ISBN: 978-84-695-3454-0-D.L: SA-325-2012
Índice:
nº Nombre
3 Durán-Aponte,Emilse; Pujol de Arroyo Lydia
4 ____________ ______________________ ____________ ___ 5 Villar Ramos,Ana Victoria; Tramullas Fernández, Mónica
6 Quintanal Pérez, Felipe; Gallego Gil, Domingo 7 Murrieta Pruneda; José Francisco
8 González Hernández, María del Rosario; Soto Espinoza, Ysche 9 Colenci Trevelin, Ana Teresa ; Alves Pereira, Marco Antonio 10 García-Ruiz, Rosa
11 Fernández Rodicio, Clara Isabel 12 Elsa Santaolalla Pascual 13 Aintzane Etxebarria, Urtza Garay
14 Pablo Cortés González y Juan J. Leiva Olivencia 15 Liberio Victorino Ramírez
16 Elena Álvarez, Marta Zorrilla 17 Maria Do Carmo NascimentoD_ iniz 18 Alicia Cardozo Hernández y Beymig Muñoz 19 José Luis García González
20 José Julio Real García y Oscar Costa Román
21 Caballol Bartolomé, D; García Lopez de la Osa, G; González Rodrigo, S; Medina Sánchez, E; Medina del Rio,
22 María José Marques Dos Santos, José Luis Alfredo Mora Guevara y Armando Cervantes Sandoval 23 Javier Barbero Andrés
24 Mª Concepción García Diego ; José Manuel Mansilla ; Clotilde Muñoz Villazán 25 Alicia Gómez Linares, Elena Briones, Raquel Palomera y Eva Gómez Pérez 26 Ricardo Esteves Kneipp; Rosane Maria de Castilho
27 Sonia Gutiérrez Hernández, José Ignacio Santos Mappe, Pedro Nel Zapata Castañeda 28 Mª Teresa Gómez del Castillo
29 David Lanza Escobedo 30 Carmen Murillo Melchor
31 González Cabeza A, Alonso-González Carolina._ 32 Alfredo Trueba Ruiz
33 Iñaki Pikabea Torrano
34 Rosa García-Ruiz, Álvaro Sánchez Muñoz_ 35 Elena Briones1 y Jesús Vera
36 Elena Gómez Gómez, Pilar Alvargonzález del Castillo 37 Pilar Serna y Natalia González
38 __________________________________ _!_"#___ _________________ ___$%__ _ 39 María Otilia Cancino Rico, Melba Zapata Rico
40 Rosa Mª Goig Martínez , Sonia Mª Santoveña Casal 41 Patricia Martínez, Víctor Korniejczuk
42 José Luis Alfredo Mora Guevara, Yolanda Flores Cabrera, Vicente Jesús Hernández Abad, María José Marques Dos Santos,
43 Carolina Alonso-González, Alicia González, Samuel Cos
44 Elena Escolano-Pérez, Lucía Tomas-Aragones, Mª Luisa Herrero Nivela 45 Antonio Coronado Hijón
46 Oscar Cosido
47 ___&___'_____ _'_____ _________(__ %__ _____ ____&___________)__*______)__ 48 Santos Álvarez, Mª Valle1 y Garrido Samaniego Mª José
49 Jose María Rabadán
50 Concepción González González 51 Ana Sedeño Valdellós
52 Raquel Sarabia Lavín, Blanca Torres Manrique 53 Héctor García Rodicio
54 Pascal RUBIO TERRADO
55 FRANCISCA VALDIVIA RUIZ, DOLORES MADRID VIVAR, Mª JOSÉ MAYORGA FERNÁNDEZ, JOSEFINA JIMÉNEZ RODRÍGUEZ 56 Noelia Ceballos
57 Jacqueline Sánchez Carrero, Antonia Ramírez García 58 Miren Fernández de Álava, Aleix Barrera-Corominas
59 Mª Jesús Colmenero Ruiz, Mª del Carmen Pegalajar Palomino 60 Mª del Carmen Caldeiro Pedreira
61 Bernardo Santamaría Moro - colegio Verdemar 63 Beatriz Tejada Carrasco
64 Diana Margarita Abello Camacho, Carolina Hernández Valbuena y Christian Hederich Martínez 65 Diana Margarita Abello Camacho, Carolina Hernández Valbuena y Christian Hederich Martínez 66 Mónica Caserio, Martha Guzmán, Ana María Vozzi
