Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement
Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
Panagiotis Photopoulos
1a
, Christos Tsonos
2b
, Ilias Stavrakas
1c
and Dimos Triantis
1d
1
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece
2
Department of Physics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece
Keywords: COVID-19, Technology Acceptance Model, Student Satisfaction, Distance Education, Synchronous Learning,
ERT.
Abstract: This study presents the attitudes and perceptions of a sample of undergraduate students on remote teaching
after face-to-face teaching was discontinued due to COVID-19 measures. The students expressed a preference
for face-to-face teaching and reported higher cognitive engagement, learning and understanding associated
with this teaching modality. Important differences were recorded on students’ replies depending on the year
of studies. Overall, students who are at the first years of their studies appear to perceive the present situation
of remote teaching, as more dissatisfactory compared to the more senior students.
1 INTRODUCTION
In spring 2020 governments worldwide, ordered or
suggested movement restrictions and physical
distancing (WHO 2020) to prevent transmission of
COVID-19. On the 10th of March 2020 Greek
authorities announced the closure of schools and
universities across the country (EODY, 2020).
Distance teaching was something new to most of the
university teachers. Work load increased dramatically
in order to transfer materials and methods from face-
to-face to distance teaching (Aristovnik et al. 2020).
A series of webinars on the educational dimensions
of the COVID-19 crisis were organized at the
University level and provided a venue for sharing
practices, methods and ideas. In May 2020, the
University of West Attica bought laptops which were
distributed to the academic and administrative staff.
Although academic teachers were caught off-guard,
they responded fast to the emergency situation and a
few weeks after the COVID-19 outbreak, more than
95% of the undergraduate courses were delivered
remotely (UNIWA, 2020). Remote teaching during
the period of COVID-19 crisis is different from
online teaching and Hodges et al. (2020) have
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7944-666X
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-7499
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8484-8751
d
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4219-8687
successfully named it Emergency Remote Teaching
(ERT).
After the first outbreak of the pandemic, the
governments brought to the attention of the public the
need to prevent virus transmission but also the
question of economic recovery (WHO, 26 October
2020). Within this framework in September 2020
Greek Universities, continued remote delivery of the
courses. There is an urgent need for establishing
guidelines and procedures to ensure that quality is
maintained and students receive the proper support
during this challenging period. Next to centralized
directions for monitoring quality in a period of crisis,
initiatives at all levels are also needed (Leonard and
Howitt 2009). In this respect a short survey was
administered to students of all the years of studies of
the Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, to collect information on how they
experience distance teaching. After the COVID-19
lockdown, each course was delivered remotely and
synchronously, by the same instructor who had been
teaching it face-to-face following the same timetable
as before the health crisis.
As Sheila Jasanoff (2020) points out “We’ve
modelled the progression of the disease, but not the
Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I. and Triantis, D.
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?.
DOI: 10.5220/0010462805910602
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 591-602
ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9
Copyright
c
 2021 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
591

social consequences of the preventative measures that
we’re taking”. Remote delivery of the courses during
the COVID-19 crisis period, gives an impression of
normal operation: The tutors are involved in remote
teaching, the students appear to follow the lectures
and at the end of the semester they are assessed by
some type of distance examination. This is what
happens at the surface of the university life. There is
evidence that a lot more is happening at a deeper
level. For example, a publication on the rate of
clinical depression in a population of university
students in Greece, during the period of the lockdown
found increased frequency of major and severe
depression as well as increased number of suicidal
thoughts (Patsali et.al. 2020). It appears that we know
very little on how our students experience the new
learning reality and therefore we don’t know how we
can help them improve their learning. The present
publication is based on data collected from a sample
of students of the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, University of West Attica. It
attempts to capture the perceptions of the students on
the new educational situation and more specifically
how they compare distance to face-to-face teaching.
2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Learning is not merely the acquisition of information.
The physical distance between the student and the
instructor (Wilde & Hsu, 2019) and students
themselves, has implications on student satisfaction
(Parahoo et al. 2016, Landrum et al. 2020) and
learning outcomes (Bower, 2019; Gonzalez et al.,
2020). There are soft issues which are of critical
importance. These include motivation, feeling of
social support and engagement. If learning is a social
process (Chi at al. 2008), it will be affected by social
distancing. Unfortunately, there is little information
regarding how students experience distant teaching
and more importantly there is no guidance on issues
related to quality teaching during this period.
Various publications have reported their findings
on the acceptance of ERT by university students and
their perspectives concerning the factors influencing
learning (Ali, 2020; Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Al-
Balas, 2020; Dinh & Nguyen, 2020). One can identify
two main research approaches: one stemming from
satisfaction studies and another based on Technology
Acceptance Models (TAM). Along the first line of
research Amir et al. (2020) administered an online
questionnaire to 301 undergraduate students to
evaluate their perspective and degree of satisfaction
from distance learning compared to classroom
learning. A percentage equal to 75% agreed on the
importance of classroom learning and group
discussion, with the first-year students expressing a
higher preference towards remote teaching compared
to senior students. Al-Balas et al. (2020) reported that
a percentage equal to 26,8% expressed an overall
satisfaction with distance learning, while this number
was significantly higher among students with
previous experience in distance learning. Dinh &
Nguyen (2020) surveyed 186 undergraduate-level
social work students in a national university in
Vietnam and reported lower levels of satisfaction
with online, compared to face-to-face learning on all
criteria. Essilfie et al. (2020) reported mixed results
regarding satisfaction with e-learning. Most of the
participants of their study felt that e-learning should
play a supplemental role in standard education.
