International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Volume 24, Number 4
November – 2023
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance
in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware
Formats
Oluwole Caleb Falode
1
and Ibrahim Abba Mohammed
2
1
Department of Educational Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna Niger State, Nigeria;
2
Department of Science
Education, Federal University Kashere, Gombe State, Nigeria
Abstract
Most educators’ inability to provide learning contents that suit different learning styles has caused a lot of
problems in terms of performance. Thus, to cater to students’ preferences in terms of access to learning
contents, the distance learning regulatory body in Nigeria emphasized that course materials should be
developed in mixed-media formats. This study was carried out to compare the effects of printed, video, and
Moodle-based courseware on educational technology students’ achievement, retention, and satisfaction in
a distance learning course. A quasi-experimental design was employed for the study involving 108
participants from three experimental groups. The learning content and instruments, subjected to validation
and reliability tests, where values of 0.78 and 0.86 were obtained using the Pearson product moment
correlation and Cronbach’s alpha for achievement and satisfaction inventory, respectively, were
administered within a four-week period. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential
statistics. Findings indicated that the printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats improved
students’ achievement with mean gain scores of 47.92, 40.89, and 43.03, respectively. A significant
difference was observed in the achievement (F
(2,104)
= 8.67, p < 0.05), retention (F
(2,104)
= 29.406,
p < 0.05), and satisfaction scores (F
(2,104)
= 5.662, p < 0.05) of the three groups. Open and distance learning
administrators in Nigeria are recommended to produce and deploy printed, video, and Moodle-based
formats of courseware to meet different students’ learning preferences.
Keywords: courseware, distance learning, mixed media, performance, educational technology
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
2
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance
Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Technology has brought innovative changes into the education sector in all fields, hence, different student-
centered techniques continue to permeate modern classrooms, leading to major breakthroughs (Campillo-
Ferrer & Miralles-Martínez, 2021). Technology makes it possible for schools to plan, organize, and
implement new instructional approaches and deliver content face to face or from a distance. One of the new
pedagogical approaches used to deliver course contents and educational activities is distance learning
(Colomo-Magana et al., 2021; Li, 2018).
Distance learning is a form of technology-based education whereby students are separated physically from
teachers but are connected through electronic media. The learning interactivity provided by computer
technologies to deliver lessons either synchronously or asynchronously in distance learning is higher than
that found in the conventional method of teaching (Al-Balas et al., 2020; Al-Mawee & Gharaibeh, 2021).
The rapid expansion of the need to provide access to education for everyone regardless of location, distance,
and time has led to the proliferation of technology-supported approaches capable of leveraging interactive
courseware aimed at meeting individual requirements and learning styles of students. This explains why
the duo of teaching and learning continually advances from a class-based, textbook-oriented strategy to a
more flexible, anywhere, anytime system supported by technology (Lau & Thomas, 2018).
The term courseware combines the words course and ware; courseware is understood to be computerized
learning materials developed by instructional designers involved in open and distance learning (ODL).
Courseware is developed for learners to acquire knowledge in a particular subject area; it uses a
conversional tone to carry learners along, or it links up with learners through electronic means. Thus, for
teaching and learning to be effective in ODL settings, courseware should have a mixed-media format; that
is, it should be downloadable as PDF, learning management system (LMS), audio (MP3), and video (DVD,
VCD) formats in order to enhance learning (Falode, 2019). To this end, printed, video-based, and Moodle-
based formats of courseware were developed and studied in this research.
Printed Courseware in ODL
Printed courseware has been the main orthodox tool for instructional purposes in most distance learning
settings. Print materials guide teachers through the instructional process and allow students to learn and
practice procedures. In ODL, print materials have become the regulatory compass used to organize learning
in order to provide extra resources for students at both home and school. Given their interactive nature,
these resources allow students to study at their own pace (Weng & Cox, 2018).
Studies on how print courseware enhances achievement are not straightforward in terms of their
conclusions. For example, Hautea-Arendain (2019) studied the comparative effectiveness of print and
nonprint reading materials in improving reading comprehension and discovered that students exposed to
reading comprehension print materials performed better than those taught using nonprint materials. In a
similar study, Sidabutar et al. (2022) compared the effectiveness of digital and printed English-language
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
3
texts and discovered that while both formats improved students’ achievement, digital text outperformed
print text. Utami and Saefudin (2017) looked at the comparative effect of adopting e-learning and printed
materials on independent learning and creativity and discovered no significant difference in students’
independence or creativity whether they were exposed to e-learning or printed formats. Conversely, when
Whelan (2020) compared the effectiveness of digital and print media on students’ performance in a fourth-
grade class, he reported a significant difference in the scores of the two groups that favored digital media.
Finally, Ziegler (2019) studied the effects on comprehension when students read digital text versus printed
text and discovered that students performed better when exposed to print materials over digital.
While print appears to be a good format to present educational contents, using printed materials alone in
distance learning may not appeal to learners’ various human senses, compared with video-based
courseware, for example, hence limiting the capacity of printed materials to cater to different learning
styles.
