof how to contact us.Download date: 24. Apr. 2022E-learning tools: Engaging Our Students?  Abstract— Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students’ perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (~180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach. Keywords— E-Learning; Generation Z; Teaching Approach;online resources I.  INTRODUCTION  As academics, it is important to recognise the value of incorporating e-learning activities in our teaching approaches in order to motivate students and provide them with an opportunity to interact and engage with peers in cooperative and collaborative learning. The majority of our audience is Generation  Z students, they have been defined as a unique and truly digital native generation of students born between the mid-1990s and 2012 [1]; these students were born at the apex of technology and the internet; they have grown up around WiFi- laptops, video games, etc., they are interactive, experts in technology and have high expectations of immediacy [2]. They expect the incorporation of more technology in our teaching approaches, accompanied by more hands-on activities in classes [3]. However, since not all students belong to Generation Z, a more realistic approach is to refer to ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’ which is the term for digital users/online engagement [4].  II. LITERATURE Due to the evolution of technology e-learning tools are not been defined as a single term, and different researches refer to them as “an information system that can integrate a wide variety of instructional material” others as “technology intervention in the learning process” [5 -6]. Students’ motivation and engagement in their learning process should be in constant review in order to enhance students learning experience. Motivation is an essential factor for students to learn and despite Generation Z students were born in the apex of a technological era and they expect the inclusion of technology as part of the teaching approaches [2], they also must have a positive attitude towards IT [5]. Previous research also highlighted that in order to provide a successful learning experience and make activities interesting to learners, proper and clear instructions must be provided [7]. Figure 1 shows the Tecnology Acceptance model (TAM)  Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model, TAM [8] As observed the Actual system use is at the end of the model. This is where we want all E-learning users to be, however this, is affected by the behavioral intention to use (BI) which is determined by the person’s attitude towards using system (A) together with its perceived usefulness (U), [8].  III. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH In order to collect information regarding students’ perception towards E-learning tools a survey for engineering students at different levels of mechanical engineering degree at four different institutions was conducted. The survey was conducted to full time undergraduate students and to graduate apprentice students.  Table I and Table II shows number of participants and demographic details.   TABLE I. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN FULL TIME EDUCATION   Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 50 A Scotland 2 2 Mechanical Engineering 41 A Scotland 3 3 Computer Aided Mechanical  B Scotland 4 3 Mechanical Engineering 24 C England 5 1 Integrated Master of Industrial Electronics Engineering and Computers 41 D Portugal    TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 7 A Scotland 2 1 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland 3 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 A Scotland 4 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland  In order to further obtain and compare students’ perception towards E-learning tools a focus group of 7 students in Level 2 from University A in mechanical engineering degree was also conducted. The session lasted an hour and questions followed the TAM model as described in the literature review. Appendix A shows the questions involved.  TABLE III. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Age Gender Student 1 22 F Erasmus 2 20 M Home Student 3 19 M Home Student 4 19 M Home Student 5 21 F Home Student 6 22 M Home Student 7 21 M Home Student The focus group results were analysed following a qualitative approach. Limitations that should be considered are i) small number of respondent and ii) high degree of subjectivity. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results from the survey regarding students’ knowledge towards E-learning tools are observed in Fig 2. for Undergraduate students and Fig 3. for Graduate Apprentice students.  Fig 2. Undergraduate students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools.  Fig 3. Graduate Apprenticeship students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools. When analysing Fig 2. and Fig 3. it was observed that at least 37.5% of undergraduate students have an understanding of what E-learning tools are, with a maximum of 81% of the students in undergraduate full time (Level 2) and 100% for GA at level 3, however this outcome does not seem to be very clear as when asking if they have used E-learning tools in the past 39.6% of students (Level 2), answered that they were not sure and 29% of GA students answered that they haven’t used E-learning tools. Figures 4 and 5 shows the results of students’ likeability towards E-learning tools  Fig 4. E-Learning tools likeability for full time undergradute students.  