Along the second line of research, Technology
Acceptance Model has been extensively used to
evaluate technology acceptance in education,
although TAM originates from management studies.
Aguilera-Hermida (2020) found in her study that
motivation, self-efficacy, and cognitive engagement
decreased after the transition from face-to-face to
remote teaching. Rizun and Strzelecki (2020)
reported that the best predictor of students’
acceptance of ERT is enjoyment but they also
detected low levels of acceptance of ERT and
medium to low feelings on the effectiveness of ERT
in terms of learning.
2.1 Students’ Attitudes towards ERT
TAM provides a rich inventory of theoretical
considerations on attitudes towards a specific
technology. According to the psychological
approach, attitude towards a behaviour, in this case
the acceptance of ERT, indicates the individual’s
positive or negative evaluation of performing this
behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). In this general
framework the behaviour under discussion is realised
whenever the evaluation of its consequences is
positive. Davis (1996) considered that attitudes are
determined by beliefs of perceived ease and perceived
usefulness. Davis’ criteria of evaluation are clear:
“people act according to their beliefs about
performance” (Davis, 1989 p. 335). Therefore, if
performance is the criterion of evaluation then Davis’
consideration results directly from the psychological
approach. Consequently, if an individual evaluates a
certain behaviour under the criterion of performance,
as useful then this person will have a positive attitude
towards this behaviour (Ajzen, 2020). Venkatesh et
al., (2003) did not consider attitude as a factor
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
592

affecting intention to use a technology. Some findings
indicate that attitudes towards the adoption of an
educational technology impact the intention to use
(GarciaBotero, 2008), while others report that such a
relation does not exist (ref. 35 in Rizun & Strzelecki
2020). The effectiveness of the transition from face-
to-face to remote teaching is mediated by the degree
to which the users assume effectiveness criteria,
accept remote teaching and also consider that it will
be valuable for their learning (Tarhini et al., 2017;
Aguilera-Hermida 2020; Bower 2019). ERT affects
social relationships as well. Students do not meet their
colleagues and teachers and this may influence their
attitudes towards ERT and motivation (Knowles &
Kerkman, 2007).
On the basis of the above considerations the
students were asked to express their views on the
following items:
Preference: Ranging from “I strongly prefer distance
teaching” to “I strongly prefer face-to-face teaching”.
Modality Fit to Lifestyle: Ranging from “Distance
teaching perfectly fits my lifestyle” (1) to “face to
face teaching perfectly fits my lifestyle”.
Pleasant Solution: Ranging from “Distant teaching
is a pleasant solution” to “Distant teaching is an
unpleasant solution”.
Desirability: Ranging from “In the current situation,
distance teaching is a very pleasant solution” to “In
the current situation, distance teaching is a very
unpleasant solution”.
2.2 Communication with Teacher
Studies have shown that student satisfaction is
significantly lower with online as compared to face-
to-face teaching (Carr 2000; Rivera and Rice 2002;
Weber and Lennon 2007). The experience of the
South African universities from “moving online” in
periods of student protests is illuminating. As Laura
Czerniewicz (2020) points out even when all classes
were cancelled, people preferred working together
meeting at coffee shops or in one person’s home.
Measures of social distancing during COVID-19
crisis left no room for such initiatives. One year after
the pandemic broke out students are still struggling in
a state of non-voluntary remote teaching, with social
relationships disrupted and rather limited support.
The students were asked to evaluate how satisfactory
was the communication with the teacher for the two
modalities.
2.3 Cognitive Engagement
It is important to record the extent to which students
consider that ERT facilitates engagement and
concentration, as compared to face-to-face teaching.
Learning, engagement and concentration are
measurement constructs of Cognitive Engagement in
Kemp’s taxonomy (Kemp, 2019). Cognitive
engagement is defined as the extent to which students
are willing and able to take control of the learning task
(Rotgans, Schmidt, 2011). Cognitive engagement
includes cognitive absorption, flow and
concentration. Cognitive absorption refers to a state
of deep involvement, flow is the state in which
students are so involved in an activity that nothing
else matters to them and concentration refers to the
degree to which students maintain exclusively
focused on an activity (Kemp, 2019)
Concentration, engagement, and active
participation during classes are meaningful and
important aspects of the learning process. Although
these factors affect students’ performance, we have
excluded performance related questions from the
questionnaire for two reasons: First, students enrolled
in 2020 do not have an experience of university
exams yet and second, there is no conclusive evidence
on the relation between ERT and students’
performance (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Gonzales,
2020).
Therefore, this research attempts to record
students’ perceptions on aspects of learning which
fall under the broad category of student engagement,
collecting information on the following issues:
Level of engagement with learning during ERT as
compared to face-to-face teaching.
Concentration during ERT as compared to face-
to-face teaching.
Active participation during ERT as compared to
face-to-face teaching.
Level of learning-understanding during ERT as
compared to face-to-face teaching.
2.4 Convenience
Online teaching is described by the students as a
preferable option for reasons related to convenience,
e.g. stay at home, not drive to the campus etc.