Video-Enhanced Learning in ODL
Video courseware serves as an audio–visual learning medium that offers a real-world examples of learning
contents with detailed contextual reality. Videos used for educational purposes help to break down difficult
concepts. Thus, videos are effective tools for fostering self-paced learning (Colasante & Douglas, 2016; Khoo
et al., 2020). Educational videos are increasingly used to replace face-to-face lectures due to their ability to
appeal to both auditory and visual senses, as well as their pervasive availability (Foster et al., 2022). With
this type of courseware, students are also offered ample time and opportunity to watch the educational
videos as many times as they feel necessary and at their preferred pace, place, and time (Coyne et al., 2018).
Furthermore, videos enable learners to understand and digest complex contents, and they also provide an
avenue for learners to see concepts from different viewpoints. In line with global best practices, students
need the best mixed-media formats to cater to their needs.
Studies on video courseware usage have come to various conclusions. Donkor (2010) compared the
effectiveness of print versus video courseware and found the two platforms to be equivalent in their
effectiveness. Dikshit et al. (2013) studied the effectiveness of print, interactive multimedia, and online
resources and discovered that the use of interactive multimedia CD-ROMs was more effective than print
and online materials. Foster et al. (2021) reported that students had better achievement and retention when
exposed to video courseware in a flipped classroom setting. Bawa et al. (2021) researched the effectiveness
of a video-based instructional package on biology students’ achievement and reported that video improved
students’ achievement.
In light of these studies, more research is required to complement the limitations ingrained in video
courseware. Research should include extending the video courseware to an online learning medium with
additional interactive features to allow students to interact textually and visually. One such online learning
medium that supports different interactive features is Moodle.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
4
Moodle-Based Online Learning in Education
Moodle is used to create online courseware that provides opportunities for interaction and communication
between students and teachers (Gudkova et al., 2021). As a popular LMS, Moodle allows students to be
more flexible and self-scheduled in their learning, which promotes their independence and increases
achievement (Mlotshwa et al., 2020). Likewise, Moodle provides students with various learning materials
and tools, including videos and e-text, that arouse interest and understanding of complex information
(Chen et al., 2022). Interactive courseware tools provided by Moodle such as email, forum posts, virtual
meeting rooms, and chat rooms enhance communication between students and teachers.
Studies on online-based learning are still emerging, thereby giving rise to different LMSs. Most studies have
divergent conclusions, depending on the media and circumstances deployed. For example, some studies
(Dooley et al., 2018; Green et al., 2018; Morton et al., 2016; Riddle & Gier, 2019) revealed online learning
to be highly satisfying and that students achieved better results than from conventional learning. Other
studies showed no difference in terms of students’ satisfaction (Pickering & Swinnerton, 2019). Falode et
al. (2019) looked at the effectiveness of Moodle and WizIQ toward enhancing students’ achievement in
educational technology concepts, and their findings revealed no significant difference in the effectiveness
of the two platforms. In the same vein, when compared with the lecture method, Moodle was found to
enhance the learning achievement of undergraduate agricultural science students in North-Central Nigeria
(Sobowale et al., 2019). Similarly, Agustina et al. (2020) studied whether Moodle improved students’
achievement in reading and writing and discovered it improved students’ writing skills more than their
reading skills. Bupo (2019) investigated the effect of teaching financial accounting using Moodle and
reported that the students achieved and retained the information more after exposure to Moodle Tukura et
al. (2020) examined the effectiveness of e-learning on basic science and technology students’ achievement
and retention; they found that the students performed better in their achievement and retention after
exposure to an online e-learning instruction. Chen et al. (2022) researched the effectiveness of Moodle-
based e-learning on e-collaborative learning, perceived satisfaction, and study achievement among nursing
students and discovered a significant difference in achievement in favor of Moodle. Going further, Arifin
(2020) studied the effect of blended learning with Moodle on students’ writing achievement, and findings
revealed that blended learning with Moodle was more effective than the conventional approach. Thus, the
self-paced, mixed-media formats provided in distance education settings, with different learning
preferences catered to, appear to enhance students’ achievement, retention, and satisfaction.
Achievement is educationally translated into students’ performance after having been instructed. That is, it
is a scale that reveals students’ degree of performance and accomplishment of a specific task at the end of
the instructional engagement (Kayii & Dambo, 2019). Retention, on the other hand, is an individual’s ability
to store what has been learned and to recall what has been stored thereafter. Generally, satisfaction is the
feeling of difference between prior expectations and perceived achievement. In terms of learning using
online-based e-learning technology, the most important factor to have a positive effect on learning
satisfaction is the learner’s actual performance (Nagy, 2018). Specifically, online learning satisfaction
refers to learners’ evaluation of, opinions about, feelings about, and experiences toward the quality of online
learning service provided by online learning providers. It is a cumulative psychological response to online
learning contents and the learning environment formed after a rational and emotional comparison between
the actual perceived online learning effect and students’ perception (Yu, 2022). Ideally, in any form of
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
5
online ODL education, students’ satisfaction is one of the most important indicators for evaluating the
quality of a learning environment. Supporting this idea, AbdulRahman et al. (2015) stated that students’
satisfaction, in terms of their expectations being realized, is one of the most critical factors for evaluating
the success of any online-based education and resultant performance.