Fig 5. E-Learning tools likeability for Graduate Apprenticeship students.  From Fig 4 it can be observed that the majority of the students rated their likeability towards E-learning tools between 3 and 4, while comparing these results with Fig 3 where Graduate Apprenticeship (GA) scheme results are shown, it is observed the and Fig 5, it can be observed that GA students likeability toward E-learning tools is rated more at levels 4-5. This latter result is probably related to the fact that the GA programme involves more distance learning, making students more prompt of using E-learning resources. When asking students to provide 3 words to define e-learning tool, the most popular for all levels was accessible, fast and easy. When asking for 3 words to define worst thing about E-learning tools, the most popular were: internet dependency, confusing. and impersonal/crash (both rated at same level). Having students including the word “confusing” as one of the most popular words to define worst thing about e-learning tools, flags up the importance of providing clear instructions if we want students to engage on the activity. This is in agreement with research conducted by Keller and Suzuki 2010.  From the Focus Group conducted to Level 2 undergraduate students, 89% of the students felt that computers/laptops helped them to use E-leaning tools and that they were great to use as these tools avoid arranging physical meetings since everything is done online, however it was highlighted the importance of reliable internet connection to undertake any task involving E-learning tools. In regards to the usefulness of E-learning tools in engineering courses, 87% of the students agreed that if time is not an issue, assessment/activities involving E-learning tools will engage them, however 80% of the students prefer a blended approach as everything online can be an issue for some students (e.g. migraines). A positive thing is that by doing online activities, no paper is printed contributing to the environment. Students highlighted that digital material is easy to download, however the major problem is related to the submission process as 68% of students commented that they had doubts if the submission was conducted correctly due to lack of a notification on their submission. This created anxiety issues for some of them. When discussing the attitude/enjoyment towards using el-learning tools, 35% of the students mentioned that using the word “enjoyment” was too strong as sometimes it can be ambiguous and the activity involving E-learning tools is only  enjoyable when the activity is 100% structured and no doubts are raised. Also 93% of students mentioned that a schedule for each activity was expected as this makes things easier and sometimes academics don’t provide this. When following the TAM (Fig. 1), students were asked to describe E-learning to a non-student (Behavioural Intention to Use), the majority described it as “E-learning is learning using internet; is like having information in paper but online”. When discussing if they could choose between E-learning approaches and face-to-face 100% of the students attending the focus group preferred face-to-face as they could ask questions and things were easier to take when meeting face-to-face. V. CONCLUSIONS - E-learning tools are enjoyable if they are well explained, however 80% of the students would prefer a face-to-face approach - 68% of the students have doubts if submissions have been done correctly as sometimes no notifications are received (internet/technology not trusted 100%). - Students seemed not to be 100% clear on what E-learning tools are. - The 3 most popular words defining E-learning tools are: accessible, fast and easy - The 3 most popular words defining worst thing about E-learning tools are: internet dependency, impersonal and confusing. - The Graduate Apprenticeship programme allows more involvement with online activities (E-learning tool) increasing students’ likeability and recognizing its important towards them, especially at later years in their degree.  REFERENCES  [1] Seemiller G. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass, San Franicsco, CA [2] Correia Barreiro S and Bozutti D.F. (2017) Challenges and difficulties to teaching Engineering to Generation Z: a case research. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159414.pdf (accessed 10/09/19) [3] Malat, l., Vostok, T., & Eveland, A. (2015). Getting to know Gen Z. Available at https://next.bncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gen-Z-Research-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed 9/08/18 [4] White D and Le Courne A, 2011. Visitors and residents:  A new Typology for online engagement. Available at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049. Accessed 13/09/2019 [5] Sun, P.C; Tsai, . R.J; Finger G; Chen Y.Y; Yeh, D (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50 (4), pp. 1183-1202 [6] Lee, Y.H; Hsieh, Y.C;  Hsum C.N.  (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14 (4) [7] Keller John & Suzuki Katsuaki (2010), Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process, Journal of Educational Media, Vol 29, No 3, Page(s) 229-239  [8] Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi and Paul R. Warshad (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. Vol 35. No 8.    