68 Yschel Soto Espinosa; Mª Rosario González Hernández 69 Iván David García Castro y Raquel Palomera Martín
70 Cavia, M.A., Mañana, M., Arroyo, A., Sánchez, P., Delgado, F. y Ortiz, A. 71 María José Arroyo, José Luis Parejo
72 Cuevas Cava, Mª Victoria., Gallego Gil, José Domingo, Nevot Luna, Antonio. 73 Inmaculada Martínez Martínez
74 Juan Bolívar L. , Freddy Rojas V.
75 NEIVA, Jaqueline S. F. da Silva. TREVELIN, Ana Teresa Colenci 76 María Guadalupe Gómez Malagón, Lourdes López Pérez 77 Evelise Maria Labatut Portilho
78 Ellen Marques de Oliveira Rocha Prates
79 M. Á. Rio Barriuso, B. López Carre, G. López Palacio
80 +___%_ _ _,______-____________+___%_ _ _,______-____._/__________________ _______ ________
81 María Teresa Garibay, Silvia Angelone
83 Emilio Álvarez Arregui, Alejandro Rodríguez Martín, Guillermo O. Pérez-Bustamante Ilander y Beatriz A. Gr
84 Natalia González y Sonsoles Guerra 85 Carmen Murillo y Marta Pascual 86 Martha Araceli Torres Rodríguez
87 Vanessa Matos dos Santos María Luz Cacheiro González Cristina Sánchez Romero e Jesús Manuel González Lorenzo
88 Alfonso J. Gil López; Ane Sánchez Arbizu
89 Manuel Enrique Medina Tornero, Elvira Medina Ruiz 90 Olga de Cos Guerra, Pedro Reques Velasco 91 Leticia Morata Sampaio , Jose Juan Castro Sánchez
92 José Luis García Cué, Concepción Sánchez Quintanar, Mercedes Aurelia Jiménez Velázquez, José Carlos Montalbán
93 Blanca Torres Manrique, Raquel Sarabia Lavin, Maria Madrazo Perez, Cristina Blanco Fraile4 94 Ana Castro, Pilar Ezquerra, Javier Argos, José Manuel Osoro y Laurentino Salvador
95 José Julio Real García, Antonia Cascales Martínez, Benedicto Marcos 96 Rocío Lago Urbano, María Ramírez Espinosa de los Monteros3.
97 Jesús Miguel Maya Rodríguez, Juan Miguel Rosas Gámez, Guadalupe Aleida Valenzuela Miranda, Adria Velia Gonzál
98 Juan Miguel Rosas Gámez, Jesús Miguel Maya Rodríguez, Guadalupe Aleida Valenzuela Miranda, Adria Velia Gonzál
99 Sonia Martín Gómez, Elena García Rojo, Cristina Masa Lorenzo, Nuria Villar Fernández 100 David Cantarero Prieto, Carla Blázquez Fernández
101 Alfonso Infante Moro, Nieves Santos Fernández2
102 César de Cos Ahumada, Esther Vélez Rubín, Ignacio Viadero Jorganes, Miriam Coterillo Sañudo, Tamara Dirube F
103 Amada Rodríguez Gutiérrez y Paula Renés Arellano 104 Belén Izquierdo-Magaldi
105 Sergio Ferreira do Amaral, Tania Lucía Maddalena
106 Abel Arnoldo Puente Nava , M.C. Mireya Sarahí Abarca Cedeño , Licda. Sandra Marcela Mejía Rivera 107 Roser Calaf Masachs y Sué Gutiérrez Berciano
110 Miguel A. Martín Sánchez
112 Juan Manuel Muñoz González, Pilar Gutiérrez Arenas y Rocío Serrano Rodríguez 113 Anna Díaz Vicario, Miren Fernández de Álava y Aleix Barrera-Corominas