In light of the foregoing discussion, several studies were conducted to ascertain the satisfaction of students
in online-based learning. Choe et al. (2019) ascertained students’ satisfaction and learning outcomes in
asynchronous online lecture videos and discovered that combining different media in a multimedia learning
format is highly satisfying; students were highly satisfied with various videos used because they catered to
different learning styles. Also, Nagy (2018) evaluated online video usage and learning satisfaction using the
technology acceptance model and discovered that online learning has many significant effects on learning
and the satisfaction of learners. Additionally, some studies (Dooley et al., 2018; Green et al., 2018; Riddle
& Gier, 2019) reported that online learning was highly satisfying, and learners also achieved better learning
outcomes through online learning than conventional learning. However, in contrast with the
aforementioned studies, Pickering and Swinnerton (2019) found no difference in terms of online
satisfaction. Hence, more studies need to be conducted to close these gaps.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the technological advancements that have unanimously simplified learning and allowed for catering
toward different learning styles, most ODL instructional designers in Nigeria have not leveraged the
opportunities offered by technology to enhance learning. Whenever students’ profiles are gathered during
enrollment, many learners state their preferences regarding the courseware formats, but ODL instructors
in Nigeria do not give special attention to those learning preferences by providing different mixed-media
formats, and this affects students’ performance. Many studies were carried out to improve students’
performance using different technology-supported courseware formats, but very few studies have been
conducted in Nigeria or by educational technology experts. Also, most studies have not deployed mixed-
media formats. To ameliorate this problem, the effectiveness of using more than one type of courseware
during engagement must be examined, in line with the acceptable standards of using various mixed-media
formats. This study was therefore carried out to determine whether students’ learning outcomes would be
enhanced when optional media formats were deployed to teach educational technology students a distance
learning course.
Purpose of the Study
The study sought to do the following:
1. Determine the effects of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware on students’ academic
achievement in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning course.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
6
2. Ascertain the effects of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware on students’ learning
retention in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning course.
3. Find out the differences in students’ satisfaction with printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware
in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning course.
Research Questions
The following research questions were answered in the study:
1. What are the effects of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware on students’ academic
achievement in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning course?
2. What are the effects of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware on students’ learning
retention in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning course?
3. What are the differences in students’ satisfaction levels when they are exposed to printed, video,
and Moodle-based courseware in an undergraduate distance learning course?
Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested:
HO
1
: There is no significant difference in the achievement scores of students exposed to printed,
video, and Moodle-based courseware in an undergraduate educational technology distance
learning course.
HO
2
: There is no significant difference in the retention scores of students exposed to printed, video,
and Moodle-based courseware in an undergraduate educational technology distance learning
course.
HO
3
: There is no significant difference in students’ satisfaction when they are exposed to printed,
video, and Moodle-based courseware in an undergraduate educational technology distance
learning course.
Methodology
The study adopted a pretest, posttest, non-randomized, quasi-experimental design. The research design
layout is presented in Table 1.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
7
Table 1
Research Design Layout
Note. O
1
= pretest for experimental groups 1, 2, and 3; X
I
, X
2
,
and X
3
= treatment for experimental groups 1, 2, and 3;
O
2
= posttest for experimental groups 1, 2, and 3; O
3
= retention for experimental groups 1, 2, and 3; O
4
= satisfaction
for experimental groups 1, 2, and 3.
The study population consisted of all undergraduate educational technology students at the Federal
University of Technology Minna, Nigeria, during the 2021–2022 academic session. The target population
comprised all 170 second-year educational technology students. A total of 108 students who were offered a
distance learning course (EDT 215: Distance Education) from five teaching options (Biology Education,
Chemistry Education, Physics Education, Mathematics Education, and Geography Education) drawn from
intact classes were purposively used as the sample. Simple random sampling was used to select three
teaching options from the five. Thereafter, the selected options were randomly assigned to the three
experimental groups. Students in the three groups received either printed, video, or Moodle-based
courseware.
Two instruments were used in the study: treatment instruments and test instruments. The treatment
instruments were the printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware. The distance learning course contents
treated in the courseware were arranged in six study units, covering the concepts of distance learning,
modes of tutoring, procedure for courseware development, mode of assessment in distance learning, team
approach in courseware development, and learner support service in distance learning. The test
instruments were the achievement test and the satisfaction inventory. The achievement test was made up
of 50 multiple-choice questions drawn from the course contents. The satisfaction inventory consisted of 15
items rated on a five-point Likert scale. The total points obtained by each participant in the inventory were
converted to an interval scale (percentage).