(AlHamad, A., Qawasmi, K., & AlHamad, A., 2014;
Cartwright & Fabian 2017). Other researchers have
reported that students choose online classes because
of their flexibility (Fish, L., & Snodgrass, C. 2015). It
appears that convenience and flexibility are the most
attractive characteristics of online classes. Flexibility
in delivery is not a case for courses delivered
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
593

synchronously. Therefore, the students were asked to
rate the degree to which they found important not
having to drive to the campus.
2.5 Research Questions
This is an exploratory study where the following
questions were investigated rather than hypotheses
assumed or tested.
1. Do students prefer face-to-face or remote
teaching?
2. How the students compare the two modalities in
terms of learning and understanding, active
participation during classes, engagement,
concentration and communication with the
teacher?
3. How the answers to the above questions vary
depending on the year of enrolment?
3 METHOD
Technology acceptance studies often ask respondents
to provide absolute judgements on the questions
subsumed under the various constructs. The
participants rate a certain behaviour, preference or
attitude on a Likert scale, for example “I dislike the
idea of distance learning” or “I believe it is a good
idea to use distance learning for my study process”.
Asking from a student to make an absolute evaluation
on how much s/he learns during face-to-face or
remote lectures is rather difficult or even confusing.
People are not accustomed to making absolute
judgments in daily life, since most judgments are
inherently comparative (Nunnally 1976, p. 40).
Making absolute judgements for face-to-face or
distance teaching is not an easy task. Comparative
evaluations are much easier to perform. TAM
evaluates the acceptance of a single technology and is
not designed to compare the attitudes and perceptions
towards two alternatives. Researchers do use TAM in
a comparative way by addressing pairs of questions
like “Attitude: Prefer Face-to-Face Learning” and
“Attitude – Prefer Online Learning” (A-Okaily et al.
2020; Aguilera-Hermida 2020, Rizun and Strzelecki,
2020)
One method, which takes advantage of our
inherent familiarity with making comparisons is the
method of paired comparisons. In its simplest form
“The Method of Paired Comparisons” (David 1969)
asks the respondent to choose one out of two
“objects”, been treatment, stimulus etc. The
respondent is allowed to express her preference in
some scale. Originally, paired comparisons were
introduced in marketing research to study cases when
the objects to be compared could be judged only
subjectively, i.e. in case where it was either
impossible or impractical to make other
measurements in order to decide which of the two
objects is preferable. In pairwise comparison items,
responders are asked to compare two products or
situations, in this case ERT to face-to-face teaching.
The participants are asked to compare the features of
the two different modalities. Pairwise questions
capture the differences in respondent’s attitudes
concerning the two modalities but they do not
measure absolute levels of preference e.g. I prefer i to
j. It is considered that pairwise preference questions
allow a fair comparison between the answers of the
different respondents (Yannakakis and Hallam,
2011).
The data collected in the present study asked the
students to compare aspects of the two modalities by
choosing between alternatives. For example,
regarding the preference towards one of the two
modalities 3 alternatives were given: “I prefer face-
to-face teaching”, “I prefer distance teaching” and
“Any of the two”. In another example the students
were asked to express their agreement or
disagreement with the proposition: “With distance
teaching I understand better” with the answers
ranging from “I disagree” to “I agree”.
The data were collected by means of an
anonymous questionnaire administered to the
students via the Open eClass platform, which is an
Integrated Course Management System offered by
the Greek University Network (GUNET) to support
asynchronous e-learning services. The respondents
were full time students of the Department of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of
West Attica.
The questionnaire was administered to the
students at the beginning of the semester from
September to October 2020. The questionnaire was
loaded on the web pages of two first year courses and
one second year course. The students were
encouraged to fill out the questionnaire but
participation was voluntary. A total number of 336
students replied to the anonymous questionnaire. A
25-item questionnaire was administered to gauge the
perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the students
from ERT as compared to face-to-face teaching. The
questionnaire included one open-ended question, the
findings of which are not discussed here.
Demographic data included gender, age, and year of
enrolment. This study presents only a part of the data
collected. Table I shows the percentages of the
respondents in the total sample, for the various years
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
594

of enrolment. The responses of the students enrolled
in 2016 or earlier have been grouped together (shown
as “2016” in Table I).
The gap between students' prior expectations and
the realities of university life, can cause anxiety
(Lowe & Cook, 2003), poor academic performance
and increased drop-out rates (Hassel & Ridout, 2017)
if not managed successfully.
Table 1: Respondents per year of enrolment.
Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(%) 19 11 10 21 39
First year students experienced distance teaching
during the last year of their Lyceum studies, therefore
they do have expectations and presumably they are
more frustrated compared to the rest of the students
and their voice must be heard and taken seriously into
account (Teräs et al. 2020). The students enrolled in
2020, i.e. the 1st year students, were also asked to fill
out the questionnaire considering their past
experience on face-to-face and distance teaching.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Preference towards ERT and face-to-face teaching:
Overall, the participants showed a strong preference
towards in-class teaching. A percentage equal to 31%
of the respondents expressed a preference towards
distance teaching, while 60% of them preferred face-
to-face. The rest of the students expressed no
preference for a specific modality. An interesting
variation of the preference with respect to the year of
enrolment was also recorded: For the students who
enrolled in 2020 the percentage who preferred face-
to-face teaching was 85% and it decreased to 59% of
those enrolled in 2019, while for the students who
enrolled in 2016 or earlier the preference was
opposite with 61% of them preferring distance
teaching and another 30% expressing a preference
towards face-to-face teaching. Although further
research is needed to validate these result, the present
data indicate that year of enrolment is a factor
influencing preference towards the two modalities.