114 María Ramírez Espinosa de los Monteros y Patricia Alós Villanueva
115 De la Paz López Juana María, Bautista Aragón Consuelo, Mendoza Mata María Teresa, De la Paz López Carmina
116 Domingo J. Gallego Gil, Esther Vázquez Carro
117 Escamilla Centeno Verónica Guadalupe, González Rosas Mónica Karina
118 José Luis García Cué, Mariano Gutiérrez Tapias, Luis Mario Azcárate Barón, María Sagrario Arranz de Dios
119 David Didier Bermúdez Rochas
120 Cristina Gómez Castro y Cristina Sobremazas Martínez 121 Yennifer Paola Villa Rojas
122 Maria Gorete Dadalto Gonçalves
123 Mayela del Refugio Rodríguez Garza, Ma. Francisca Sanmiguel Salazar, Claudia L. Hernández Vallejo
124 Vera Lúcia Messias Fialho Capellini, Kátia de Abreu Fonseca 125 Jorge Cáceres Muñoz.
126 Yasunari del Valle Ramírez León, José Antonio Ortega Carrillo 127 Carlos Soldevilla Puga
129 Ana Clara Ventura, Nora Moscoloni, Raúl Gagliardi 130 Carlos Salavera
131 Carlos Salavera
132 Alicia Peñalva , José Javier López-Goñi , Asunción Vega , Cristina Satrústegui 134 Isabel Morera Bañas
135 Aguilar D. Esperanza, Flórez S. Milton , Gómez T. Álvaro . 136 Carlos Lage Gómez y Adela Zahonero Rovira
137 Sergio Alejandro Alcaraz Guerrero, Ma. de Lourdes Covarrubias Venegas 138 Mª Luz Fernández Fernández,Borja Camus Díez,Raquel López Maza
139 Prudencia Gutiérrez Esteban Sixto Cubo Delgado Antonio Dos Reis Rocío Yuste Tosina Juan Arias Masa Laura Alonso
140 Alicia Peñalva Vélez.
141 _Aguilar D. Esperanza, Flórez S. Milton, Gómez T. Álvaro 142 Damián Corrales Bernabé
143 Laura Magaña Pastrana
144 JOSÉ ALFREDO AVANTES VALENZUELA, M.C. MARÍA DEL ROSARIO SALMÁN VALDEZ 145 ANGÉLICA CÁCERES MUÑOZ JUANA VILCHEZ CEA
146 Rafaela Blanca Silva-López, Elena Cruz-Miguel, Hugo Pablo-Leiva_ 147 Laura Mier
148 Ignacio Berzosa Ramos, María José Arroyo González 149 María Jesús Cano Muñoz, Emilio Jesús Lizarte Simón
150 Dra. Dña. Lina Mª Tomás Pastor, Dña. Mª José Lombarte Londres 151 Patricia Alós Villanueva, Rocío Lago Urbano
152 Paula Mier Pérez
153 Fátima Goulão, Daniela Melaré, Luisa Miranda, Carlos Morais
154 Jesús Antonio Larios Trejo, Mireya Sarahí Abarca Cedeño 155 Irina Salcines Talledo
156 Uvalle Loperena, Yolanda & González Salazar, Nora I. 157 Teresa Fernández Ulloa
158 Correa Gutiérrez Sergio, De la Mora Gómez María Esther, De la Mora Gómez Gabriela, Garza Hernández Astri
160 Comisaña Moreno, María Inmaculada; Sánchez-Bravo Martínez, María 161 M.C. Ma. de Lourdes Covarrubias Venegas, Mario Amancio Figueroa Aguilar 162 Reina Castellanos Vega
163 Laura Rayón Rumayor, Ana Mª de las Heras Cuenca 164 Héctor García Rodicio
165 Maricel Totoricagüena Martín
166 Inmaculada Sánchez Casado y María Dávalos Gordillo
167 0_______$_____________ ___!______________________1___________$__ 168 Maria José Noriega
169 Lara López Hernáez 170 Lara López Hernáez 171 Gloria Castaño Collado 172 Wilmer Ismael Ángel Benavides 174 Gloria Castaño
175 Julio Medina
176 Evelyn Santiago Franco, Elena Jiménez Martín, María Rosalía Garza Guzmán 177 Teresa Fernández Ulloa
178 Mariano Gutiérrez Tapias, José Luis García Cué, Daniela Melaré Vieira Barros 179 A. Arroyo, A. Ortiz, F. Delgado, P. Sánchez, M. A. Cavia, M. Mañana
181 Mg Ange Danielle Baumgartner, Mg Oscar Hernán Fonseca Ramírez 182 Leidy Johanna González Navarro_
183 Efraín Araiza Sánchez y Patricia Barrera Garibay_ 185 Antonio Montalvo
186 Teresa Magal-Royo, Begoña Jorda-Albiñana, Olga Ampuero-Canellas, _Jimena Gonzalez del Rio 187 David Cantarero Prieto, Patricia Moreno Mencía
188 Paula Renés, Beatriz de León y Ana Castro 189 Javier Enrique Rojas Moreno
190 Paula Renés, Pedro M. Geijo y Domingo Gallego 191 Enrico Bocciolesi
1
ESTILOS DE USO DEL ESPACIO VIRTUAL DE ALUMNOS
DE LA ENSEÑANZA SUPERIOR
STYLES OF USE OF THE VIRTUAL SPACE OF
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Fátima Goulão, Daniela Melaré, Luisa Miranda, Carlos Morais
Universidade Aberta, Lisboa, Portugal Universidade Aberta, Lisboa,Portugal Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Portugal
CIEC_Universidade do Minho/Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Portugal
fgoulao@netcabo.pt, dmelare@gmail.com, lmiranda@ipb.pt; cmmm@ipb.pt
Resumen