The treatment instruments were validated by two educational technology experts, two computer science
experts, two media production specialists, two instructional designers, one graphic artist, and one language
editor, and their observations were infused before the pilot study. A single-shot pilot test was administered
with 20 randomly selected students using a split-half method, where a coefficient value of 0.78 was obtained
using the Pearson product moment correlation. The satisfaction inventory was administered to the same
students in a single-shot test, and a figure of 0.86 was obtained using Cronbach’s alpha.
All the three experimental groups were subjected to four-week treatment period. The students in
experimental group 1 were given the printed courseware, those in the experimental group 2 were given the
video version of the courseware, and students in experimental group 3 learned the course through Moodle.
To test achievement, students took a pretest, posttest, and retention test; the retention test was
Group
Pretest
Treatment
Posttest
Retention
Satisfaction
Print courseware
O
1
X
I
O
2
O
3
O
4
Video courseware
O
1
X
2
O
2
O
3
O
4
Moodle-based courseware
O
1
X
3
O
2
O
3
O
4
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
8
administered two weeks after the posttest. The satisfaction inventory was administered during the posttest
to determine which of the courseware formats the students were more satisfied with. Descriptive statistics
were used to answer the research questions while inferential statistics involving ANCOVA, ANOVA, and
Šidàk and Scheffé post hoc tests were used to test the null hypotheses at a .05 level of significance.
Results
Research Question 1
What are the effects of printed, video and Moodle-based courseware on students’ achievement scores in
undergraduate educational technology distance learning course?
Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the pretest and posttest scores of students exposed to
printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats.
Table 2
Pretest and Posttest Scores of Students Exposed to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats
Students exposed to printed courseware had a mean of 23.17 and a standard deviation of 5.27 at pretest,
and a mean score of 71.09 and a standard deviation of 5.62 at posttest. The mean difference between the
pretest and posttest scores of the students exposed to print courseware was 47.92. The students exposed to
video courseware had a mean of 22.50 and a standard deviation of 7.06 in the pretest, and a mean score of
65.39 and a standard deviation of 6.64 in the posttest. The mean difference between the pretest and posttest
scores of the students exposed to video courseware was 40.89. Similarly, the students exposed to Moodle-
based courseware had a mean of 23.11 and a standard deviation of 5.50 in the pretest, and a mean score of
66.14 and a standard deviation of 6.50 in the posttest. The mean difference between the pretest and posttest
scores of the students exposed to Moodle-based courseware was 43.03. Thus, the trio of printed, video, and
Moodle-based courseware formats improved students’ achievement. However, the students exposed to
printed courseware achieved better, with the highest mean gain of 47.92.
Research Question 2
What are the effects of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware on students’ academic retention scores
in undergraduate educational technology distance learning course?
Group
N
M (SD)
Posttest
M (SD)
M gain
Print
35
71.09 (5.62)
47.92
Video
36
65.39 (6.64)
40.89
Moodle
37
66.14 (6.50)
43.03
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
9
Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation of the posttest and retention scores of students exposed to
printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats.
Table 3
Posttest and Retention Scores of Students Exposed to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware
Formats
The students exposed to printed courseware had a mean of 71.09 and a standard deviation of 5.62 at
posttest, and a mean score of 66.34 and a standard deviation of 5.15 at the retention test. The mean
difference between the retention and posttest scores of the students exposed to printed courseware was
4.75. The students exposed to video courseware had a mean of 65.39 and a standard deviation of 6.64 in
the posttest, and a mean score of 63.58 and a standard deviation of 6.46 in the retention test. The mean
difference between the retention and posttest scores of the students exposed to video courseware was 0.19.
Similarly, the students exposed to Moodle-based courseware had a mean of 66.14 and a standard deviation
of 6.50 in the posttest, and a mean score of 59.95 and a standard deviation of 5.38 in the retention test. The
mean difference between students’ posttest and retention scores for Moodle-based courseware was 6.19.
Thus, the use of printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats all improved students’ learning
retention. However, students exposed to video-based courseware had better learning retention, with the
lowest mean difference of 0.19.
Research Question 3
What are the differences in the satisfaction levels of students in learning undergraduate educational
technology distance learning course through printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware?
Table 4 shows the mean and standard deviation of students’ satisfaction after being exposed to printed,
video, and Moodle-based courseware formats.
Group
N
M (SD)
Retention
M (SD)
M difference
Print
35
66.34 (5.15)
4.75
Video
36
63.58 (6.46)
0.19
Moodle
37
59.95 (5.38)
6.19
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
10
Table 4
Students’ Satisfaction with Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats
Students exposed to printed courseware had a mean satisfaction score of 70.74 and a standard deviation of
4.28. The students exposed to video courseware had a mean satisfaction score of 71.11 and a standard
deviation of 4.55. Similarly, the students exposed to Moodle-based courseware had a mean satisfaction
score of 67.95 and a standard deviation of 4.36. This shows that the students were highly satisfied with the
various courseware formats used. However, the students exposed to video-based courseware were the most
satisfied, with the highest mean satisfaction score of 71.11.
