디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제19권5호
  • /
  • Pages.57-67
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

심층 인터뷰를 통한 대학생들의 실시간 온라인 수업 만족도 연구 - 광고홍보 관련 이론 및 실습 수업을 중심으로

Study on Synchronous Online Learning through In-depth Interview with College Students - Centering Around Advertising and Public Relations Courses

  • Um, Namhyun (School of Advertising & Public Relations, Hongik University)
  • 투고 : 2021.02.16
  • 심사 : 2021.05.20
  • 발행 : 2021.05.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 실시간 온라인 수업을 수강하는 대학생들의 심층 인터뷰를 통해 온라인 수업 만족과 불만족 요인들은 무엇이고, 이론수업과 실습수업 만족도에 차이가 있는지 살펴보았다. 심층 인터뷰 결과, 실시간 온라인 수업을 수강하는 학생들은 온라인 수업의 장점을 이동시간을 줄이고 장소에 제약 없이 수강 할 수 있는 편의성, 비용 절약, 그리고 코로나 19 전염 가능성을 줄일 수 있다고 밝혔다. 반면, 실시간 온라인 수업의 불만족 또는 단점으로 시스템의 불안정성, 학습자와 교수자와의 상호 인터렉션 부족, 수업 집중력에 방해, 즉각적인 커뮤니케이션 불가능, 수업의 질적 저하, 시험공정성 유지의 어려움 등을 언급했다. 심층 인터뷰 참여자들은 실시간 온라인 수업을 통한 이론 및 실습 수업 만족도에 차이가 있다고 밝혔으며, 이론수업은 일방향적 강의가 주된 방식으로 온라인 수업에는 적합하지만, 상호 인터렉션과 실시간 피드백이 중요한 실습수업에서는 적합하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 코로나 19로 대학들이 온라인 수업을 진행함에 있어서 학습자들의 특성을 이해하고, 만족도를 높일 수 있는 방안을 제시하는데 의의가 있다.

This study explores what factors influence college students' synchronous online learning satisfaction and what advantages and disadvantages exist when it comes to taking synchronous online learning courses. In-depth interview results suggest that advantages of synchronous online learning are convenience (no need for travel, no limitation for study place), saving money, and no worry for contracting Corona 19. However, disadvantages of synchronous online learning are instability of online learning system, lack of interaction between learners and educators, difficulty of instant communication, low education quality, and unfairness of exams. This study found that college students taking synchronous online course think that synchronous online learning is more appropriate for theory-based course than practice-based courses in that theory-based courses are lecture-oriented while practice-based courses require interactivity between learners and educators. This study provides educators a baseline understanding on how college students think over synchronous online learning and how to enhance students' satisfaction with synchronous online learning.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Jung, K. H., Ahn, S. H. & No, J. M. (2012). Research and analysis for the formulation of the development direction of digital textbook. Keris Report RM 2012-2133.
  2. Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Online learning and teaching in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  3. Lee. E. J. (2020). A Study on College Students' Perception on Convenience in Online Courses. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 16(3), 341-362.
  4. Welker, J., & Berardino, L. (2005). Blended learning: Understanding the middle ground between traditional classroom and fully online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 33-55. https://doi.org/10.2190/67FX-B7P8-PYUX-TDUP
  5. Hamann, K., Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, B. M. (2012). Assessing student perceptions of the benefits of discussions in small-group, large-class, and online learning contexts. College Teaching, 60(2), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.633407
  6. Kim. C. Y. (2020). Cheating in online learning again, YonHap News.
  7. Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 1-23.
  8. Choi, J. S., Kwon, M. K., & Choi, E. K. (2020). A Study on the Instructor Perceptions and Satisfaction levels of Real-time Online Classes: Focusing on the case of Korean language program at D University, Journal of Dong-ak Language and Literature, 81(6), 135-168. https://doi.org/10.25150/dongak.2020..81.005
  9. Kim, K. A., Kim, J. S., & Ahn, Y. J. (2020). An Analysis of Learner Satisfaction According to the Preferred Class Type in the Online Class. Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference, 28(2), 595-596.
  10. Lee, E. J. & Park, I. W. (2012). Identifying Predictability of Computer Self-Efficacy, Teaching Presence and Learner Participation on Learner Satisfaction in Online Realtime Instruction, The Journal of Yeolin Education 20(3), 195-219.
  11. Kim, S. W., & Oh, S. W. (2011). A Study on the Efficiency Analysis of the Training Operation and Performance of the Unemployed in Korea. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 14(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.36907/krivet.2011.14.1.23
  12. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
  13. Kwon, S. Y. (2011). Examining the relationships among teaching presence, learning approaches, learners' perception of satisfaction and effectiveness in online learning environments. Journal of Engineering Education, 27(3), 535-560.
  14. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
  15. Kim, T. W. (2010). The Effects of Feedback Patterns by Instructor to the Discussion Participation Levels and Satisfaction Levels in the Online Discussion Environments, Journal of Engineering Education Research 13(6), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.18108/jeer.2010.13.6.24
  16. Jan, S. K. (2015). The relationships between academic self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy, prior experience, and satisfaction with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.994366
  17. Alshare, K. A., Freeze, R. D., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2011). The impacts of system and human factors on online learning systems use and learner satisfaction. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3), 437-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00321.x
  18. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The internet and higher education, 20, 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
  19. Horzum, M. B. (2017). Interaction, structure, social presence, and satisfaction in online learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 505-512. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1324a
  20. Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185-215 https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
  21. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  22. Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  23. Joo, Y. J., Joung, S., & Kim, J. (2014). Structural relationships among self-regulated learning, learning flow, satisfaction, and learning persistence in cyber universities. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(6), 752-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745421