In a very short period, the COVID-19 pandemic moved the process of education at all levels to the online environment. Although e-learning in university education in Croatia is not new, students and teachers of the University of Zagreb are facing new challenges that often call into question the quality of teaching. In order for online teaching to be successful, it is necessary to take into account the criteria related to the successful teaching and learning process and apply them in the online environment. Starting from the assumption that online teaching should meet most of the criteria of face-to-face teaching, we tested the satisfaction of students at the University of Zagreb with online teaching and the extent to which online teaching meets the criteria related to quality face-to-face teaching. Based on the obtained results, we discuss the shortcomings face-to-face of online teaching in relation to face-to-face teaching at the University of Zagreb.
The COVID-19 pandemic affected Europe in early 2020 and forced all European countries to find new ways to work, communicate, collaborate, educate. The only solution to these new circumstances has been found in digital technologies. Digital technologies have suddenly become the only possible option for continuing normal life and work. The education system of the Republic of Croatia, as well as the education system of many other European countries, faced new and difficult challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The teaching and learning process had to move to an online education system at all levels in a very short period. If we take into account all levels of education, this transition was perhaps the most painless for the higher education system in the Republic of Croatia, primarily because the social environment for the university student population was not a key factor for learning and progress as for e.g. children in primary school. The process of implementing e-learning at the University of Zagreb began in 2007 with the adoption of a document called the “E-learning Strategy“
Since online education was introduced to education system at all levels, especially higher education, scientists in various fields have been tackling the issue is there and should it be noticeable difference in quality between online and face-to-face education.
In this context, a great deal of research and meta-analyses have been done that prove that there are no significant differences between the two modes of education, online and face-to-face
1. To investigate the satisfaction of students at the University of Zagreb with online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. To examine the factor structure of the questionnaire of attitudes towards online teaching.
Participants in this study were students of the University of Zagreb whose undergraduate or graduate studies were Agronomy, Croatology, Fine Arts, Graphic Design, History, Mathematics, Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology. A total of 106 students participated in the study. Their age ranged from 20 to 24 years (M = 22,2). Seventy-five percent of the participants were female and twenty-five percent were male participants. The selection of participants was based on willingness to participate in the research. Sampling was non-probabilistic, carried out by the snowball method. This method of sampling limits the possibility of generalizing the results to other populations, but we believe that the research provides a good insight into the state of the examined constructs at the University of Zagreb, given that participants were students from different study groups who are guaranteed anonymity, so we assume that their answers were sincere and authentic.
The questionnaire used in this study was designed for study purposes in accordance with the theoretical assumptions about aspects of quality teaching. Participants assessed their opinions about quality of online teaching. Demographic items considered age, gender, college, study and study year. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part, questions were related to the platform that was used in online teaching, and general satisfaction with online teaching, how much students personally managed in online teaching and how well their professors managed. The second part included a series of questions that examine students’ satisfaction with certain elements of quality teaching by categories, starting from the assumption that online teaching should meet the same criteria associated with classical teaching: stimulating classroom atmosphere and good teacher-student relations, structuring and planning the lesson, emphasizing learning goals and clarity of teaching, involvement and motivation of students, teaching metacognitive skills, higher order thinking, learning strategies and application of learning, individualization and differentiation of teaching for individual students and groups of students, formative evaluation and giving feedback on learning. The aim was to examine the satisfaction of students with online teaching in order to draw conclusions if online teaching, according to students, meets the criteria of classical teaching. In the third part of the questionnaire, participants were asked two open-ended questions: can they list the advantages of online teaching over classical teaching and what they have missed the most in online teaching. The survey was conducted with online questionnaires using Google Forms. Questionnaires were distributed to students via official e-mail addresses, Google Groups and social networks, with a request to forward the invitation to participate in the research to their colleagues. This article describes empirical results obtained by self-assessment
N | % | |
Merlin | 81 | 76,4 |
Zoom | 65 | 61,3 |
Google Classroom | 42 | 39,6 |
Microsoft Teams | 41 | 38,7 |
Skype | 11 | 10,4 |
Class web pages | 7 | 6,6 |
Google Docs | 14 | 13,2 |
*participants could mark multiple responses
Most of the participants, 76,4 % of them, reported that their college teachers used Merlin for online teaching purposes, which was expected considering that Merlin is the official E-learning platform of the University Computing Center of the University of Zagreb. However, as Merlin does not allow live video streaming of lectures, a large number of students reported using the Zoom app, 61,3 % of them, and a smaller proportion of students, 10,4 % of them, stated that their college teachers used Skype. Slightly more than a third of students reported using Google Classroom (39,6 %) or Microsoft Teams (38,7 %). Occasionally, students listed Google Docs (13,2 %) and course websites (6,6 %) in the “other” section, which was not listed as a category in the questionnaire itself because it was in some way implied, and can be classified as an older method not necessarily related to online teaching, but as an addition to the classic form of teaching. The results show a relatively wide range of platforms and applications used with the purpose of achieving quality online teaching as each of these applications has its own unique advantages and capabilities.
N | M | |
Satisfaction with online education process | 106 | 3,19 |
How well did your teachers manage in online education? | 106 | 3,36 |
How well did you manage to participate and fulfil the obligations in distance learning? | 106 | 3,82 |
I was more active in online learning than in face-to-face learning | 106 | 2,76 |
Skype | 11 | 10,4 |
Class web pages | 7 | 6,6 |
Google Docs | 14 | 13,2 |
Table 2 shows the answers to questions related to general satisfaction and activity in online teaching. It can be said that the participants rated online classes slightly higher than the middle grade (M = 3,19, sd = 1,07), they rated their college teachers slightly higher in the context of coping with online teaching (M = 3,36), sd = 1,04) and they assessed their ability to participate and perform obligations in distance learning with an average grade of M = 3,82 with sd = 1,27.
In order to check the validity of the factor matrix calculation, we checked the Bartlett test of the significance of the correlation matrix, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy test. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was 0,84, which is a good value for factorization, and the Bartlett test showed the significance of the correlation matrix with a risk of less than 1 %. The structure of attitudes about online education was examined by the Principal component analysis. Based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion, six factors with characteristic roots exceeding 1 were retained in the analysis. The factors obtained by the analysis of the principal components explain a total of 75,39 % of the variance of the manifest variables.
Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
I was motivated for online teaching. | 0,818 | –,215 | 0,025 | 0,079 | –,089 | –,172 |
I think the experience of online teaching will help me in the future. | 0,701 | 0,045 | –,135 | 0,179 | 0,043 | 0,25 |
With the help of online teaching, I learn better. | 0,726 | –,202 | –,276 | –,188 | 0,036 | 0,197 |
I communicate more successfully with the lecturer within the online / distance teaching. | –,435 | 0,672 | –,025 | 0,2 | 0,069 | 0,151 |
Lecturers are more motivated to work in online teaching than in classical teaching. | –,004 | 0,641 | 0,442 | –,124 | 0,073 | 0,183 |
The relationship between lecturers and students is much more open in online teaching. | –,122 | 0,788 | 0,394 | –,035 | 0,125 | 0,193 |
The lecturers performed quality online classes. | 0,442 | 0,025 | 0,731 | –,160 | 0,088 | –,185 |
Online lectures were clearly structured. | –,076 | 0,252 | 0,77 | 0,05 | –,055 | 0,047 |
It was clear from the lecture what the students were expected to know. | 0,157 | 0,26 | 0,776 | –,265 | 0,003 | 0,083 |
Students are encouraged to engage in discussions during online classes. | 0,563 | 0,132 | 0,026 | 0,6 | –,152 | 0,202 |
The active role of students during online lectures is encouraged. | 0,151 | 0,112 | –,023 | 0,634 | 0,123 | 0,155 |
Students are encouraged to participate in collaborative learning during online lectures. | 0,029 | –,035 | –,139 | 0,7 | –,328 | |
The lecturers tried to encourage the processes of reasoning, connecting, analyzing with their online lectures. | 0,028 | 0,245 | –,226 | –,111 | 0,841 | 0,074 |
Lecturers used different teaching strategies in online teaching. | 0,777 | 0,206 | –,165 | –,324 | 0,009 | –,104 |
The lecturers encouraged the learning process with their lectures during online classes. | 0,8 | 0,069 | –,133a | 0,085 | –,105 | –,213 |
Lecturers gave feedback on time during online classes. | 0,241 | 0,15 | 0,273 | 0,08 | –,023 | 0,733 |
The feedback was mostly encouraging. | 0,326 | 0,129 | 0,156 | 0,023 | –,059 | 0,783 |
The way of evaluating knowledge was clearly explained. | 0,195 | 0,333 | 0,203 | –,382 | 0,1 | 0,567 |
As shown in the Table 3, the results of the factor analysis of assessment factors on the questionnaire of students’ attitudes about online teaching. Six factors were extracted by the Principal component analysis, which together explain 75,39 % of the total variance. Based on the results of the factor analysis, six subscales were formed. Internal reliability is good: Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale was: 1) α = 0,79, 2) α = 0,85, 3) α = 0,89, 4) α = 0,89, 5) α = 0,76 and 6, α = 0,81, and the average correlation between items r = 0,69. Items with which the first factor is highly saturated indicate the motivation of students for online learning. Examples of items: I was motivated for online teaching; I think that the experience of online teaching will help me in the future. The second factor includes the dimension of a stimulating classroom atmosphere and good teacher–student relations. Examples of items: I communicate more successfully with a lecturer in online learning; Lecturers are more motivated to work in online teaching than in classical teaching. The third factor includes claims related to structuring and planning lessons, emphasizing learning goals, and clarity of teaching. Examples of items: Lectures online were clearly structured; It was clear from the lecture what the students were expected to know. The fourth factor includes the dimension of teaching metacognitive skills, higher–order thinking, learning strategies, and applying what has been learned. Examples of items: Students are encouraged to engage in discussions during online classes; Students are encouraged to participate in collaborative learning during online lectures. The fifth factor refers to the individualization and differentiation of teaching for individual students and groups of students, and examples are the following items: Lecturers in online teaching used different teaching strategies; Lecturers in their online lectures tried to encourage the processes of reasoning, connecting, analyzing. The sixth factor includes formative evaluation and giving feedback on learning, and examples are the following items: Lecturers gave feedback on time during online classes; The way of evaluating knowledge is clearly explained. Two particles saturated with multiple factors were excluded from further analysis: Online lectures were mandatory and Exams should be easier given the quality of online teaching.
N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
Motivation | 104 | 1,6 | 4,4 | 3,09 | 0,66 |
Teaching atmosphere | 105 | 1,25 | 4,75 | 2,78 | 0,83 |
Planning | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3,31 | 1 |
Student involvement in the education process | 105 | 1 | 4,8 | 3,17 | 0,8 |
Individualization | 104 | 1,29 | 4,43 | 3,06 | 0,75 |
Feedback | 103 | 1,25 | 5 | 3,56 | 0,79 |
Valid N (listwise) | 98 |
The results of attitudes on certain aspects of the quality of online teaching show that students are relatively satisfied with the way their college teachers planned, structured and organized online teaching, opportunities for engagement during online teaching and feedback. They are somewhat less satisfied with the teaching atmosphere and the individualization of the teaching process, which is in line with expectations given that the very nature of online teaching reduces the possibility of these aspects of teaching. These results are important considering previous studies that showed that interaction in the classroom, student motivation, course structure, instructor knowledge, and facilitation were positively influencing students’ perceived learning outcome and student satisfaction
The results of the present study showed that most participants were satisfied with the online teaching process. The participants gave the highest grades to the aspects of structuring and planning the lessons, emphasizing learning goals, clarity of teaching and to their own engagement and motivation, and the lowest grades to the stimulating classroom atmosphere. The qualitative part of the research showed that participants differ in the degree of adjustment to online teaching in the sense that some participants prefer online teaching and some do not. However, the vast majority of participants’ answers indicate the important role of the college teacher in the teaching process, whether it is classical or online teaching.
On one hand, study results indicate the need for additional education of college teachers that would go in the direction of encouraging a positive online classroom climate as a basic prerequisite for students getting comfortable with virtual learning.
The study also confirmed that successful application of didactic principles related to the teaching and learning process is the foundation of quality in face-to-face or online teaching. It also determined that the key to successful face-to-face as well as online teaching and learning actually is the teacher