Investigating Finnish university students' learning experiences in physical and online learning environments through tempo and presence

• In Event: Navigating New Horizons in Teaching and Learning: Decolonization, Presence, and Equity in Global Contexts

Proposal

While scholars continue to debate on the efficacy of online learning versus in-class learning, the recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that when the school-based environment is abruptly and digitally transformed party or wholly, a digital divide can emerge between students through challenges relating to technology (e.g., internet connectivity issues), socioeconomics (e.g., affording an internet connection), privacy (e.g., sharing study spaces with others), competencies (e.g., insufficient ICT skills), pedagogy (e.g., learning assessment methodology), and course compatibility (e.g., art courses) (Di Gesú & González, 2021). Moreover, recent research has highlighted that online learning entails an invisible barrier between students and the teacher, because the perception and facilitation of interaction in addition to the sense of being with others (presence) are peripherally mediated, synchronously and asynchronously, through the affordances and limitations of technology (Kirsh, 2019; Prestridge et al., 2024). To better understand this invisible barrier along with the aforementioned challenges, we compared and reviewed Finnish university students' learning experiences in physical and online learning environments through the concepts of tempo and presence. The first concept, tempo, investigates the subjective experience of time in relation to space, and was proposed by Niedt (2020). Niedt (2020) used tempo to examine how the representation and reproduction of semiotics and qualities of space emerge through cyclical interaction. This is fitting for investigating learning environments, because students routinely need to navigate and interact with one another in familiar spaces, whether physical or online, throughout the day or semester (Taylor et al., 2009). The second concept, presence, was used by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer in the 1990s to address the learning challenges when using computer-mediated conferencing programs but has since then been expanded into the following six categories: social presence, co-presence, cognitive presence, emotional presence, teaching presence, and place presence (in-text). To the best of our knowledge, there is limited research that comprehensively compares these six categories of presence or tempo between physical and online learning environments. Our aim was to investigate how these categories of presence and cyclical use of space relate to students’ learning experiences in physical and online learning environments. We conducted semi-structured interviews with six university students from the Faculty of Mathematics and Science at a Finnish university in October and November 2023. The average time per interview was approximately 53 minutes, during which stimulated recall was implemented. The interviewees were provided with a pen and paper maps of university campus buildings in which they studied and a computer with internet browser tabs opened to different platforms such as Moodle that are used for online learning. Students were allowed to draw or make notes on the paper maps as well as operate the mouse and keyboard of the computer. This enabled them to better reflect on their learning experiences because they could concretely indicate relevant spaces and describe their features. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, during which a concept map based on tempo (Niedt, 2020) and the six categories of presence (in-text) was created. Two themes were identified: I) synchronous learning in designated learning spaces, and II) asynchronous learning in non-designated learning spaces. Despite the size of the campus, only the building known as Agora and the main university library were discussed in both themes. The classrooms of Agora were the designated learning spaces, because it is where synchronous learning occurred. The hallways and student lounge of Agora in addition to the main university library were the non-designated learning spaces, because these were the frequent locations for asynchronous learning. The online teleconferencing platform known as Zoom in conjunction with the home was also discussed in both themes, and this depended on whether the student attended online lectures or watched them recorded. We found that the online learning environment was viewed negatively by five out of six students, because its experience was directly compared with the experience and thus desire of being in the physical learning environment, i.e., the classroom. These five students mentioned that the virtually constructed place presence in Zoom shaped their mutual awareness of one another (co-presence) including the teacher when cameras were turned off, and thus felt it was difficult to engage in inquiry (cognitive presence) as well as produced loneliness (emotional presence) but did not attribute this to poor pedagogical design (teaching presence) or not belonging to a community of learners (social presence). Views regarding the physical learning environment were mostly positive. The place presence of the hallways for instance made it clear that friends were there (social presence) in addition to having access to direct support from student tutors (teaching presence), which could reduce learning stress (emotional presence). However, when conditions of the place presence were not ideal such as poor ergonomics or there was excessive co-presence, such as being overcrowded, the learning experience was negative. One student preferred the online learning environment, especially when it was asynchronous, because it created a private and thus safe place presence of their choosing, making it possible to avoid interacting with the broader community (social presence) with which they felt uncomfortable (emotional presence) owing to their socioeconomic status and world view. Student 1 also mentioned that they could better engage in self-inquiry when alone (cognitive presence), because they did not require peers to be nearby (co-presence) or receive instructional support (teaching presence). Overall, our research is important for understanding the implications of digital technologies such as Zoom in relation to conducive learning experiences post COVID-19. Specifically, our discussion of tempo and the categories of presence highlight that the learning experience of students may relate to how learning modes (synchronous/asynchronous) and the environment coincide with the preference or priority for certain categories of presence. This provides teachers and curriculum planners additional insight regarding what is potentially gained or lost for students in their learning experience when courses are planned to be partly or wholly online.

Author

• Aaron J. Peltoniemi, University of Jyväskylä