Not having to go to the campus: The students
liked the fact that with distance teaching they do not
have to go to the campus. Overall 77% of the
participants expressed positive feelings for not having
to go to the campus. This percentage was higher than
70% independently of the year of enrolment.
Active participation during lectures: This question
asked the respondents, to evaluate which of the two
modalities facilitates their participation (ask
questions, express ideas) during lectures. Overall,
44% of the respondents replied that during face-to-
face lectures their participation is easier. It must be
noticed that another 34% found that asking questions
or expressing own ideas is not influenced by the
modality of teaching. Figure I shows the variation of
the answers versus the year of enrolment. It is seen
that ~1/3 of students enrolled in 2016, 2017 and 2018
found that during face-to-face lectures they express
more easily their ideas, another third considered the
opposite and another third found no difference
between the two modalities. It is also seen that the
preferences diverge only for the students enrolled in
years 2019 and 2020, who reported that during face-
to-face lectures they express their ideas and ask
questions more easily.
Figure 1: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students for
each year of enrolment, who consider that they express their
ideas more easily during distance lectures. Pink symbols:
The percentage of the students for each year of enrolment,
who consider that they express their ideas more easily
during face-to-face lectures. The dash lines are guides to the
eye.
Concentration: The students were asked to rate for
which of the two modalities they remain concentrated
to teaching for longer.
Overall, 20% of the participants replied that they
remain concentrated for longer during distance
teaching, while 54% replied that face-to-face teaching
makes them stay concentrated for longer. Figure 2
shows how these percentages vary for each year of
enrolment. For the students enrolled in 2016 or earlier
a percentage equal to 38% replied that they stay
concentrated for longer during distance teaching and
another 23% replied that they remain more time
concentrated during face-to-face classes. The
percentages are reversed for the students enrolled in
2017 or later.
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
595

Figure 2: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
replied that they remain concentrated for longer during
distance lectures for the various years of enrolment. Pink
symbols: The percentage of the students who replied that
they remain concentrated for longer during face-to-face
lectures for the various years of enrolment. The dash lines
are guides to the eye.
Understand: The students were asked to reply for
which one of the two modality they understand the
better. Overall 16% of the respondents considered
that they understand better during distance teaching,
while 55% replied that they understand better during
face-to-face lectures. Figure 3 shows the variation of
these percentages versus the year of enrolment. It is
seen that, independently of the year of enrolment, the
students consider that they understand better during
face-to-face lectures. It is also seen that for the
students enrolled in years 2019 and 2020 the teaching
modality is perceived to play a more prominent role
in understanding during lectures.
Figure 3: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
replied that they understand better during distance lectures
vs. the year of enrolment. Pink symbols: The percentage of
the students who consider that they understand better during
face-to-face lectures vs. the year of enrolment. The dash
lines are guides to the eye.
Engagement: The students were asked to reply
which modality helps them be more engaged in
learning activities. Cognitive absorption describes the
depth of involvement during learning. 15% of the
students replied that during distance teaching they are
more engaged to learning and another 53% replied
that their engagement in learning is higher during
face-to-face lectures. Figure 4 shows that the students
enrolled more recently perceive their engagement in
learning, to be higher in a face-to-face learning
environment.
Figure 4: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
reported higher engagement during distance lectures vs. the
year of enrolment. Pink symbols: The percentage of the
students who reported higher engagement during face-to-
face lectures vs. the year of enrolment. The dash lines are
guides to the eye.
Communication with teachers: This item asks the
students to identify the modality for which the
communication with the teacher is more effective.
Overall, 51% of the respondents considered that
communication with the teacher is more effective
during face-to-face classes, while 17% of them
considered as more effective the communication
during distance teaching.
Figure 5: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
consider that communication with teachers is more
effective during distance lectures vs. the year of enrolment.
Pink symbols: The percentage of the students who consider
that communication with teachers is more effective during
face-to-face lectures vs. the year of enrolment. The dash
lines are guides to the eye.
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
596

Figure 5 shows how the teaching modality affects
the perceived effectiveness of the communication
with the teacher versus the year of enrolment. For the
students enrolled in 2016 or earlier the
communication with the teachers is perceived as
equally effective for both face-to-face and remote
teaching. The students enrolled in 2017 or afterwards
found that their communication with the teacher is
more effective during face-to-face classes.
Life-style: The students were asked to rate which
one of the two modalities fits better the way they want
to live. The students enrolled in 2016 or earlier
consider that distance teaching fits better their
lifestyle, while the students enrolled in 2019 and 2020
consider that face-to-face teaching better fits the way
they want to live.
Figure 6: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
consider that distance teaching fits the way they want to live
vs. the year of enrolment. Pink symbols: The percentage of
the students who consider that face-to-face teaching fits the
way they want to live vs. the year of enrolment. The dash
lines are guides to the eye.