Testing of Null Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
There was no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of students exposed to printed, video,
and Moodle-based courseware in undergraduate educational technology distance learning course.
Table 5a shows the ANCOVA results of students exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware
formats.
Table 5a
Students’ Achievement After Exposure to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats: ANCOVA
Results
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Corrected model
702.246
3
234.082
5.911
.001
Intercept
32,394.901
1
32,394.901
817.985
.000
Pretest (covariate)
22.878
1
22.878
0.578
.449
Achievement
687.036
2
343.518
8.674*
.000
Error
4,118.745
104
39.603
Total
496,761.000
108
Group
N
M
SD
Print
35
70.74
4.28
Video
36
71.11
4.55
Moodle
37
67.95
4.36
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
11
Corrected total
4,820.991
107
*
p ≤ .05.
In the table, F
(2,104)
= 8.67 and p < .05. This means that the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a
significant difference in the mean achievement score of students exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-
based courseware formats. To determine where the significant difference lies, the Šidàk post hoc test was
conducted, as presented in Table 5b.
Table 5b
Students’ Achievement Using Printed, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats: Šidàk Post Hoc
Test Results
(I) Group (J) Group
M difference
(I–J) SE p
95% CI
Lower
Upper
Print
Video
5.70*
1.491
.001
2.08
9.31
Moodle
4.95*
1.481
.003
1.36
8.54
Video
Print
−5.70*
1.491
.001
−9.31
−2.08
Moodle
−0.75
1.470
.942
−4.31
2.82
Moodle
Print
−4.95*
1.481
.003
−8.54
−1.36
Video
0.75
1.470
.942
−2.82
4.31
*
p ≤ .05.
There was a significant difference in achievement between students exposed to printed and students
exposed to video courseware formats. There was also a significant difference in achievement between
students exposed to video and students exposed to printed courseware formats.
Hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference in the mean retention scores of students exposed to printed, video, and
Moodle-based courseware in undergraduate educational technology distance learning course.
Table 6a shows the ANCOVA result of students’ retention when exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-
based courseware formats.
Table 6a
Students’ Retention Scores When Exposed to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats:
ANCOVA Results
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Corrected model
3,561.967
3
1,187.322
210.991
.000
Intercept
51.588
1
51.588
9.167
.003
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
12
Posttest (covariate)
2,819.282
1
2,819.282
500.995
.000
Retention
330.953
2
165.477
29.406*
.000
Error
585.246
104
5.627
Total
435,955.000
108
Corrected total
4,147.213
107
*
p ≤ .05.
In the table, F
(2,104)
= 29.40, and p < .05. This means the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a
significant difference in the retention scores of students exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based
courseware formats. To determine where the significant difference lies in the retention scores of the
students across the various groups, the Šidàk post hoc test was conducted, as shown in Table 6b.
Table 6b
Students’ Retention When Exposed to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats: Šidàk Post
Hoc Test Results
(I) Group (J) Group
Mean difference
(I–J) SE p
95% CI
Lower
Upper
Print
Video
2.76
1.352
.125
−0.52
6.04
Moodle
6.40*
1.343
.000
3.14
9.65
Video
Print
−2.76
1.352
.125
−6.04
0.52
Moodle
3.64*
1.333
.022
0.40
6.87
Moodle
Print
−6.40*
1.343
.000
−9.65
−3.14
Video
−3.64*
1.333
.022
−6.87
−0.40
*
p ≤ .05.
A significant difference was observed in the retention score of students exposed to printed and Moodle-
based courseware formats. Also, a significant difference was observed between the retention score of
students exposed to video and Moodle-based courseware formats.
Hypothesis 3
There is no significant difference in the mean responses of students’ satisfaction level when exposed to
undergraduate educational technology distance learning course through printed, video, and Moodle-based
courseware.
Table 7a shows the ANOVA result of the satisfaction of students exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-
based courseware formats.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
13
Table 7a
Satisfaction of Students Exposed to Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats: ANOVA
Results
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Between groups
218.941
2
109.470
5.662*
.001
Within groups
2,030.133
105
19.335
Total
2,249.074
107
* p ≤ .05.
In the table, F
(2, 105)
= 5.662, and p < .05. This means the null hypothesis was rejected, indicating a
significant difference in the satisfaction of students exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based
courseware. The students were highly satisfied while using the various courseware formats. To determine
where the significant difference lies, the Scheffé post hoc test was conducted, as presented in Table 7b.
Table 7b
Students’ Satisfaction with Print, Video, and Moodle-Based Courseware Formats: Scheffé Post Hoc Test
Results
(I) Group (J) Group
M difference
(I–J) SE p
95% CI
Lower
Upper
Print
Video
−0.368
1.044
.979
−2.90
2.16
Moodle
2.797*
1.037
.024
0.28
5.31
Video
Print
0.368
1.044
.979
−2.16
2.90
Moodle
3.165*
1.029
.008
0.67
5.66
Moodle
Print
−2.797*
1.037
.024
−5.31
−0.28
Video
−3.165*
1.029
.008
−5.66
−0.67
* p ≤ .05.