E-learning tools: engaging our students?

Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM

“© © 2020 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.”XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE E-Learning tools: Engaging Our Students?  Patricia Muñoz-Escalona  School of Computing, Engineering and Built Environment Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow, UK 0000-0002-0757-6999 Adelaide Marzano School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Science  University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK adelaide.marzano@uws.ac.ukDunn Meg Dep. People Org. and Development. University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK meg.dunn@uws.ac.uk Vichare Parag School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Science  University of The West of Scotland Paisley, UK parag.vichare@uws.ac.uk Filomena Soares University of Minho  ALGORITMI Research Centre Guimarães, Portugal 0000-0002-4438-6713 Irina Lazar Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Bristol Bristol,UK irina.lazar@bristol.ac.uk   Abstract— Since Generation Z students have grown up around WIFI-laptops, video game, etc. they expect technology to be involved in teaching approaches, however students’ perception towards e-learning tools indicate that 80% of students (~180 students) prefer a face-to-face approach. Keywords— E-Learning; Generation Z; Teaching Approach;online resources I. INTRODUCTION ( As academics, it is important to recognise the value of incorporating e-learning activities in our teaching approaches in order to motivate students and provide them with an opportunity to interact and engage with peers in cooperative and collaborative learning. The majority of our audience is Generation  Z students, who have been defined as a unique and truly digital native generation of students born between the mid-1990s and 2012 [1]. These students were born at the apex of technology and the internet and have grown up around WiFi- laptops, video games, etc. They are interactive, experts in technology and have high expectations of immediacy [2]. They expect the incorporation of more technology in our teaching approaches, accompanied by more hands-on activities in classes [3]. However, since not all students belong to Generation Z (such as mature students), a more realistic approach is to refer to ‘visitors’ and ‘residents’ which is the term for digital users/online engagement [4].  . II. LITERATURE Due to the evolution of technology, E-Learning tools are not been defined as a single term, and different research refers to them as “an information system that can integrate a wide variety of instructional material” others as “technology intervention in the learning process” [5 -6]. Students’ motivation and engagement in their learning process should be subjected to constant review, in order to enhance students learning experience. Motivation is an essential factor for students to learn and despite Generation Z students being born in the apex of a technological era and their expectation that technology must be included as part of the teaching approaches [2], they also must have a positive attitude towards IT [5]. Previous research also highlighted that, in order to provide a successful learning experience and make activities    interesting to learners, proper and clear instructions must be provided [7]. Figure 1 shows the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)    Fig 1. Technology Acceptance Model, TAM [8]The Technology Acceptance Model outlines the stages involved prior to a system being used. External variables, in this situation, are represented by the use of virtual learning environment (e.g. Moodle-Blackboard) as a learning platform and by the insistence, of academics, that students make used of this system. i.e. its perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use: if positive attitudes are developed towards the system, then users develop the intention to make use of it.  And, thus, Moodle/Blackboard is successfully introduced as a key component of the student experience [8].   III. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH In order to collect information regarding students’ perception towards E-learning tools a survey for engineering students at different levels of mechanical engineering degree at four different institutions was conducted. The survey was conducted to full time undergraduate students and to Graduate Apprentice (GA) students.   Table I and Table II shows number of participants and demographic details.      TABLE I. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN FULL TIME EDUCATION  Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 50 A Scotland 2 2 Mechanical Engineering 41 A Scotland 3 3 Computer Aided Mechanical 21 B Scotland 4 3 Mechanical Engineering 24 C England 5 1 Integrated Master of Industrial Electronics Engineering and Computers 41 D Portugal  TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Level Study # Students University Location 1 1 Mechanical Engineering 7 A Scotland 2 1 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland 3 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 A Scotland 4 2 Mechanical Engineering 5 B Scotland  In order to further obtain and compare students’ perception towards E-learning tools a focus group of 7 students in Level 2 from University A in mechanical engineering degree was also conducted. The session lasted an hour and questions followed the TAM model as described in the literature review. Appendix shows the questions involved.  TABLE III. DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF PARTICIPANTS IN GRADUATE APPRENTICESHIP (GA) SCHEME  Age Gender Student 1 22 F Erasmus 2 20 M Home Student 3 19 M Home Student 4 19 M Home Student 5 21 F Home Student 6 22 M Home Student 7 21 M Home Student   The focus group results were analysed following a qualitative approach. Limitations that should be considered are i) small number of respondent and ii) high degree of subjectivity. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results from the survey regarding students’ knowledge towards E-learning tools are observed in Fig 2. for Undergraduate students and Fig 3. for Graduate Apprentice students.  Fig 2. Undergraduate students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools.  Fig 3. Graduate Apprenticeship students’ knowledge towards E-Learning tools.  When analysing Fig 2. and Fig 3. it was observed that at least 37.5% of undergraduate students have an understanding of what E-learning tools are, with a maximum of 81% of the students in undergraduate full time (Level 2) and 100% for GA at level 3, however this outcome does not seem to be very clear as when asking if they have used E-learning tools in the past 39.6% of students (Level 2), answered that they were not sure and 29% of GA students answered that they haven’t used E-learning tools. Figures 4 and 5 shows the results of students’ likeability towards E-learning tools   Fig 4. E-Learning tools likeability for full time undergradute students.   