Las Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación (TIC) y más específicamente, la Internet, han traído nuevas formas de vivir la enseñanza y aprendizaje, tanto en la enseñanza presencial como en la enseñanza a distancia. Todavía, considerando que la enseñanza y el aprendizaje deben ser centrados en el alumno, se hace necesario identificar los estilos del uso del espacio virtual y desarrollar estrategias que tengan en cuenta esos estilos. Según Alonso y Gallego (2002), los estilos de aprendizaje son: activo, reflexivo, teórico y pragmático. Considerando estos estilos, se conceptualizaron los estilos del uso del espacio virtual, que Barros (2007) designa por: estilo del uso participativo en el espacio virtual, estilo de búsqueda y investigación, estilo de estructuración y planeamiento en el espacio virtual y estilo de acción concreta y producción en el espacio virtual. Con esta reflexión se evaluará la relación entre las modalidades de enseñanza presencial y a distancia de una muestra de alumnos de enseñanza superior y las variables uso de la Internet (años, frecuencia, sitio y objetivos del uso) y estilo de uso del espacio virtual. Los resultados obtenidos muestran que la mayoría de los sujetos utiliza la Internet todos los días, hace más de cinco años, en sus casas, para búsqueda de información. El estilo de uso del espacio virtual predominante es el estilo participativo.
Palabras-clave: Estilos de aprendizaje, Estilos de uso del espacio virtual, TIC
Abstract
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), especially the Internet, have brought about new ways of living the teaching and learning process, both regarding on-site and distance learning. However, bearing in mind that the teaching and learning process should be centered in the learner, it is necessary to identify the student’s style of use of the virtual space and to develop strategies which take these styles into account. According to Alonso & Gallego (2002), the learning styles are: active; reflective; theoretical; and pragmatic. Considering these styles, Barros (2007) conceptualized the styles of use of the virtual space and named them as follows: participatory style; search and research style; structuring and planning style; and concrete action and production style. Thus, this work intends to evaluate possible connections between on-site and distance learning modalities used by a sample of undergraduate students and the variables Internet use (number of years, frequency, location and aims of the use); and style of use of the virtual space. The results show that most of the
subjects use has the Internet on a daily basis, for more than five years, at home, and to search for information. The predominant style of use of the virtual space is the participatory style. Keywords: Learning styles, Styles of use of the virtual space, ICT
1. INTRODUTION
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), especially the Internet, have unlimited potential for the educational context. Amongst other possibilities, they enable to teach and learn in different ways, and define and redefine strategies depending on the students’ needs and interests. A concern in defining teaching and learning strategies which could benefit from the potential of ICT, as well as from knowing students’ learning styles, has driven many researchers to develop studies in the field of learning styles. Many of these research works are based on Keefe’s definition of learning style “Los estilos de aprendizaje son los rasgos cognitivos, afectivos y fisiológicos, que sirven como indicadores relativamente estables, de como los discentes perciben, interaccionan y responden a sus ambientes de aprendizaje” (Keefe, 1988, cit. by Alonso, Gallego, & Honey, 2005, p. 48), as well as on the learning styles reported by Alonso & Gallego (2002): active, reflective, theoretical and pragmatic.
Following these theories, Barros has focused his attention on the way in which individuals use the virtual space. The studies revealed that the style of use of the virtual space is influenced by the learning style of each individual. Barros (2007) defined the types of use of the virtual space as follows: participatory style; search and research style; structuring and planning style, and concrete action and production style, associating each of these styles with the learning styles: active, reflective, theoretical and pragmatic.
Given the importance that the virtual space currently has in scientific, educational and social contexts, this article aims to identify the style of use of the virtual space of a sample of undergraduate students, and to look into possible connections between the variable learning modality (on-site or distance learning) and the variables Internet use and style of use of the virtual space.
