Editorial: exploring evaluations and case studies

Abstract

Welcome to the second 2022 issue of Open Learning. The unofficial theme for this issue is: evaluations and case studies. Evaluations within open and distance learning are, of course, fundamentally important. This issue presents a number of papers that conduct evaluations in different ways. Evaluations can be used to assess what works and what does not, to determine whether improvements in practice or design help students, or understand the application and usefulness of theory. The first paper in this issue by Prifti (2022) is entitled ‘self–efficacy and student satisfaction in the context of blended learning courses’. The paper presents an interesting literature review. It addresses themes such as self-efficacy, student satisfaction and blended learning. Self-efficacy is a concept that can be considered not only in terms of how a student views themselves, but also in relation to the tools that are used, such as learning management systems. Whilst Prifti’s paper is primarily an empirical paper which uses a survey methodology, it is a theoretical paper too, exploring what can be meant by blended learning, whilst at the same time exposing the topic of student digital literacy. An interesting contribution lies in its presentation of a conceptual model, which posits links between self-efficacy and course satisfaction, also suggesting the importance of topics such as platform content, platform accessibility and critical thinking. These topics, in themselves, represent some of the many different variables that can influence the student experience. One point to note is that the term accessibility can often be used to refer to different issues. In Prifti’s study, accessibility is defined as ‘how comfortable students were with using the online platform’ rather than how usable a tool, product or set of services might be for students who have disabilities, or how available something is to a group of users who may be faced with disadvantages. Differences in terminology aside, a key point to take away from this paper is the important and obvious reflection that the technology (or tools) which students use can and do influence their experience. Close attention to the operation of learning management tools, accompanying technology, and the materials they deliver is important, and necessary. The next paper in this issue, by Yu and Watson (2022) also adopts a survey method. Rather than exploring a blended learning context, they explore MOOC learners and aim to ‘identify subtypes of attitudinal learning’ to carry out a ‘latent profile analysis’. In addition to the survey methodology, another similarity with the first paper lies in the study of learner attitudes. Their extensive literature review is split into two parts: a discussion of MOOC learner profiles, and an interesting discussion about the broad concept of attitudinal learning, which can be considered from a number of different perspectives. A particularly interesting aspect of the literature review is the discussion about how to develop attitudinal learning, with specific reference to the concept of cognitive dissonance. Methodologically OPEN LEARNING: THE JOURNAL OF OPEN, DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING 2022, VOL. 37, NO. 2, 107–110 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2043738