International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 9 (September 2021), Pages: 7-14

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Evolution of situational factors in blended learning systems interfaces during COVID-19: An analytical study

 Author(s): Muhammad Ramzan *

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Computing and Informatics, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2982-5052

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.09.002

 Abstract:

The world has been undergoing tremendous transformation since early 2020 with the occurrence of a global pandemic of COVID-19. While it will take several years of study and research to understand the true effect of this pandemic on society, it is worthy of noting that it has already transformed our methods of leading lives. One of the areas, highly impacted by a pandemic is education. In order to deliver education in a distance learning manner, more and more academic institutions have been acquiring IT systems to deliver education to the students in the confines and safety of their homes. Saudi Electronic University (SEU) has been pioneering the application of online systems for blended learning in not just Saudi Arabia but the whole middle east and north Africa region. The reliance on systems at SEU for maintaining education standards during pandemics has increased. This has provided the opportunity to researchers in various fields of IT and computing to study evolving role of such systems in traditional and blended models of education. Situational Factors (SFs) are key elements that affect the acceptability of systems by stakeholders. This paper describes the outcome of the study that was carried out to identify critical Situational Factors that play a major role in the acceptance or otherwise of systems in the academic sphere during pandemic times. The results have shown that knowledge, communication, and trust are the most important situational factors for blended learning applications. The case studies and findings are presented followed by a brief analysis of results. 

 © 2021 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Global software development (GSD), Situational factors (SFs), COVID-19, Blended learning (BL), Fuzzy set theory

 Article History: Received 14 February 2021, Received in revised form 23 May 2021, Accepted 26 May 2021

 Acknowledgment 

The author will like to acknowledge the support and cooperation extended in this research by the Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Electronic University.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Ramzan M (2021). Evolution of situational factors in blended learning systems interfaces during COVID-19: An analytical study. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(9): 7-14

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3  

----------------------------------------------

 References (36)