What follows is the conceptualization of the styles of use of the virtual space, the methodology used, and the results obtained from the study.
2. STYLES OF USE OF THE VIRTUAL SPACE
The theory of learning styles greatly contributes to the development of the teaching and learning process, as it provides a range of perspectives on how to the learning process easier. It is a theory which, based on psychology, supports the arguments of diversity in the way of learning. We can also emphasize that there is a clear connection between this theory and ICT, as it covers the development of strategies which address all learning styles, including the use of digital technologies. By using technologies as well as the principles of the styles theory, it is possible to develop interfaces, tools, multimedia features and applications tailored to the students’ preferences and interests.
Students succeed in environments which are related to their learning style (Mirasyedioglu & Peker, 2008).
As far as learning is concerned, different people may have different behaviors or combinations of behaviors. Students’ performance in the teaching and learning context is reflected in very diverse behaviors when faced with proposals for task solving. While some argue that they must work individually, developing their autonomy and reflective ability, others prefer to work collaboratively, indicating different preferences and, consequently, different prevalent styles (Morais & Miranda, 2008).
Using the cornerstones of Alonso, Honey and Gallego’s learning styles theory (2002) and considering them right, the theory of styles may provide us with many guidelines to understand how to learn and teach in the virtual space. These guidelines are: the emphasis on students’ individuality; the emphasis on the methodological process and the expansion of evaluation procedures in the construction of the student's knowledge; the provision of multimedia applications that meet the individuals’ learning needs; the improvement of learning opportunities in the online educational process; and the democratization of education. These claims are understood as we perceive that the theory of styles can provide guidelines regarding the way people learn and these guidelines can be used to understand the learning processes which use virtual spaces. Considering the student as the center of the teaching and learning process, the virtual space provides collaborative learning approaches in which learning is perceived as an active process in which students have the opportunity to build their own meanings about objects of knowledge, and to engage in contextualized activities with other colleagues, in a way that each group member shares and collaboratively develops knowledge, and makes sense of his own experience (Miranda, Morais & Dias, 2008).
Studies enable the perception that Barros’s virtual space (2008) provides ways of learning which are different from the ways found in on-site learning. Meanwhile, learning styles displayed in the virtual space have characteristics which are perfectly identifiable within the paradigm of the virtual as well as its elements. Therefore, the studies carried out on this subject together with the theory of styles provide us with a profile of how people learn in the virtual space, as well as with ways to direct its didactic and pedagogical applications to the teaching and learning process.
According to research previously carried out by Barros (2012), the type of learning that occurs in the virtual space is one that starts with the search for data and information after a stimulus previously planned; after this search comes the organization of the material in a particular way, according to the development, organization, analysis and synthesis that the user performs, producing, simultaneously, a multimedia application of the tools available. The learning in the virtual space involves a number of elements which involve the concept and the characteristics of the virtual. According to the analyzed bases of Lévy (1996), Horrocks (2004), Jones (2002), Woolgar (2002), Echeverria (1994), Hine (2003), Careaga (1996) and Hegel (1770-1831), it is possible to identify and summarize the following elements of the virtual space in the teaching and learning processes:
- The time and space which consists of elements such as differentiated time, differentiated space, continuous movement, constant updates, network, promptness, deterritorialization. These elements derive from the space and time features of the virtual space, its mutation and amplified dimension, which gives us the feeling of excessive speed and amount of innovation. This variable offers us several analysis criteria on the cognitive use of virtual space use;
- The language structured with elements from differentiated codes, communication speed, many communicating with many, hypertextuality, database, cyberculture and images. The language with its digital shape has come to represent a new way of thinking the contents. Besides, its virtualized expansion in a text may mean several texts at the same time, because of its hypertextual shape. The cyberculture produces a series of subliminal patterns which lead to the construction of behavior and action along with virtualized knowledge, trends and pleasures;
- The interaction is the individual’s immersion, decentralization, relation subject-object-subject, social interaction and virtualization of the senses (hearing, touch and sight). Its action lies in the dimension of visual language, however, it currently means a visual tactile language and the senses are visualizing deeper dimensions through that experience;
- The easy access to knowledge is in the context of information and data, information mapping, information recovery, skills and abilities, non-linearity and transdisciplinarity.
Access to knowledge is currently beyond the common means, but it has been extended because information saw its value increased and is now a reference in the construction of knowledge. Furthermore, the mobilization of ideas and contexts has been considered as an essential skill, turning knowledge into guided action.