A significant difference was found between the satisfaction of students exposed to printed and Moodle-
based courseware formats. Also, a significant difference was observed between the satisfaction of students
exposed to video and Moodle-based courseware formats.
Discussion
The finding of Hypothesis 1 shows the existence of a significant difference in the achievement of students
exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware. The finding indicates that while all students,
whether taught using printed, video, and Moodle-based versions of the courseware, had improved
performance after the treatment, students taught with printed courseware particularly achieved better.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
14
Students find printed courseware handy; they can make notations and highlight sections as they study,
leading to better cognitive mapping. This finding is in agreement with those of Hautea-Arendain (2019),
who found a significant difference in the achievement of students exposed to print and other courseware
formats. It also tallies with results found by Ziegler (2019), whose study on the effect of reading digital text
versus printed text in comprehension revealed that students performed better when exposed to printed
materials compared with digital materials. This finding equally agrees with those of Dikshit et al. (2013),
who researched the effectiveness of print, interactive multimedia, and online resources and discovered a
significant difference among the three groups. But the use of interactive multimedia through a CD-ROM
was more effective than print and face-to-face support that was presented online. Conversely, our finding
disagrees with Sidabutar et al. (2022), who compared the effectiveness of digital and printed texts in English
and discovered that students using digital text outperformed students using in print text. Additionally,
Whelan (2020) compared the effectiveness of digital and print media on students’ performance and
reported a significant difference in the scores of the two groups in favor of digital media. Similarly, this
finding is not in tandem with that of Donkor (2010), who checked the comparative effectiveness of print
versus video courseware and discovered no significant difference between the two platforms because they
were equivalent in their effectiveness. Also, the finding disagrees with that of Utami and Saefudin (2017),
who looked at the comparative effectiveness of adopting e-learning and printed materials on independent
learning and creativity and discovered no significant difference in independence and creativity of the
students exposed to e-learning and printed formats. The finding also disagrees with the findings of Falode
et al. (2019), who studied the effectiveness of Moodle and WizIQ toward enhancing students’ achievement
and found no significant difference in the effectiveness of the two platforms.
The result of Hypothesis 2 shows the existence of a significant difference in the retention scores of students
exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware. This shows that while students who were taught
using printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware were able to retain the concepts they learned, the
students taught with video-based courseware showed higher rates of retention. This finding is connected to
the fact that using video-based courseware simultaneously appeals to students’ visual and auditory senses:
they can see, pause or rewind, and watch and listen to contents. Students retain concepts better when they
can see and hear what is taught. This finding agrees with Bupo’s (2019) finding that a significant difference
exists in the retention of students exposed to the Moodle platform and other media formats. The finding
also agrees with Falode et al.’s (2019) findings, which revealed no significant difference in students’
retention of educational technology concepts in favor of Moodle. Similarly, this finding is in agreement with
that of Tukura et al. (2020), who recorded a significant difference in the retention scores of the students
exposed to an online e-learning instruction using different formats. This finding also agrees with that of
Foster et al. (2021), who reported that students had higher learning retention when exposed to video
courseware format.
The result of Hypothesis 3 shows the existence of a significant difference in the satisfaction of students
exposed to printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats. The students in all three groups were all
satisfied with their format (printed, video, or Moodle). However, the students taught with video courseware
were more satisfied. This finding could be due to the fact that using video courseware format was more
enjoyable as students could see and hear at the same time. Video courseware is flexible and has the capacity
to combine entertainment with education. This will surely increase learning satisfaction because learning
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
15
when more than one sense is involved caters to students’ different learning preferences. This finding agrees
with that of Choe et al. (2019), who studied students’ satisfaction and learning outcomes in asynchronous
online lecture videos and discovered that combining different media in a multimedia learning format is
highly satisfying. This finding is also in agreement with that of Nagy (2018), who evaluated online video
usage and learning satisfaction using the technology acceptance model and discovered that online learning
has a significant effect on learning and satisfaction. Also, our finding is in conformity with those recorded
in the studies of Dooley et al. (2018), Green et al. (2018), and Riddle and Gier (2019), all of whom reported
that learning through different online courseware was highly satisfying for students and also that learners
using online courseware achieved better learning outcomes than those taught using conventional methods.
However, it disagrees with the findings of Pickering and Swinnerton (2019), whose study showed no
significant difference in terms of students’ satisfaction when learning with different course formats.
Conclusion and Implication
The findings of this study revealed that printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats all have the
possibilities of catering to different learning preferences of students given that all students had high
achievement and retention and equally found their courseware formats very satisfactory. The implication
of these findings is that ODL experts and distance learning policy makers in Nigeria have a viable reason to
incorporate different mixed-media formats, including printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware, in
education to meet the different learning preferences of students, thus enhancing learning outcomes. When
printed, video, and Moodle-based courseware formats are available for students to choose from, the
problem of students’ lack of interest in academic endeavors and poor academic performance will be
lessened because learning will be self-paced, flexible, learner-centered, and satisfactory.