  1. Ågerfalk PJ and Ralyté J (2006). Situational requirements engineering processes: Reflecting on method engineering and requirements practice. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11(5): 447-450. https://doi.org/10.1002/spip.289   [Google Scholar]
  2. Alammary A (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14(9): e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221765   [Google Scholar] PMid:31487316 PMCid:PMC6728070
  3. Alamoodi A, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Albahri O, Mohammed K, Malik R, and Alaa M (2020). Sentiment analysis and its applications in fighting COVID-19 and infectious diseases: A systematic review. Expert Systems with Applications, 167: 114155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114155   [Google Scholar] PMid:33139966 PMCid:PMC7591875
  4. Albahri AS, Hamid RA, Alwan JK, Al-Qays ZT, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, and Madhloom HT (2020b). Role of biological data mining and machine learning techniques in detecting and diagnosing the novel coronavirus (COVID-19): A systematic review. Journal of Medical Systems, 44: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01582-x   [Google Scholar] PMid:32451808 PMCid:PMC7247866
  5. Albahri OS, Zaidan AA, Albahri AS, Zaidan BB, Abdulkareem KH, Al-Qaysi ZT, and Rashid NA (2020a). Systematic review of artificial intelligence techniques in the detection and classification of COVID-19 medical images in terms of evaluation and benchmarking: Taxonomy analysis, challenges, future solutions and methodological aspects. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 13(10): 1381-1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.028   [Google Scholar] PMid:32646771 PMCid:PMC7328559
  6. Al-Khanjari ZAS (2014). Applying online learning in software engineering education. In Yu L (Ed.), Overcoming challenges in software engineering education: Delivering non-technical knowledge and skills: 460–473. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, USA. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5800-4.ch024   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Schmid RF, Tamim RM, and Abrami PC (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1): 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3   [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameron J (2002). Configurable development processes. Communications of the ACM, 45(3): 72-77. https://doi.org/10.1145/504729.504731   [Google Scholar]
  9. Chatzoglou PD (1997). Factors affecting completion of the requirements capture stage of projects with different characteristics. Information and Software Technology, 39(9): 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(97)00020-7   [Google Scholar]
  10. Christel MG and Kang KC (1992). Issues in requirements elicitation. Technical Report, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang-si, South Korea. https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA258932   [Google Scholar]
  11. Clarke P and O’Connor RV (2012). The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Information and Software Technology, 54(5): 433-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.003   [Google Scholar]
  12. Clarke P and O’Connor RV (2015). Changing situational contexts present a constant challenge to software developers. In the European Conference on Software Process Improvement, Springer, Ankara, Turkey: 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24647-5_9   [Google Scholar]
  13. Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002). An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: Moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3): 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/00970302030003001   [Google Scholar]
  14. Dallman S, Nguyen L, Lamp J, and Cybulski J (2005). Contextual factors which influence creativity in requirements engineering. In the Information systems in a rapidly changing economy: ECIS 2005, 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany: 1-12.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Damian DE and Zowghi D (2003). RE challenges in multi-site software development organisations. Requirements Engineering, 8(3): 149-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-003-0173-1   [Google Scholar]
  16. Dede B and Lioufko I (2010). Situational factors affecting software development process selection. M.Sc. Thesis, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferratt TW and Mai B (2010). Tailoring software development. In the 48th Special Interest Group on Management Information System's Annual Conference on Computer Personnel Research on Computer Personnel Research, Association for Computing Machinery, Vancouver, Canada: 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1796900.1796963   [Google Scholar]
  18. Ghosh S, Dubey A, and Ramaswamy S (2011). C-FaRM: A collaborative and context aware framework for requirements management. In the 4th International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge, IEEE, Trento, Italy: 29-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/MARK.2011.6046560   [Google Scholar]
  19. Giray G, Yilmaz M, O’Connor RV, and Clarke PM (2018). The impact of situational context on software process: A case study of a very small-sized company in the online advertising domain. In the European Conference on Software Process Improvement, Springer, Bilbao, Spain: 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_3   [Google Scholar]
  20. Gulzar K, Sang J, Memon AA, Ramzan M, Xia X, and Xiang H (2018). A practical approach for evaluating and prioritizing situational factors in global software project development. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 9(7): 181-190. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2018.090726   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanisch J, Thanasankit T, and Corbitt B (2001). Understanding the cultural and social impacts on requirements engineering processes-identifying some problems challenging virtual team interaction with clients. In the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia: 11-22.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Herbsleb JD (2007). Global software engineering: The future of socio-technical coordination. In the Future of Software Engineering, IEEE, Minneapolis, USA: 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOSE.2007.11   [Google Scholar]
  23. Herbsleb JD and Moitra D (2001). Global software development. IEEE Software, 18(2): 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.914732   [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofmann HF and Lehner F (2001). Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Software, 18(4): 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2001.936219   [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmstrom H, Conchúir EÓ, Agerfalk J, and Fitzgerald B (2006). Global software development challenges: A case study on temporal, geographical and socio-cultural distance. In the IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, IEEE, Florianopolis, Brazil: 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2006.261210   [Google Scholar]
  26. Khan HH, Mahrin M, and Chuprat B (2014). Factors generating risks during requirement engineering process in global software development environment. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 4(1): 63-78. https://doi.org/10.17781/P001084   [Google Scholar]
  27. Lanubile F (2007). Collaboration in distributed software development. In: De Lucia A and Ferrucci F (Eds.), Software engineering: 174-193. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-95888-8_7   [Google Scholar]
  28. López-Pérez MV, Pérez-López M, and Rodríguez-Ariza L (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers and Education, 56: 818-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.023   [Google Scholar]
  29. Niazi M, Mahmood S, Alshayeb M, Baqais AAB, and Gill AQ (2017). Motivators for adopting social computing in global software development: An empirical study. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 29(8): e1872. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1872   [Google Scholar]
  30. Owston R, York DN, and Malhotra T (2019). Blended learning in large enrolment courses: Student perceptions across four different instructional models. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5): 29-45. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4310   [Google Scholar]
  31. Passos L, Czarnecki K, Apel S, Wąsowski A, Kästner C, and Guo J (2013). Feature-oriented software evolution. In the 7th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Pisa, Italy: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2430502.2430526   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC4005531
  32. Prikladnicki R and Audy JLN (2012). Managing global software engineering: A comparative analysis of offshore outsourcing and the internal offshoring of software development. Information Systems Management, 29(3): 216-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.687313   [Google Scholar]
  33. Subramanian GH, Klein G, Jiang JJ, and Chan CL (2009). Balancing four factors in system development projects. Communications of the ACM, 52(10): 118-121. https://doi.org/10.1145/1562764.1562794   [Google Scholar]
  34. Williams NA, Bland W, and Christie G (2008). Improving student achievement and satisfaction by adopting a blended learning approach to inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1): 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1039/B801290N   [Google Scholar]
  35. Xu P and Ramesh B (2007). Software process tailoring: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2): 293-328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240211   [Google Scholar]
  36. Yen JC and Lee CY (2011). Exploring problem solving patterns and their impact on learning achievement in a blended learning environment. Computers and Education, 56(1): 138-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.012   [Google Scholar]