Abstracts
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the disruption of classroom activities and adoption of online teaching-learning in almost all parts of the globe, including India. The sudden switch from classroom blackboards to laptop screens may have influenced students’ study approaches, especially with challenges related to technology access and readiness for online learning among Indian students. Since different social and economic factors bring about differences in students’ learning, an online survey was conducted with 296 randomly selected undergraduate distance learning (DL) students at Indira Gandhi National Open University to examine how technology access during the pandemic influenced the study approaches of Indian DL students from various marginalized and non-marginalized groups. The research results showed that marginalized students had lower access to technology than did their non-marginalized counterparts, although no gender differences were found in access to technology in both the groups. Lower access to technology was associated with a surface approach to study among the DL students in general and the marginalized students in particular. Females in the marginalized group were found to be at risk in terms of both access to technology and study approaches. The findings were intended to enrich our understanding of the role of technology vis-à-vis distance learners’ study approaches during the pandemic and formulate appropriate teaching-learning strategies for the future.
Keywords:
- marginalization,
- technology access,
- online learning,
- approaches to study,
- distance students,
- open and distance learning
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Biographical note
Anju Sanwal is a PhD Scholar at the Indira Gandhi National Open University (STRIDE). She submitted her thesis in the discipline of "Distance Education" under the guidance of renowned distance educator Professor Santosh Panda of STRIDE (IGNOU). During her PhD, she published five research papers in refereed journals and also contributed to three book chapters.
Bibliography
- Bhandari, A. (2019). Gender inequality in mobile technology access: The role of economic and social development. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1563206
- Bhuria, M., Mangalesh, S., Dudani, S., & Malik, A. (2021). Learning approaches adopted by Indian medical students during distance learning: The revised two-factor study process questionnaire. BLDE University Journal of Health Sciences, 6(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.4103/bjhs.bjhs_104_20
- Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council for Educational Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=eD308201
- Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two‐factor study process questionnaire: R‐SPQ‐2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
- Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E‐learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902839909
- Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 258–265. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00901.x
- Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2012). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R‐SPQ‐2F to the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02045.x
- Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
- Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809343560
- Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212–222.
- Herrmann, K. J., Bager-Elsborg, A., & McCune, V. (2017). Investigating the relationships between approaches to learning, learner identities and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-9999-6
- Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., Conde-Núñez, M. C., & Gallego-Picó, A. (2019). Examination of Students’ Engagement with R-SPQ-2F of learning approach in flipped sustainable science course. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(6), 880-891. https://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.880
- Kimble-Hill, A. C., Rivera-Figueroa, A., Chan, B. C., Lawal, W. A., Gonzalez, S., Adams, M. R., Heard, G. L., Gazley, J. L., & Fiore-Walker, B. (2020). Insights gained into marginalized students access challenges during the COVID-19 academic response. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3391–3395. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00774
- Kumar, D. J. (2021). Marginalized communities and higher education: The way forward. In M.J. Vinod & S.Y.S Kumar (Eds.), Empowering marginalized communities in India: The impact of higher education (pp 255-267). Sage India.
- Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
- Mathur, P., & Sharma, R. (2021). Addressing gender parity in higher education: Challenges and concerns. In Vinod, M. J. & Kumar S. Y. S. (Eds.), Empowering marginalized communities in India: The impact of higher education (pp 239-251). Sage India.
- McBurnie, C., Adam, T., & Kaye, T. (2020). Is there learning continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic? A synthesis of the emerging evidence. Journal of Learning for Development, 7(3), 485–493. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1280661
- Morgan, A. R., Gibbs, G., & Taylor, E. (1980). Students’ approaches to studying the social science and technology foundation courses: Preliminary studies. Institute of Educational Technology, Open University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED197639
- Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012
- Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101
- National Education Policy. (2020). Ministry of human resource development. Government of India. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
- Neroni, J., Meijs, C., Gijselaers, H. J., Kirschner, P. A., & de Groot, R. H. (2019). Learning strategies and academic performance in distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.007
- Nsibirano, R. (2009). “Him and her”—gender differentials in ICT uptake: A critical literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 5(5), 33–42. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42192/
- Olayemi, O. M., Adamu, H., & Olayemi, K. J. (2021). Perception and readiness of students towards online learning in Nigeria during COVID-19 pandemic. Perception, 3(1), 4-21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5051?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Flibphilprac%2F5051&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
- Panda, S. (2022). Pedagogy and teaching-learning strategies. In B. Das, S. Panda & V. Parthasarthi (Eds), Pedagogy in practice: Project-based learning in media policy and governance (pp. 36-66). Bloomsbury.
- Pande, R., & van der Weide, T. (2012). Gender symbolism and technology uptake: A literature review. In R. Nsibirano, C. Kabonesa & A. Madanda (Eds), Globalization, technology diffusion and gender disparity: Social impacts of ICTs (p. 120–127). IGI Global.
- Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128–148. https://pangaro.com/pask/pask-styles-and-strategies-of-learning.pdf
- Quinn, F. C. (2009). Learning in first-year biology: Approaches of distance and on-campus students. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 99–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9148-7
- Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411–427. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01680529
- Richardson, J. T. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27(4), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384904
- Richardson, J. T. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance education. Open University Press.
- Richardson, J. T. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 7–27.
- Richardson, J. T. (2013). Approaches to studying across the adult life span: Evidence from distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.012
- Richardson, J. T., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in distance education. Higher Education, 37(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003445000716
- Siddiqi, N. (2021). Gender inequality as a social construction in India: A phenomenological enquiry. Women’s Studies International Forum, 86(May, June), 102472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2021.102472
- Stes, A., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). Examining the cross-cultural sensitivity of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) and validation of a Dutch version. PloS One, 8(1), e54099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054099
- Ullah, R., Richardson, J. T., Malik, R. A., & Farooq, S. (2016). Perceptions of the learning environment, learning preferences, and approaches to studying among medical students in Pakistan. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.07.001
- Vaghishwari, S. P. (2021). Locating women in India’s higher education. In Vinod, M.J. & Kumar S. Y. S (Eds.), Empowering marginalized communities in India: The impact of higher education, (pp. 239–251). Sage.
- Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns and personal and contextual factors and academic performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-004-6664-2
- Vinod, M. J., & Kumar, S. S. (Eds.). (2021). Empowering marginalized communities in India: The impact of higher education. Sage India.
- Word Bank. (2020). Digital development. Retrieved January 11, 2023, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/overview
- Yin, H., González, C., & Huang, S. (2018). Undergraduate students’ approaches to studying and perceptions of learning context: A comparison between China and Chile. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(7), 1530–1544. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1494142
- Yin, H., Wang, W., & Han, J. (2016). Chinese undergraduates’ perceptions of teaching quality and the effects on approaches to studying and course satisfaction. Higher Education, 71(1), 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9887-5