Recommendations
Based on the finding of this study, the authors make the following recommendation: ODL administrators
and experts in Nigeria should liaise with educational technology experts, instructional designers, and
education policy makers to design, develop, implement, and incorporate print, video, and Moodle-based
courseware into distance learning program curriculum in order to meet the learning preferences of different
students so as to enhance learning outcomes.
Limitation and Suggestion for Further Study
The study was limited to one geographical location in Nigeria, and the population used in the study was
restricted to students in one particular location; thus, the authors cannot make generalizations about the
findings. It is hereby suggested that similar studies should be conducted across various locations in Nigeria
using a much larger population.
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
16
References
AbdulRahman, N. A., Hussein, N., & Aluwi, A. H. (2015). Satisfaction on blended learning in a public
higher education institution: What factors matter? Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 768–775.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.107
Agustina, I., Nasrudin, N., Putra, S., Akrim, A., & Maharani, D. (2020). The effect of Moodle
implementation in English for multimedia classroom on students’ achievement in reading and
writing. In R. Rahim, A. S. Ahmar, J. Simarmata, & D. Abdullah (Eds.), Proceedings of the third
workshop on multidisciplinary and its application (pp. 11–14). European Alliance for Innovation.
https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.11-12-2019.2290814
Al-Balas, M., Al-Balas, H. I., Jaber, H. M., Obeidat, K., Al-Balas, H., Aborajoo, E. A., Al-Taheer, R., & Al-
Balas, B. (2020). Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in
Jordan: Current situation, challenges, and perspectives. BMC Medical Education, 20, Article 341.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02257-4
Al-Mawee, W., & Gharaibah, T. (2021). Student’s perspective on distance learning during COVID-19
pandemic: A case study of Western Michigan University, United States. International Journal of
Educational Research, 2, Article 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100080
Arifin, M. (2020). The effect of blended learning model with Moodle on students’ writing achievement.
Indonesian Journal of Education and Mathematical Science, 1(2), 100–110.
https://doi.org/10.30596/ijems.v1i2.4639
Bawa, S., Nzegwu-Ossayogi, L. O., & Koroka, M. U. S. (2021). Effects of video-based instructional package
on achievement of secondary school biology students in Suleja, Niger State, Nigeria. Journal of
Information, Education, Science and Technology (JIEST), 7(1), 238–243.
http://repository.futminna.edu.ng:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/10279
Bupo, G. O. (2019). Effects of blended learning approach on business education students’ academic
achievement and retention in financial accounting in universities in Rivers State Nigeria [PhD
dissertation, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka]. Research Repository. https://phd-
dissertations.unizik.edu.ng/onepaper.php?p=474
Campillo-Ferrer, J. M., & Miralles-Martínez, P. (2021). Effectiveness of the flipped classroom model on
students’ self-reported motivation and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanities and
Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article 176. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00860-4
Chen, Y. C., Chen, C. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2022, April 19). Effects of Moodle-based e-learning management
system on e-collaborative learning, perceived satisfaction, and study achievement among nursing
students: A cross-sectional study. Research Square. Advance online article.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1402422/v1
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
17
Choe, R. C., Scuric, Z., Eshkol, E., Cruser, S., Arndt, A., Cox, R., Toma, S. P., Shapiro, C., Levis-Fitzgerald,
M., Barnes, G., & Crosbie, R. H. (2019). Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in
asynchronous online lecture video. Life Science Education, 18(4), Article 55.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0171
Colasante, M., & Douglas, K. (2016). Prepare-participate-connect: Active learning with video annotation.
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2123
Colomo-Magana, E., Civico-Ariza, A., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Sanchez-Rivas, E. (2021). Problematic use of
ICTs in trainee teachers during COVID-19: A sex-based analysis. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 13(4), Article ep314. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/10988
Coyne, E., & Frommolt, V., Rands, H., Kain, V., & Mitchell, M. (2018). Simulation videos presented in a
blended learning platform to improve Australian nursing students’ knowledge of family
assessment. Nurse Education Today, 66, 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.012
Dikshit, J., Garg, S., & Panda, S. (2013). Pedagogic effectiveness of print, interactive multimedia, and
online resources: A case study of IGNOU. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 194–210.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544083
Donkor, F. (2010). The comparative instructional effectiveness of print-based and video-based
instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 97–116.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.792
Dooley, M. L., Frankland, S., Boller, E., & Tudor, E. (2018). Implementing the flipped classroom in a
veterinary pre-clinical science course: Student engagement, performance, and satisfaction.
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 45(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.1116-
203
Falode, O. C. (2019). Components and attributes of open and distance learning interactive courseware. In
E. J., Ohire (Eds), A Book of Reading in Instructional Pedagogy (pp. 37-43). Usmanu Danfodio
University Press.
