Influence of Tutors’ Direct Teaching Practice on the Academic Achievement of Distance Education Students: Does Perceived Module Usefulness Matter?

Authors

  • Gabriel Essilfie University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47963/jedp.v6i.1466

Keywords:

direct teaching practice, instructional practice, distance education, module

Abstract

In the print mode distance education, module usefulness is significant to teaching and learning. This study examined the role of perceived module usefulness in the relationship between tutors’ direct teaching practice and students’ academic performance. A descriptive survey design with a quantitative approach was used. The study covered Distance Education students in University of Cape Coast, Ghana. The study targeted Diploma in Basic Education students using a multi- stage sampling with a sample size of 380. Questionnaire was the main instrument used. Validity and reliability of the instrument were established. Multiple regression analysis with 1,000 bootstrap samples was used to test hypothesis 1. Simple mediation analysis through Structural Equation Modelling with 5,000 bootstrap samples was used to test hypothesis 2. Tutors’ direct teaching practice was a significant predictor of students’ CGPA, with students’ interaction having the largest contribution lagged by assessing students’ learning and delivery of lessons respectively. Module usefulness was a significant mediator in the relationship between tutors’ direct teaching practice and students’ academic achievement, b=.0279, Boot CI [.0094, .0467]. It is recommended that the management of the distance education programme should frequently organise seminars and workshops for tutors; deliver modules on-time and make module content useful for students’ consumption.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-01

How to Cite

Essilfie, G. (2022). Influence of Tutors’ Direct Teaching Practice on the Academic Achievement of Distance Education Students: Does Perceived Module Usefulness Matter?. Journal of Educational Development and Practice, 6(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.47963/jedp.v6i.1466