Pleasant/unpleasant solution: The students were
asked to rate whether, in the present situation, they
consider ERT as a pleasant or unpleasant solution.
The findings are shown in figure 7.
The majority of the students enrolled in 2018 or
earlier consider ERT as a pleasant solution under the
present circumstances. For the students enrolled in
2019 the replies are rather equally balanced between
the two options, while the students who enrolled in
2020 consider distance teaching as a rather unpleasant
solution.
Overall, the participants preferred face-to-face
lectures, they found easier to express their ideas or
address questions during face-to-face lectures, they
reported significantly longer concentration, better
understanding and higher level of engagement. They
also rated their communication with the teachers as
more effective. Nonetheless, they enjoyed the fact
that during ERT they did not have to move to the
campus. Our findings indicate that the year of studies,
approximated by the year of enrolment, influences
students’ preference, attitudes and perceptions. The
students of the first two years of studies expressed
significantly higher percentages in all items in favour
of face-to-face teaching.
Figure 7: Blue symbols: The percentage of the students who
consider distance teaching as a pleasant solution vs. the year
of enrolment. Pink symbols: The percentage of the students
who consider distance teaching as an unpleasant solution
vs. the year of enrolment. The dash lines are guides to the
eye.
One could explain this difference by appealing to
the level at which the students of the first years of
studies have obtained mastery in self-managed
learning. Although cognitive engagement is
influenced by the personal characteristics of the
individual, research in face-to-face teaching has
shown that different types of activities are
characterised by different patterns of cognitive
engagement. Student-student interaction is
considered as more important in promoting cognitive
engagement of higher level and wider scope
compared to student-teacher interaction. Cognitive
engagement is also influenced by the tasks given to
the students during teaching such as working in
groups, answering questions or solving problems
(Helme and Clarke, 2001; Rotgans, Schmidt, 2011).
Participation in extra-curriculum activities, and
engagement in discussions during classes (Appleton
et al., 2006) are also considered to be manifestations
of the level of student engagement. The learning
environment during ERT is different compared to
face-to-face teaching therefore it is probable that
students at the first years of their studies have not
developed yet the capabilities needed for distance
teaching to be effective. Therefore, these students
perceive that ERT makes participation, learning,
concentration and engagement during classes more
difficult and this in turn affects their level of cognitive
engagement and expected performance gains
(Venkatesh et al., 2003; Davis et al. 1989). Although
this argument may be sound, there is no evidence to
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
597

show that senior students have acquired, as part of
their education these extra abilities, given that they
have no prior experience of distance teaching. Indeed,
research has shown (Al-Balas et al. 2020) that
preference for distance teaching is significantly
higher for students having some previous experience.
Other studies conducted during the COVID-19
lockdown period have shown that the first-year
students expressed a higher preference towards
remote teaching compared to more senior students
(Amir 2020).
Table II shows that 56% of the students who
prefer face-to-face teaching replied that they express
their ideas and ask questions more easily during in-
class lectures. On the contrary, only 33% of the
students who expressed a preference for distance
teaching replied that they express more easily their
ideas and ask questions when teaching is remote.
“Expressing ideas and asking questions more easily”
can be considered as a factor explaining the choice of
those students who prefer face-to-face teaching. The
greatest percentage of the students (37%) who prefer
distance teaching replied that they express their ideas
and ask questions with equal ease (“The same” in
Table II) for the two teaching modalities, similar to
the students who expressed no preference for a
particular modality (56%)
Table 2: Express ideas, ask questions more easily.
Preference In class
(%)
Remotely
(%)
The same
(%)
f-2-f 56 10 26
Dist. Teach 22 33 37
No-Pref. 7 33 56
Table III shows that 73% of the students who
prefer face-to-face teaching replied that they remain
less time concentrated during lectures when teaching
is delivered remotely. A 44% of the students who
prefer distance teaching replied that, with this
teaching modality, they remain more time
concentrated.
Table 3: Time the student remains concentrated during
distance teaching compared to face-to-face.
Preference Less
(%)
Equal
(%)
More
(%)
f-2-f 73 17 4
Dist. Teach 15 37 44
No-Pref. 22 44 30
As it is seen in Table IV 42% of the students who
prefer distance teaching replied that they understand
better when teaching is delivered remotely, while a
percentage equal to 47% kept a middle position
(Neither agree nor disagree). On the contrary, 81% of
the students with a preference towards face-to-face
teaching, disagreed with the proposition that
understanding is better during distance teaching.
Therefore “better understanding” does not explain the
preference towards distance teaching.
Table 4: Understand better during distance teaching.
Preference Agree
(%)
NAND
(%)
Disagree
(%)
f-2-f 0 19 81
Dist. Teach 42 47 11
No-Pref. 22 37 41
Table V shows that the students who prefer face-
to-face teaching consider, at a percentage equal to
76%, that engagement to leaning is worse during
distance teaching. On the contrary, the majority
(51%) of the students who prefer distance teaching
(and those who expressed no-preference for a
particular modality) reported equal levels of
engagement for the two teaching modalities.
Table 5: Compared to f-2-f, engagement in learning during
distance teaching is.