Based on these guiding elements of the virtual for education, and together with the theory of styles, the research carried out by Barros (2007) developed a tool that enables to identify the style of use of the virtual space.
This tool has been applied in several completed and undergoing research works whose results are interesting and enable to understand how people learn in the virtual space, thus, providing information to develop didactic strategies of online teaching and learning.
According to Barros (2012), the styles of use of the virtual space can be understood as levels of use of the applications and tools, online-based interfaces – among other features – in the search for information, in the planning and in the image. In this study, four trends of use of the virtual space have been categorized. They are as follows:
Participatory style of use of the virtual space. It considers participation as a central element, in which the individual must have the ambiance of the space. Besides this, and in order to develop a learning process in the virtual space, they need methodologies and materials which enhance the contact with online groups, which require the search for online situations, the development of group works and forums, and which assigns actions to the developed materials.
Search and research style of use of the virtual space. Its central element for the learning process is the need to do online research, search for information of all types and formats. This style was called search and research because the user learns throughout the search, selection and organization of the contents. The learning materials must be related to constructions and synthesis which involve the search of content.
Structuring and planning style of use of the virtual space. Its central element for learning is the need to develop activities which value the applications to develop planning contents and activities. These activities must be based on theories related to what is being developed.
Concrete action and production style of use of the virtual space. Its central element for learning is the need to develop online services and the speed of this process. Making something possible and available fast is one of the central axes of this style of use; using the virtual space as a space of action and production.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH
Regarding the procedures, this research work can be classified as an enquiry research with quantitative features. Data was obtained from a survey carried out via the Internet.
In the statistical treatment of data we used the statistical IBM program SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 20.
The sample was obtained among a population of Portuguese undergraduate students, during the academic year 2011/2012. The sample consists of 147 subjects, 104 female and 43 male subjects.
Among the 147 students, 95 (64.6%) are enrolled in distance learning, and 52 (35.4%) in on-site learning degrees. The predominant degrees in which subjects are enrolled are: Social Sciences (31.3%), Education (29.3%), Management (28.6%), Other (7.5%), and did not indicate the course attended (3.4%).
The minimum age is 18 and the maximum is 65 years old, with an age mean of 35.4 years old, a median of 37 and a mode of 20 years old. Figure 1 represents the subjects’ age distribution in classes.
Figure1: Age distribution of the sample (n= 147)
By observing Figure 1, we verify that the sample is not homogeneous with regard to age; the amplitude of age variation is high; the difference between the minimum and the maximum age is 47 years. However, the majority of the subjects are less than 50 years old.
4. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ON THE STYLE OF USE OF THE
VIRTUAL SPACE
The results presented come from the answers to the survey on the use of the virtual space and the connection between the sample features and the dependent variables under study. Thus, we present descriptive data on the use of the Internet by all subjects in the sample, and we emphasize the connection between the learning modality of the subjects of the sample and the number of years, the frequency, the location and the aims of Internet use. We also present the sample distribution according to their styles of use of the virtual space.
4.1. Internet use by undergraduate students
For each of the dependent variables under study, we present tables with absolute and relative frequencies of occurrences according to the teaching methods, as well as the comparison of data distribution by applying the Mann-Whitney test. The Mann-Whitney test is the appropriate non-parametric test to compare the distribution functions of one variable, at least ordinal, measured in two independent samples (Maroco, 2010, p. 219).
Given the characteristics of the different learning modalities, on-site and distance learning, we compare data from on-site learning and distance learning students, which we called on-site group and distance group, respectively.
Table 1 shows the distribution of years of Internet use by on-site and distance learning students. 0 20 40 60 80 100 [18, 26[ [26, 34[ [34, 42[ [42, 50[ [50, 58[ [58, 65] (%) Age classes
Table 1: Years of Internet use depending on the type of learning
Type of learning Years of Internet use Total
"I do not know" "2" or "3" "4" or "5" "more than 5" On-site learning N 3 1 8 40 52 % 5.8% 1.9% 15.4% 76.9% 100.0% Distance Learning N 1 3 17 74 95 % 1.1% 3.2% 17.9% 77.9% 100.0% Total N 4 4 25 114 147 % 2.7% 2.7% 17.0% 77.6% 100.0%
By observing Table 1, we see that most of the subjects have used the Internet for over 5 years (77.6%). Note that there are no students who have used the Internet for "0" or "1" years, and there are a few students who claim not to know the number of years that they have used the Internet for.