Falode, M. E
., Alabi, T. O., Nsofor, C. C., & Alhassan, J. K. (2019). Effects of WizIQ and Moodle learning
platforms on students’ academic achievement in undergraduates’ educational technology
concepts. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education (JOSTMED), 15(2), 146–
156. http://repository.futminna.edu.ng:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/11589
Foster, M., Maur, A., Wieser, C., & Winkel., K. (2022). Pre-class video watching fosters achievement and
knowledge retention in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education, 179, Article 104399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104399
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
18
Green, R. A., Whitburn, L. Y., Zacharias, A., Byrne, G., & Hughes, D. L. (2018). The relationship between
student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(5), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1761
Gudkova, Y., Reznikova, S., Samoletova, M., & Sytnikova, E. (2021). Effectiveness of Moodle in students’
independent work. E3S Web Conference, 273, Article 12084.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202127312084
Hautea-Arendain, C. C. (2019). A comparative study on the effectiveness of print and non-print reading
materials in improving reading comprehension. [Master’s thesis, Central Philippines University].
Bahándìan. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12852/317
Kayii, N. E., & Dambo, B. I. (2019). Effectiveness of blended learning strategy on undergraduate business
education students’ achievement scores in Rivers State University. International Journal of
Innovative Technology Integration in Education, 3(1).
https://ijitie.aitie.org.ng/plugins/generic/pdfJsViewer/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%
2F%2Fijitie.aitie.org.ng%2Findex.php%2Fijitie%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F179%2F107%2F624
Khoo, Y. Y., Khuan W. B., Abd-Hadi, F. S., & AbuBakar, M. S. (2020). The effect of video-based
collaborative learning among economics’ undergraduates in Malaysia. International Journal of
Advanced Science and Technology, 29(6), 272–281.
http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/11448
Lau, K. H., & Thomas, S. (2018). The role of textbook learning resources in e-learning: A taxonomic study.
Computer & Education, 118, 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.005
Li, K. C. (2018). The evolution of open learning: A review of the transition from pre-e-learning to the era
of e-learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(4), 408–425.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1247658
Mlotshwa, N., Tunjera, N., & Chigona, A. (2020). Integrating Moodle into the classroom for better
conceptual understanding of functions in mathematics. South African Journal of Education,
40(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n3a1570
Morton, C. E., Saleh, S. N., Smith, S. F., Hemani, A., Ameen, A., Bennie, T. D., & Toro-Troconis, M.
(2016). Blended learning: How can we optimize undergraduate student engagement? Medical
Education, 16, Article 195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0716-z
Nagy, J. T. (2018). Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the
technology acceptance model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 19(1), 160–185. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2886
Pickering, J. D., & Swinnerton, B. J. (2019). Exploring the dimensions of medical student engagement
with technology-enhanced learning resources and assessing the impact on assessment outcomes.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(2), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1810
Educational Technology Undergraduates’ Performance in a Distance Learning Course Using Three Courseware Formats
Falode and Mohammed
19
Riddle, E., & Gier, E. (2019). Flipped classroom improves student engagement, student performance, and
sense of community in a nutritional sciences course (P07-007-19). Current Developments in
Nutrition, 3(S1), 657–659. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzz032.P07-007-19
Sidabutar, M. N. A., Sayed, B. T., Ismail., S. M., Quispe, J. T., Vicente, J. S. Y., Wikke, I. S., Shanan, A. J.,
& Nourabadi, S. (2022). Reading digital texts vs reading printed texts: Which one is more
effective in Iranian EFL context? Education Research International, 2022, Article 7188266.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7188266
Sobowale, F. M., Nsofor, C. C., Ojo, M. A., & Abdullahi, M. B. (2019). Effects of Moodle and lecture
method on learning outcomes in agricultural science among undergraduate students in North-
Central, Nigeria. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education, 15(3), 66–79.
Tukura, C. S., Adamu, A., & Kanu, J. (2020). Effects of e-learning on retention and performance of basic
science and technology students in Minna, Niger State Nigeria. International Journal of
Research and Scientific Innovations, 7(9), 33–38.
http://repository.futminna.edu.ng:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/3704/1/33-38.pdf
Utami, N. W., & Saefudin, A. (2017). Comparative study of learning using e-learning and printed materials
on independent learning and creativity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 954, Article
012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012004
Weng, C., & Cox, J. (2018). Effects of interactivity e-textbooks on 7th graders science learning and
cognitive load. Computers & Education, 120, 172-184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.008
Whelan, L. (2020). The effects of digital media and print media on the performance of a 4th grade ELA
class [Master’s thesis, Milligan University]. Milligan Digital Repository.
http://hdl.handle.net/11558/5084
Yu, Q. (2022). Factors influencing online learning satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article
852360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.852360
Ziegler, A. (2019). Effect of students reading digital text versus print text on comprehension [Master’s
thesis, Minnesota State University]. RED: A Repository of Digital Collections.
https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/183