Preference Worse
(%)
The same
(%)
Better
(%)
f-2-f 76 16 3
Dist. Teach 12 51 34
No-Pref. 19 51 22
66% of the students who prefer face-to-face
teaching consider that communication with the
teacher is better during in-class teaching, while
another 19% reported that communication with the
teacher is equally effective for the two modalities
(Table VI). A relatively small percentage (27%) of
the students who expressed a preference towards
distance teaching, consider that communication with
the teacher is more effective with this modality.
Table 6: Communication with the teacher is more effective.
Preference In class
(%)
Remotely
(%)
The same
for both (%)
f-2-f 66 7 19
Dist. Teach 18 27 46
No-Pref. 19 26 44
Accommodating the needs of distance students
for communication with the teacher is a rather
complicated issue. In a recent publication Landrum et
al. (2020) found that the students who participated in
their focus groups wanted the “teachers to be
available, even ‘on demand’, to assist, provide
guidance and feedback, but only when and how the
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
598

students have made space for it in their own world”
and “if a teacher texts their class, some students may
find this to be intrusive while others find it helpful;
whether this is satisfying or not depends on what the
student wants.”
Both Technology Acceptance Models and models
of student satisfaction assume that the student is
interested in making gains in terms of learning or
performance only. First year students may value their
studies as equally important to the way they want to
live. What if they prefer face-to-face teaching not
only for its effectiveness in terms of learning but also
because they like the theatricality of the classroom?
Meeting people and exchanging ideas inside and
outside the classroom may be of high importance for
the students, next to becoming experts in the subject
of their studies. According to our findings, students
enrolled in 2016 or earlier consider that distance
teaching fits the way they want to live. This is in
accordance with the student satisfaction surveys
where convenience and family obligations are
included in the reasons for pursuing online education
(Landrum et al. 2020). Students who enrolled in 2019
and 2020 consider that face-to-face teaching fits their
own way of living. As shown in Table VII, students
with a preference towards face-to-face teaching
reported that this learning modality also fits the way
the want to live (67%). Similarly, 61% of the students
who prefer distance teaching reported that this
modality fits their life-style as well.
Table 7: Fits my life style.
Preference In class
(%)
Remotely
(%)
Any of the
two (%)
f-2-f 67 2 25
Dist. Teach 7 61 26
No-Pref. 19 26 52
Distance teaching during the COVID-19 health
crisis, has detrimental effects on students’
socialization, including interaction with their teachers
and the absence of direct communication with their
colleagues (Martínez-Caro & Campuzano-Bolarín,
2011). University life is meant to be a new experience
for the first-year students in particular. They expect to
live a more independent life, away from their
families, meet new people, engage in discussions,
come in contact with new ideas and learn in an
entirely new learning environment (Govindarajan &
Srivastava, 2020). This year, the students do not enjoy
the pleasant moments of university life. Our findings
show that the modality-lifestyle fit influences the
preference of both the groups of the students.
The universities around the world have focused
their efforts to continue education without
interruption, but there is little information on the
feelings of the individuals on the receiving end of
ERT. In this study, 40% of the respondents consider
ERT a pleasant solution, 34% unpleasant and another
23% chose a middle position. As shown in Table VIII,
52% of the students who prefer face-to-face teaching
consider ERT an unpleasant solution, while this
percentage drops dramatically (1%) for the
respondents who prefer distance teaching.
Table 8: ERT as a solution is.
Preference Pleasant
(%)
Unpleasant
(%)
Indifferent
(%)
f-2-f 12 52 29
Dist. Teach 80 1 11
No-Pref. 59 4 37
Our findings show that the preference for face-to-
face teaching is consistent with the answers given to
the rest of the questions. These students replied, that
during face-to-face lectures they express their ideas
and ask questions more easily (56%), they
communicate with the teacher more effectively
(66%), while in remote classes they remain less time
concentrated (73%), they do not understand better
(81%) and there are less engaged to learning (76%).
A percentage equal to 52% considered ERT an
unpleasant situation and the majority of them (67%)
replied that face-to-face teaching fits the way they
want to live.
The situation is different for the students who
expressed a preference towards distance teaching.
Only 1/3 of them replied that they express their ideas
and ask questions more easily, 44% that they remain
more time concentrated and a percentage equal to
42% agreed that they understand better during
distance teaching. Only 27% of these respondents
consider that communication with the teacher is more
effective, 34% reported to be more engaged with
learning and 42% agreed that they understand better
during remote classes. Quiet importantly a percentage
equal to 61% replied that distance teaching fits the
way they want to live.
68% of the students who prefer face-to-face
teaching considered as “important” or “very
important” the fact that during ERT they do not have
to drive to the campus. This percentage was even
higher (93%) for the respondents who expressed a
preference towards distance teaching. Therefore, “not
driving to the campus” is not a factor differentiating
the two groups of students and it cannot be considered
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
599

as a factor explaining the preference towards distance
teaching.
The attitudes of the students who prefer face-to-
face teaching appear to explain their actual
preference. This group of students replied that they
participate more easily to the classes and learn more
effectively, when these are face-to-face. The attitudes
of the students who expressed a preference towards
distance teaching do not appear to have such an
explanatory force. A factor which adds significantly
to their preference is the modality-lifestyle fit.
Perceived easiness of distance courses as opposed to
on-campus equivalents (Cartwright & Fabian 2017)
or the novelty of ERT (Martínez-Caro & Campuzano-
Bolarín 2011) can be other factors explaining their
preference.