For data processing purposes, we agreed on naming the variable options years of Internet use, "I don't know", "2" or "3", "4" or "5" and "more than 5" for 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Thus, as it was only possible to choose one of the options, the answer of each student assumes one of the values from the set {1, 2, 3, 4}. After checking the applicability conditions of the Mann-Whitney test and after its implementation, conclusions were that there are no significant differences (significance level under 0.05) between the distributions of years of Internet use among the on-site and the distance learning groups.
Table 2 follows with the presentation of the data concerning the frequency of Internet use in the two groups and in the sample as a whole.
Table 2: Frequency of Internet use depending on the type of learning Type of learning Frequency of Internet use Total
Several times per month Several times per week Every day On-site Learning N 0 18 34 52 % .0% 34.6% 65.4% 100.0% Distance Learning N 2 7 86 95 % 2.1% 7.4% 90.5% 100.0% Total N 2 25 120 147 % 1.4% 17.0% 81.6% 100.0%
According to the data in Table 2, it appears that most of the subjects are using the Internet every day (81.6%). Only 1.4% of the subjects said to use it several times a month. The percentage of students who use the Internet every day is higher in distance learning than in on-site learning. After representing the fields "several times a month", "several times a week" and "every day" by 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and after applying the Mann-Whitney test, the results showed that there are significant differences (significance level under 0.05) between the distributions of frequency of Internet use between the group of subjects attending on-site learning and the group attending distance learning.
Table 3 presents the data about the place where undergraduate students are using the Internet. Table 3: Places where students use the Internet
Type of learning Places where students use the Internet Total of students Home University/Workplace Other places
On-site Learning N 46 21 6 52 % 88.5% 40.4% 11.5% Distance Learning N 86 54 7 95 % 90.5% 56.8% 7.4% Total N 132 75 13 147 % 89.8% 51% 8.8%
As each answer admitted the possibility of choosing more than one option, 220 answers resulted from the 147 students’ sample. By observing Table 3, we verify that among the sample of 147 subjects, 89.8% use the Internet at home, 51% use it at university or at work and 8.8% use it elsewhere. In both groups, most students use the Internet at home.
Table 4 presents the data about the aims of Internet use by undergraduate students. Table 4: Aims of Internet use
Type of learning
Aims of Internet use Total of
students Communication Entertainment Search for
information Educational purposes Work On-site Learning N 33 20 37 29 20 52 % 63.5% 38.5% 71.2% 55.8% 38.5% Distance Learning N 54 30 77 75 64 95 % 56.8% 31.6% 81.1% 78.9% 67.4% Total N 87 50 114 104 84 147 % 59.2% 34.0% 77.6% 70.7% 57.1%
As each answer admitted the possibility of choosing more than one option, 439 answers resulted from the 147 students’ sample.
Among the 147 subjects in the sample, 59.2% use the Internet to communicate, 34.0% for entertainment purposes, 77.6% to search for information, 70.7% for educational purposes and 57.1% use the Internet to work.
The most emphasized aim of Internet use is the search for information, both by the on-site group and by the distance learning group. The distance learning group emphasizes the educational and work aims more than the on-site group.
4.2. Styles of use of the virtual space of undergraduate students
The styles of use of the virtual space were obtained from the sample answers to 40 questions in the survey "style of use of the virtual space" developed by Barros and Garcia (2007). The survey consists of 40 statements, 10 regarding each style. In order to complete the survey, respondents are asked to tick the statements with which they agreed, in order to match such agreements with the manifestation of their style of use of the virtual space. The score of each subject in each style varies from zero to 10, with zero points when none of the options for this style was marked and 10 points when all the options have been assigned to that style. The four styles of use of the virtual space are: participatory style; search and research style; structuring and planning style; and concrete action and production style.
A summary of the data provided by the sample from the survey of the style of use of the virtual space is displayed in Table 5. Thus, we present the absolute frequencies and the relative frequencies obtained by the on-site group and by the distance learning group.
Table 5: Styles of use of the virtual space Type of Learning Participatory style Search and research style Structuring and planning style Concrete action and production style
Total answers Total of students n % n % n % n % n % On-site Learning 204 31.0 175 26.6 156 23.7 124 18.8 659 36.7 52 Distance Learning 395 34.7 311 27.4 238 20.9 193 17.0 1137 63.3 95 Total answers 599 33.4 486 27.1 394 21.9 317 17.7 1796 100 147
According to the data obtained it appears that in both groups the participatory style of use of the virtual space is predominant. The concrete action and production style is the least evident in both groups.
Considering all the scores obtained by subjects in the sample in each style, we verify that the scores in the "participatory style" range from 1 to 10; in the "search and research style", from 0 to 9; in the "structuring and planning style", from 0 to 8; and in the "concrete action and production style", they range from 0 to 7. The average in each style is, respectively: 4.1, 3.3, 2.7 and 2.2.
Figure 2 presents a graphical representation of the trend of the sample profile regarding the styles of use of the virtual space.
Figure 2: Representation of the profile of the style of use of the virtual space
The average scores of the on-site group and the distance learning group in each of the styles of use of the virtual space is shown in Table 6.
0 2 4 6 8 10 Participatory style
Search and research style
Structuring and planning style Concrete action and
Table 6: Average scores obtained by students in each style Type of learning Participatory style Search and research style Structuring and planning style Concrete action and production style On-site Learning 3.9 3.4 3.0 2.4 Distance Learning 4.2 3.3 2.5 2.0 Total answers 4.1 3.3 2.7 2.2
Given the data presented in table 6, and assuming that the higher the skills to use the virtual space are, the higher the scores are, the results show that the average values in each style are very low, which means that there is still a long way to go so that undergraduate students can benefit from the potential of the virtual space.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The use of ICT in the educational context and the attempt to make the best of them considering the students’ learning styles continues to be a challenge for which a variety of solutions are experimented. Thus, taking into account the characteristics of a sample of 147 undergraduate students and the study variables, the results of this study showed that:
- The majority of undergraduate students have used the Internet for over 5 years, with no significant differences between the years of Internet use by on-site students and distance learning students;
- The majority of undergraduate students use the Internet every day, with significant differences between on-site students and distance learning students;
- The places where the undergraduates use the Internet are at home, for the vast majority, and at university / work. There is a very small number who use the Internet elsewhere;
- The purposes of Internet use are assumed with different levels of importance, being the goal of "search for information" the one selected by the largest number of students, followed by "educational purposes ","communication", "work" and finally "entertainment".
With regard to the style of use of the virtual space, the results show that the most representative style is the participatory style, followed, according to representativeness, by the search and research style, the structuring and planning style, and the concrete action and production style.
The average scores obtained by the students for each style are low, which implies the need for further research on the styles of use of the virtual space, so that methodologies and resources can be defined according to the students’ profile, thus enabling them to improve and fully benefit from the potential of virtual environments.
REFERENCES
Alonso, C., Gallego, D., & Honey, P. (2005). Los estilos de aprendizaje: procedimientos de
diagnóstico y mejora. Madrid: Mensajero.
Barros, D. (2012) Estilos de Aprendizaje y las Tecnologías: Medios didácticos en lo virtual. Editorial Académica Española, Madrid
Barros; D. M. V. (2008). Reflexões de base para a educação a distância: o virtual como novo
espaço educativo, Revista UDESC, 10-20. Disponível em:
Barros, D., & Amaral, F. (2007). Instrumento de investigação sobre os estilos de uso do espaço virtual. Virtual Educa, 2007. Disponível em: http://ihm.ccadet.unam.mx/virtualeduca2007/pdf/53-DVM.pdf.
Careaga, C. (1996). Currículum cibernético: fundamentos y proyecciones. Xf. Tesis Magister Educación Universidad de Concepción, Chile, Disponívelem: <http://venado.conce.plaza.cl/~mcareaga/>.
Echeverría, J. (1994). Telépolis. Barcelona: Ensayos Destino. Hine, C. (2003). Virtual ethography. London: SAGE.
Horrocks, C. (2004). Marshall McLuhan y realidad virtual. Barcelona: Gedisa. Lévy, P.(1996) . O que é o virtual?. São Paulo: Editora 34.
Maroco, J. (2010). Análise estatística: Com utilização do SPSS (3ª ed.). Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Miranda, L., & Morais, C. (2008). Estilos de aprendizagem: O questionário CHAEA adaptado para língua portuguesa. Revista de estilos de aprendizaje, 1(1), 4-25.
Miranda, L., Morais, C., & Dias, P. (2008).Pedagogical approaches for online environments. In A. J. Mendes, I. Pereira & R. Costa (Eds.), Computers and education: Towards
educational change and innovation, pp. 91-102. Londres: Springer-Verlag.
Peker, M.,& Mirasyedioglu, S. (2008). Pre-Service elementary school teachers’learning styles and attitudes towards mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 4 (1), 21-26.
