COMPARISON BETWEEN E-LEARNING APPLICATIONS DURING BLENDED LEARNING IN IRAQ

Sara Raad  Qasim; Eman Hassony  Jaddou

doi:10.36371/port.2022.3.1

Authors

Sara Raad Qasim 2Computer Engineering Department, Al-Farabi University College, Baghdad, Iraq
Eman Hassony Jaddou Computer Engineering Department, Al-Farabi University College, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract References Downloads Cite Statistics Share Information

Blended Learning (BL) is the use of both offline and online methods for teaching and learning; it allows for a planned and deliberate embeddedness of online learning into the education system and tests its applicability alongside offline learning, which ensures adaptability to emerging challenges and the upskilling of the digital capabilities of Iraqi youth. This approach was a serious try to improve the education and E-learning and it indeed had a dramatic effect as it worked to promote the general well-being of learners in Iraq. This paper investigates and presents a comparison between the E-learning applications during BLA (in term of their features, flexibility, ease of use, advantages and disadvantages, and privacy and security). The outcome of the study was relied on a questionnaire made in various Iraqi universities. A total of 100 people participated in the questionnaire, divided into two groups: students and lecturers. The results showed that most lecturers and students prefer Google Meet. Google classroom and Zoom were the second popular applications whereas Microsoft Teams was the least choice for both groups.

Keywords:

Blended Learning (BL), e-learning, Google Meet, Zoom, FCC

[1] UNICEF, (2018). 2021 International Day of Education: Our shared commitment to build back better learning opportunities in Iraq. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/iraq/press-releases/2021-international-day-education-our-shared-commitment-build-back-better-learning

[2] Elameer A.S., (2019). Baghdad Blended Learning Platform For Iraqi Higher Education. Journal of Baghdad College of Economic Science, Journal of Baghdad College of Economic sciences University, Issue 57, Pages 461-482. https://www.iasj.net/iasj/pdf/c04cd8a8cf662b54

[3] Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended learning enters the mainstream. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 195–208). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.

[4] Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

[5] Luna, Y. M., & Winters, S. A. (2017). “Why did you blend my learning?” A comparison of student success in lecture and blended learning introduction to sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 45(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16685373

[6] Ituma, A. (2011). “An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus-based university”. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 57-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387722

[7] Gopalan, V., Bakar, J. A. A., Zulkifli, A. N., Alwi, A., & Mat, R. C. (2017). A review of the motivation theories in learning. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1891). American Institute of Physics Inc. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005376

[8] Henrie, C. R., Bodily, R., Manwaring, K. C., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Exploring intensive longitudinal measures of student engagement in blended learning _ Henrie _ The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 131–155.

[9] Su, Y., Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Examining the relationship between English language learners’ online self-regulation and their self-efficacy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3548

[10] Behjat, F., Yamini, M., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Blended Learning: A Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Reading Comprehension. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p97

[11] Google Meet and its features, (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.rowadalaamal.com/%D9%85%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%82-google-meet/

[12] Google Classroom and its features, (2021). Retrieved from: https://tech3d.net/%d8%aa%d8%ad%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%aa%d8%b7%d8%a8%d9%8a%d9%82-%d9%83%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%b3-%d8%b1%d9%88%d9%85-google-classroom/

[13] Zoom and its features, (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.shr7pc.com/2020/08/zoom.html?m=1

[14] FCC and its features, (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.freeconferencecall.com/ar/features

[15] Microsoft Teams and its features, (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.compete366.com/blog-posts/microsoft-teams-what-is-it-and-should-we-be-using it/#:~:text=Microsoft%20Teams%20is%20a%20persistent,and%20communicate%20with%20one%20another

[16] SPSS 21, (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ias?topic=spss-tutorial-analyzing-statistics

[17] Fraenkel, J.R dan Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. In Metode Penelitian Kualitatif & Kuantitatif (2020).

PDF

Qasim , S. R. ., & Jaddou , E. H. . (2022). COMPARISON BETWEEN E-LEARNING APPLICATIONS DURING BLENDED LEARNING IN IRAQ. Journal Port Science Research, 5(3), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.36371/port.2022.3.1