The modality-lifestyle fit is an interesting factor
captured by our research which explains the
preference towards the two teaching modalities. This
factor requires further investigation since it is not
explicitly included in the TAM, which has been
extensively used to study how the students perceive
ERT.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study concludes that the participants prefer face-
to-face compared to distance teaching. They consider
that learning and understanding, concentration,
engagement with learning, active participation and
communication with teachers are more effective in
the case of face-to-face modality. Important
variations in the answers were also recorded
depending on the year of studies. Students enrolled in
2019 and 2020 express a stronger preference towards
face-to-face teaching compared to more senior
students. Presumably students pursuing the first years
of their studies are more eager to experience
university life and consider that face-to-face teaching
is more suitable to the way they want to live. It was
further found that a factor which loads considerably
to the actual preference of the students is the
modality-lifestyle fit. While technology acceptance
models assume that gains in terms of efficiency alone,
drive the acceptance of a certain technology, the
participants’ replies show that socialisation,
interaction with fellow students, direct interaction
with the teachers and other factors which are related
to the enjoyment of the university life play an
important role as well. Quiet importantly the 1st year
students consider ERT as an unpleasant solution
within the current situation. This implies that the
faculty needs to provide the proper support to these
students. Finally, if the dependence of students’
attitudes on the year of studies is valid, sampling must
be done carefully in order to obtain a fair overall
picture of students’ views at the level of the faculty.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees
for their comments.
REFERENCES
Aguilera-Hermida P. A., (2020) “College Students’ Use
and Acceptance of Emergency Online Learning Due to
COVID-19”, International Journal of Educational
Research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Ajzen, I. (2020) “The theory of planned behavior:
Frequently asked questions”, Hum Behav & Emerg
Tech., 2 pp. 314– 324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M., (1980) Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Al-Balas, M., Al-Balas, H.I., Jaber, H.M. et al. (2020)
“Distance learning in clinical medical education amid
COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation,
challenges, and perspectives”, BMC Med Educ 20, pp.
341-347 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02257-4
AlHamad, A., Qawasmi, K., & AlHamad, A. (2014) “Key
factors in determining students’ satisfaction in online
learning based on ‘Web Programming’ course within
Zarqa University”, International Journal of Global
Business, 7(1), pp. 7–14
Ali, W. (2020), “Online and Remote Learning in Higher
Education Institutes: A Necessity in light of COVID-19
Pandemic”, Higher Education, 10(3) DOI:10.5539/
hes.v10n3p16
Al-Okaily M., Alqudah H., Matar A., Lutfi A., Taamneh A.,
(2020) “Dataset on the Acceptance of e-learning
System among Universities Students' under the
COVID-19 Pandemic Conditions”, Data in Brief, 32
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106176.
Amir LR, Tanti I, Maharani DA, Wimardhani YS, Julia V,
Sulijaya B, Puspitawati R. (2020) “Student perspective
of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19
pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program
Universitas Indonesia”, BMC Med Educ. 20(1): pp.
392-399 doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A.
L. (2006), “Measuring cognitive and psychological
engagement: Validation of the student engagement
instrument”, Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–
445 doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Aristovnik A., Keržic D., Dejan Ravšelj D., Nina
Tomaževic N., and Umek L., (2020) “Impacts of the
COVID-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
600

Students: A Global Perspective” Sustainability, 12, pp.
8438-8471 doi:10.3390/su12208438
Bower, M. (2019), “ Technology ‐ mediated learning
theory”, British Journal Education Technology, 50,
pp. 1035-1048. doi:10.1111/bjet.12771
Carr, S. (2000), “As distance education comes of age, the
challenge is keeping the students”, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46(23), 39 – 41.
Cartwright B. and Fabian S. (2017). Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Three Different Course Delivery
Methods in Online and Distance Education.In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
ISBN 978-989-758-301-8, pages 268-275. DOI:
10.5220/0006270202680275
Chi M., Roy M. & Hausmann R., (2008) "Observing
tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human
tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning", Cognit.
Sci. Multidisciplinary J.,32(2), pp. 301-341
https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863396
Czerniewicz L., (2020) “What we learnt from “going
online” during university shutdowns in South Africa”,
Phil on Ed Tech, available at:
https://philonedtech.com/what-we-learnt-from-going-
online-during-university-shutdowns-in-south-africa/
David, H.A. (1969). The Method of Paired Comparisons.
1st ed. London: Griffin
Davis F. D., (1989) “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use and user acceptance of information technology”,
MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340.
Dinh L. P., & Nguyen T. T. (2020) “Pandemic, social
distancing, and social work education: students’
satisfaction with online education in Vietnam”, Social
Work Education, 39(8), pp. 1074-1083, DOI:
10.1080/02615479.2020.1823365
EODY (2020), https://eody.gov.gr/en/current-state-of-
covid-19-outbreak-in-greece-and-timeline-of-key-
containment-events/
Essilfie A. A, Hurley E. T, Strauss E J, Alaia M. J., (2020)
“Resident, Fellow, and Attending Perception of E-
Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic and
Implications on Future Orthopaedic Education”, J Am
Acad Orthop Surg. 28(19) pp. 860-e864. doi:
10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00579. PMID: 32732495.