Fig 5. E-Learning tools likeability for Graduate Apprenticeship students. From Fig 4 it can be observed that the majority of the students rated their likeability towards E-learning tools between 3 and 4, compared to Fig 3, where Graduate Apprenticeship (GA) rate their knowledge of E-Learning tools at a higher level, and in Fig 5, where it can be observed that GA students’ likeability toward E-learning tools is rated more at levels 4-5.  This latter result is probably related to the fact that the GA Programme involves more distance learning, making students more prompt of using E-learning resources. When asking students to provide 3 words to define e-learning tool, the most popular for all levels was accessible, fast and easy. When asking for 3 words to define worst thing about E-learning tools, the most popular were: internet dependency, confusing. and impersonal/crash (both rated at same level). Having students including the word “confusing” as one of the most popular words to define worst thing about e-learning tools, flags up the importance of providing clear instructions if we want students to engage on the activity. This is in agreement with research conducted by Keller and Suzuki 2010.  From the Focus Group conducted to Level 2 undergraduate students, 89% of the students felt that computers/laptops helped them to use E-leaning tools and that they were great to use as these tools avoid arranging physical meetings since everything is done online, however it was highlighted the importance of reliable internet connection to undertake any task involving E-learning tools. In regards to the usefulness of E-learning tools in engineering courses, 87% of the students agreed that if time is not an issue, assessment/activities involving E-learning tools will engage them, however 80% of the students prefer a blended approach as everything online can be an issue for some students (e.g. migraines). A positive thing is that by doing online activities, no paper is printed contributing to the environment. Students highlighted that digital material is easy to download, however the major problem is related to the submission process as 68% of students commented that they had doubts if the submission was conducted correctly due to lack of a notification on their submission. This created anxiety issues for some of them. When discussing the attitude/enjoyment towards using E-Learning tools, 35% of the students mentioned that using the word “enjoyment” was too strong as sometimes it can be ambiguous; and that the activity involving E-learning tools is only enjoyable when is 100% structured and no doubts are raised. Also 93% of students mentioned that a schedule for each activity was expected as this makes things easier and sometimes academics don’t provide this. When following the TAM (Fig. 1), students were asked to describe E-learning to a non-student (Behavioral Intention to Use), the majority described it as “E-learning is learning using internet; is like having the information in paper but online”. When discussing if they could choose between E-learning approaches and face-to-face, 80% of the students attending the focus group preferred a face-to-face approach as they could ask questions and things were easier to understand if an explanation was required.   V. CONCLUSIONS - E-learning tools are enjoyable if they are well explained, however 80% of the students would prefer a face-to-face approach. - 68% of the students have doubts if submissions have been done correctly as sometimes no notifications are received (internet/technology not trusted 100%). - Students seemed not to be 100% clear on what E-Learning tools are. - The 3 most popular words defining E-Learning tools are: accessible, fast and easy. - The 3 most popular words defining worst thing about E-Learning tools are: internet dependency, impersonal and confusing. The Graduate Apprenticeship Programme allows more involvement with online activities (E-learning tool) increasing students’ likeability and recognizing its important towards them, especially at later years in their degree         REFERENCES  [1] Seemiller G. (2016). Generation Z Goes to College. Jossey-Bass, San Franicsco, CA [2] Correia Barreiro S and Bozutti D.F. (2017). Challenges and Difficulties to Teaching Engineering to Generation Z: A Case Research. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159414.pdf (accessed 10/09/19) [3] Malat, l., Vostok, T., & Eveland, A. (2015). Getting to know Gen Z. Available at https://next.bncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gen-Z-Research-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed 9/08/18 [4] White D and Le Courne A, 2011. Visitors and residents:  A new Typology for online engagement. Available at https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049. Accessed 13/09/2019 [5] Sun, P.C; Tsai, . R.J; Finger G; Chen Y.Y; Yeh, D (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50 (4), Pp. 1183-1202 [6] Lee, Y.H; Hsieh, Y.C;  Hsum C.N.  (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14 (4) [7] Keller J, & Suzuki K (2010), Learner Motivation and e-Learning Design: A Multinationally Validated Process, Journal of Educational Media, Vol 29, No 3, Pp 229-239  [8] Davis, F.D. Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshad, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. Vol 35. No 8.  Pp 982-1003.  APPENDIX  Questions for Focus Group: External Variables What sort of things help you use e-Technology? What sort of things prevent you, like lack of time, no access to computers, etc? Do you use e-Learning in all of your modules?  How do you feel about that? Perceived Usefulness: Do you find eLearning useful to you in your course? Why / why not? What’s the biggest benefit to you in using eLearning approaches? What’s the biggest problem in using eLearning? Perceived Ease of Use Is eLearning easy for you?  In what way? Is it easy to access? Easy to operate? Easy to download and submit material? Attitudes Towards Using: Do you enjoy eLearning? In what way? Do you prefer other approaches?  Which approaches / why? Do you look forward to using eLearning tools?  In what way / why not? eLearning should be easy to access and use – is this the case for you?  Describe that; Behavioural Intention to Use: So – if you were describing eLearning to a non-student, what would you say? Would you recommend, to other lecturers, that they use eLearning?  What would you say? If you had to choose between eLearning approaches and face-to-face contact, which would you prefer and why?  Actual System Use: Do you like the system used in this university (Moodle or Blackboard?) What do you like best? What would you change, if you could?     

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

E-learning tools: engaging our students?:IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference 2020

https://researchonline.gcu.ac.uk/files/33956043/P.Munoz_E_Learning_tools_EDUCON2020_V3.pdf

E-learning tools: engaging our students?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Research Repository and Portal - University of the West of Scotland

ResearchOnline@GCU

Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM

Research Repository and Portal - University of the West of Scotland

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository