Denna studie har bidragit till att skapa förståelse om personlighetsdrag kan vara en bakomliggande och bidragande faktor till studenters attityder i hybrida lärmiljöer. Då BFI-10 inte är ett fullskaligt personlighetstest bör framtida forskning använda exempelvis BFI-44 eller liknande för att se om de observerade sambanden kvarstår.
Urvalet i denna studie bestod dessutom av studenter tillhörande tre program på Miun, men målpopulationen kan egentligen sägas vara alla studenter som studerar i hybrida lärmiljöer i högre utbildning. Då svarsfrekvensen för denna studies enkätundersökning uppgick till 25% bör framtida studier sträva efter en högre svarsfrekvens och dessutom använda ett större urval, gärna ifrån flera universitet/högskolor.
Vidare förslag är att i framtida studier koppla surveysvar till registerdata för att hålla bakomliggande variabler konstanta. Studenters upplevda studieprestation i hybrida lärmiljöer bör dessutom exempelvis jämföras mot verkligt studieresultat.
Framtida studier bör dessutom behandla attityder kopplade till de tekniska problem som kan uppstå och som genom tidigare studier har visat sig ha en påverkan på studenters attityder. Detta för att se hur mycket dessa negativa attityder påverkar exempelvis den generella uppfattningen om lärmiljön eller undervisningen.
29
Referenser
Ackerman & Heggestad (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
Bagley, J. E., Randall, K., & Anderson, M. P. (2015). A comparison of sonography and radiography student scores in a cadaver anatomy class before and after the implementation of synchronous distance education. Ultrasound, 23(1), 59-66. doi:10.1177/1742271X14567173 Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G., Lee, M.J.W., & Kenney, J. (2014). Blended synchronous learning: A Handbook for Educators. Matthew Bower. E-bok.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1057-1068. 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00253-6.
Butz, N. T., Stupnisky, R. H., & Pekrun, R. (2015). Students’ emotions for achievement and technology use in synchronous hybrid graduate programmes: A control-value approach. Research in Learning Technology, 23(1), 26097-16. 10.3402/rlt.v23.26097
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major higher-order factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335-344.
Catell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaigne, IL: IPAT.
Centrala etikprövningsnämnden, SCB & Socialstyrelsen (2013), Personuppgifter i forskningen – vilka regler gäller? Centrala etikprövningsnämnden, SCB och Socialstyrelsen. Chen, N., Ko, H., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181-194. doi:10.1080/14703290500062599
Christensen, L., Engdahl, N., Grääs, C., & Haglund, L. (2010). Marknadsundersökning: En handbok (3. uppl. ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6) doi:10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1748
Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 501-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00482.x
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665. DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
30 Costa, P. T, & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality
assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425-453. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 405-425.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5<405::AID-PER255>3.0.CO;2-M
Denscombe, M. (2016). Forskningshandboken: För småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom samhällsvetenskaperna (3., rev. och uppdaterade uppl. ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Devaraj, S., Easley, R. F., & Crant, J. M. (2008). How does personality matter? relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93. Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, D. (1970). The relationship between personality, study methods, and academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 132–143.
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., & Wängnerud, L. (2012). Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad (4., [rev.] uppl. ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts juridik. Fahlke, C., Johansson, P. M., Lundh, L., Karlsson, G., & Hill, T. (2007). Personlighetspsykologi (1. utg. ed.). Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Fazio, R.H. & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Pianesi, F. 2013, "Searching for personality", IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 146-158.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Gill, G., & Mullarkey, M. (2015). Taking a case method capstone course online: A
comparative case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 189-218.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26-34. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Jiménez, M., Bartolomei-Suárez, S., Ochoa, Y., & Santiago, W. (2016). A synchronous distance education hybrid model of college-level credits for high-school students. Paper presented at the Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2016-November doi:10.1109/FIE.2016.7757723
Kannan, K., & Narayanan, K. (2015). A structural equation modelling approach for massive blended synchronous teacher training. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 1.
31 Kuncel, N., Hezlett, S.A., Ones, D. S., Crede, M., Vannelli, J. R., Thomas, L. L., Duehr, E. E., & Jackson, H. L. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of Personality Determinants of College Student Performance. 20th Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Ng, K. C. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(1) doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i1.335
Noftle E. & Robins R. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116–130.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574-583. 10.1037/h0040291
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81-90. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 171-188. 10.1177/0022022198291009.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood (2nded.). New York: Guilford. Murray, M. C., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 125-140.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971-990. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7.
Popov, O., Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakulteten, Umeå universitet, & Institutionen för naturvetenskapernas och matematikens didaktik. (2009). Teachers' and students' experiences of simultaneous teaching in an international distance and on-campus master's programme in engineering. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in english and german. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Said, H., Kirgis, L., Verkamp, B., & Johnson, L. J. (2015). Online vs. face-to-face delivery of information technology courses: Students' assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 297–312.
32 Senn, G. J. (2008). Comparison of face-to-face and hybrid delivery of a course that requires technology skills development. Journal of Information Technology Education, 7, 267–283. Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows adult personality and life outcomes two decades later. Journal of Personality, 71, 1145–1170. Smith, N. V. (2013). Face-to-face vs. blended learning: Effects on secondary students ‘Perceptions and performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 79-83. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.813
Stata. (uå). Why Stata? Stata. https://www.stata.com/why-use-stata/ . (Hämtad 2018-01-04). Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students' experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610289
SurveyMonkey. (uå). Om oss. SurveyMonkey. https://sv.surveymonkey.com/mp/aboutus/ (Hämtad 2017-11-27).
Szeto, E. (2014). A comparison of Online/Face-to-face students’ and instructor's experiences: Examining blended synchronous learning effects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4250–4254. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014,01.926
Universitets- och högskolerådet. (uå). Sök i Universitets- och högskolerådets antagningsstatistik. Stockholm. https://statistik.uhr.se/ . (Hämtad 2017-12-20).
Vetenskapsrådet. (2002). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Elanders Gotab: Stockholm. http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf (Hämtad 2017-11-27).
Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). God forskningssed. Stockholm.
https://publikationer.vr.se/produkt/god-forskningssed/ . (Hämtad 2017-11-27).
Watson, J. (2008). Blending Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. NewsRX LLC.
White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., Plonowski, L., & Carmel Parker White, Rich Ramirez, Jessica G. Smith and Lisa Plonowski. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. Boston: Springer US. doi:10.1007/s11528-010-0418-z
Wong, L., & Fong, M. (2014). Student attitudes to traditional and online methods of delivery. Journal of Information Technology Education:Research, 13(1), 1-3.
33
Bilaga 1 – BFI-10
Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10. item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203-212.
34