Fish, L., & Snodgrass, C. (2015), “Business student
perceptions of online versus face-to-face education:
Student characteristics”, Business Education
Innovation Journal, 7(2), 83–96
GarcíaBotero, G., Questier, F., Cincinnato, S., He, T., &
Zhu, C. (2018), “Acceptance and usage of mobile
assisted language learning by higher education
students”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
30(3), 426-451. doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9177-1
Gonzalez, T., de la Rubia, M., Hincz, K., Lopez, M. C.,
Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence
of COVID-19 confinement in students’ performance in
higher education. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/9zuac
Govindarajan V., & Srivastava A., (2020), “A Post-
Pandemic Strategy for U.S. Higher Education”,
Harvard Business Review Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2020/06/a-post-pandemic-strategy-for-
u-s-higher-ed
Hassel, S., & Ridout, N., (2018) “An Investigation of First-
Year Students' and Lecturers' Expectations of
University Education”, Frontiers in psychology, 8,
2218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02218
Helme S. and Clarke D., (2001) “Identifying Cognitive
Engagement in the Mathematics Classroom”,
Mathematics Education Research Journal 13(2), pp.
133-153, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217103
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A.
(2020), “The difference between emergency remote
teaching and online learning” EDUCAUSE Review.
https://er. educause. edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-
between-emergency-remote-teachingandonline-
learning.
Jasanoff S. (2020) “Science Will Not Come on a White
Horse With a Solution”, The Nation, April 6th 2020,
available at: https://www.thenation.com/article/
society/sheila-jasanoff-interview-coronavirus/
Kemp, A., Palmer, E., and Strelan, P. (2019), “A taxonomy
of factors affecting attitudes towards educational
technologies for use with technology acceptance
models”, British Journal Education Technology, 50,
2394-2413. doi:10.1111/bjet.12833
Knowles, E., & Kerkman, D., (2007) “An Investigation of
Attitude and Motivation toward Online Learning”,
Student Motivation, 2, pp. 70–80 DOI:
10.46504/02200708kn
Landrum B., Bannister J., Garza G., & Rhame S., (2020)
“A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online
learning”, Journal of Education for Business, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592
Leonard H. B., & Howitt M., (2010), “Organising Response
to Extreme Emergencies: The Victorian Bushfires of
2009”, The Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 69(4), pp. 372–386 doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8500.2010.00695.x
Lowe H., Cook A. (2003), “Mind the gap: are students
prepared for higher education?” J. Furth. High. Educ.
27, pp. 53–76. 10.1080/03098770305629
Martínez-Caro E., & Campuzano-Bolarín F., (2011),
“Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering
disciplines: traditional vs. blended approaches”,
European Journal of Engineering Education 36(5) pp.
473–483 https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.6196
47
Nunnally, J. C. (1976), Psychometric theory, New York:
McGraw Hill
Patsali ME, Mousa D-P V., Papadopoulou EVK, et al.
(2020) “University students’ changes in mental health
status and determinants of behavior during the COVID-
19 lockdown in Greece”, Psychiatry Research,
Published online, doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113298
Parahoo, S., Santally, M., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H.
(2016), “Designing a predictive model of student
satisfaction in online learning” Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 26(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/
08841241.2015.1083511
Rivera, J & Rice, M. (2002). “A comparison of student
Acceptance of Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Movement Restrictions: Does the Year of Studies Matter?
601

outcomes and satisfaction between traditional and web-
based course offerings”, Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 5(3). State University of
West Georgia, Distance Education Center.
Rizun, M.; Strzelecki, A. (2020), “Students’ Acceptance of
the COVID-19 Impact on Shifting Higher Education to
Distance Learning in Poland”, Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 17, p. 6468.
Rotgans J.I., and Schmidt H.G., (2011), “Cognitive
engagement in the problem-based learning classroom”,
Adv in Health Sci Educ 16 pp. 465–479 DOI
10.1007/s10459-011-9272-9
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017),
“Examining the moderating effect of individual-level
cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in
developing countries: a structural equation modelling
of an extended technology acceptance model”,
Interactive Learning Environments, (25)3, 306-328,
doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635
Teräs M., Suoranta J., Teräs H., Curcher M., (2020), “Post-
Covid-19 Education and Education Technology
‘Solutionism’: a Seller’s Market”, Postdigital Science
and Education, 2, pp. 863–878 https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42438-020-00164-x
UNIWA (2020), https://dialogoi.uniwa.gr/university/
exairetika-epitychimeni-i-sygchroni-ex-apostaseos-
ekpaideysi-sto-pada/
Venkatesh V. and Davis F.D. (2000) “A theoretical
extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies”, Management Science 46(2),
186–204.
Weber, J., & Lennon, R. (2007), “Multi-course comparison
of traditional versus web-based course delivery
systems”, Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1-19
Wilde, N., & Hsu, A. (2019) “The influence of general self-
efficacy on the interpretation of vicarious experience
information within online learning”, International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 16(1), pp. 1-20
WHO (2020), https://www.who.int/director-general/
speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-
remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---26-
october-2020
WHO (2020), https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/
q-a-coronaviruses.
Yannakakis G. N., and Hallam, J., (2011) “Ranking vs.
preference: A comparative study of self-reporting,” in
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Affective Computing Intelligent
Interaction, pp. 437–446
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
602