Évaluation comparative des formations en ligne relativement à la perception des étudiants vietnamiens aux études supérieures
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28901Mots-clés :
formation en ligne, enseignement supérieur, Vietnam, perception des étudiants, évaluation comparative, Association européenne des universités d’enseignement à distanceRésumé
Le Vietnam est considéré comme étant avancé dans l’adoption et l’usage des technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) en éducation, suivant les critères définis par l’UNESCO. Cependant, la plupart des établissements d’enseignement supérieur vietnamiens ne se limitent qu’à investir dans du matériel et des équipements technologiques pour encourager les initiatives individuelles d’enseignement en ligne chez les enseignants universitaires, sans disposer de véritable politique institutionnelle de formation en ligne ni de toutes les dimensions nécessaires à l’intégration systématique des TIC. Cela les empêche d’atteindre un niveau d’efficacité suffisant et une cohérence d’ensemble. Cet article vise à présenter les résultats de l’étude des modèles de développement du cyberapprentissage dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur du monde entier, en particulier celui de l’Association européenne des universités d’enseignement à distance (EADTU), en vue de construire un modèle d’évaluation comparative de la politique institutionnelle de l’apprentissage en ligne en fonction de la perception des étudiants. Ce modèle a fait l’objet d’une enquête auprès de 460 étudiants de quatre établissements d’enseignement supérieur vietnamiens, dont les résultats d’analyse factorielle permettent de valider une version adaptée de l’enquête au contexte local.
Références
Achim, M. I., Căbulea, L., Popa, M., & Mihalache, S.-Ş. (2009). On the role of benchmarking in the higher education quality assessment. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 850–857.
Anderson, J. (2010). ICT transforming education : A regional guide. UNESCO.
AUN. (2020). Guide to AUN-QA assessment at programme level (version 4.0). ASEAN University Network.
Ca, T. N., & Huong, N. T. T. (2009). Vn Vietnam. Dans P. B. Arintoet et S. Akhtar (dir.), Digital Review of Asia Pacific 2009-2010 (p. 358–365). SAGE Publications.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis : Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Cross, J. (2004). An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon, 12(3), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120410555340
Đại, N. T., & Trang, N. T. T. (2022). Nghiên cứu dạy học trực tuyến bằng hội thảo truyền hình với « lý thuyết tương tạo từ xa » : Kết quả bước đầu tại một trường đại học Việt Nam [Studying online teaching by videoconference with the theory of transactional distance : Preliminary results from a Vietnamese university]. Tạp chí Khoa học xã hội Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh [Review of Social Sciences Ho Chi Minh City], 292(12), 47–65.
Datta, L. (2006). The practice of evaluation : Challenges and new directions. Dans I. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene et M. M. Mark (dir.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (p. 419–438). SAGE Publications.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Ehlers, U.-D., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2006). Quality in European e-learning : An introduction. Dans U.-D. Ehlerset et J. M. Pawlowski (dir.), Handbook on quality and standardisation in e-learning (p. 1–13). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32788-6_1
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to study and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments. Concepts, measures and preliminary findings (Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project Occasional Report 1). University of Edinburgh. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33594.80329
Eurostat. (2024, septembre). Tertiary education statistics. Eurostat Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Tertiary_education_statistics
Evans, K., & Rorris, A. (2010). Optimising the impact of Vietnam’s higher education sector on socio-economic development. Dans G. Harman, M. Hayden et Pham Thanh Nghi (dir.), Reforming higher education in Vietnam (p. 167–181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3694-0_12
Garavaglia, A., & Petti, L. (2015). University student communities and media habits : From formal LMS to social networks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.270
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning : Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education : The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701573773
Harvey, L., & Hébert, M.-H. (2012). Évaluation de la qualité de l’enseignement par les étudiantes et étudiants : Qualités psychométriques et comparaison des conditions de passation. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 35(3), 31–60. https://doi.org/10.7202/1024669ar
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling : Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254742561_Structural_Equation_Modeling_Guidelines_for_Determining_Model_Fit
Hung, T. (2024, October 23). MoET revises accreditation standards to ensure quality education (Thanh Tam, Trans.). Sai Gon Giai Phong News. https://en.sggp.org.vn/share113308.html
Hurteau, M. (2008). L’implication des détenteurs d’enjeux (stakeholders) au sein de la démarche d’évaluation de programme : problème et/ou solution? Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 31(3), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.7202/1024965ar
Huynh-Cam, T.-T., Agrawal, S., Chen, L.-S., & Nguyen, Q.-A. (2021). E-Learning benchmarking in higher education : Methodology literature review. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/3481056.3481081
Janssen, J., & Stoyanov, S. (2012). Online consultation on experts’ views on digital competence (JRC Technical Reports EUR 25475 EN) (p. 74). Joint Research Centre, European Commission.
Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence : Commonalities and differences. Computers & Education, 68, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.008
Kear, K., Rosewell, J., Williams, K., Ossiannilsson, E., Rodrigo, C., Sánchez-Elvira Paniagua, Á., Santamaría Lancho, M., Vyt, A., & Mellar, H. (2016). Quality assessment for e-learning. A benchmarking approach (3e ed.). European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU). https://e-xcellencelabel.eadtu.eu/e-xcellence-review/manual
Kline, K. (2016). Jean Baudrillard and the limits of critical media literacy. Educational Theory, 66(5), 641-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12203
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103–109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.8.3.103
Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ : A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x
Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M. (1993). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness : A profile analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778406
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge : A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments : Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education : A systems view of online learning (3rd ed). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Nguyen Tan, D. (2017). Les TIC au service de la qualité des formations : le cas des programmes vietnamiens évalués par l’ASEAN University Network [thèse de doctorat en sciences de l’éducation]. Université de Strasbourg. http://www.theses.fr/2017STRAG004
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3e ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Oanh, L. T. M., & Thuý, N. T. N. (2020). Đánh giá hiệu quả học tập trực tuyến của sinh viên trong bối cảnh dịch bệnh Covid 19 [Assessing the effectiveness of students’ online learning amid the COVID-19 epidemic]. Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội: Nghiên cứu Giáo dục [VNU Journal of Science. Education Research], 37(1), 92–101.
Ossiannilsson, E., & Landgren, L. (2012). Quality in e-learning : A conceptual framework based on experiences from three international benchmarking projects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00439.x
Pho, D.-H., Nguyen, X.-A., Luong, D.-H., Nguyen, H.-T., Vu, T.-P.-T., & Nguyen, T.-T.-T. (2020). Data on Vietnamese students’ acceptance of using VCTs for distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data, 5(3), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/data5030083
Quality Matters. (2018). Specific review standards from the QM higher educaton rubric (6e éd.). Quality Matters. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education : The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331382944
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment : A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Sankar, A., & Kiruthikaa, K. (2014). Community based recommendation in e-learning systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 10(1), 51–61.
Schofield, A. (1998). Benchmarking : An overview of approaches and issues in implementation. In Benchmarking in higher education : An international review, 8, 12¬–31. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000112812
SEAMEO. (2010). Report. Status of ICT integration in education in Southeast Asian countries. Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Secretariat.
Stracke, C. M. (2006). Process-oriented quality management. Dans U.-D. Ehlerset et J.M.Pawlowski (dir.), Handbook on quality and standardisation in e-learning (p. 79–96). Springer.
Stracke, C. M. (2009). Quality development and standards in e-learning : Benefits and guidelines for implementations. Proceedings of the ASEM Lifelong Learning Conference : e-Learning and Workplace Learning.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Thanh, P. T. N., Thông, N. N., et Thảo, N. T. P. (2020). Cảm nhận của sinh viên chính quy khi trải nghiệm học trực tuyến hoàn toàn trong thời gian phòng chống dịch Covid-19 [Perception of fulltime students’ experience of full online learning during COVID-19 pandemic]. Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Mở TP. HCM – Kỷ yếu [Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science - Proceedings], 15(2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.46223/HCMCOUJS.proc.vi.15.2.1828.2020
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news : TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10402454.2007.10784583
Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology : Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Weiss, C. H. (1983). Toward the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 17, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1328
Williams, K., Kear, K., & Rosewell, J. (2012). Quality assessment for e-learning : A benchmarking approach (2e éd.). European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU).
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381121
World Bank. (2020). Improving the performance of higher education in Vietnam. Strategic priorities and policy options (p. 76). The World Bank.
Younès, N., & Romainville, M. (2012). Les transformations actuelles de l’EEE. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 35(3), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.7202/1024674ar
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Tang Ba Hoang, Nguyen Tan Dai, Nguyen Huu Binh, Ngo Ba Hung, Vo Viet Minh Nhat, Nguyen Thi Anh Dao, Dinh Thi Hai; Vu Tien Dat 2025
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
Droits d’auteur
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent le droit de la première publication de la revue avec le travail simultanément sous une licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0) qui permet aux autres de partager le travail avec une reconnaissance de la paternité de l'œuvre et la publication initiale dans ce journal.
