EAI Endorsed Transactions

on e-Learning Research Article

The use of digital educational resources in the support to

learning in higher education
Carlos Morais1,2, Luísa Miranda1,2 and Paulo Alves2

1
Centro de Investigação em Estudos da Criança (CIEC), Universidade do Minho, Portugal
2
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Bragança, Portugal

Abstract
This paper aimed to assess the importance given to the use of digital educational resources, their use frequency, and their
classification considering them as a support to course units. The data was obtained through questionnaire and provided by a
sample of undergraduates. We reflected on the concept of digital educational resource and presented the results of a study
assessing the importance given by undergraduates to digital educational resources as well as their classification as a support
to learning concerning aspects associated with learning strategies, motivation and learning tasks. We used research
methodologies associated with both the quantitative and the qualitative paradigms. The results showed the existence of
significant differences, between the 1st and the 2nd year students regarding the item study alone. The characterization of
digital educational resources was made based on the answers given to open-ended questions and their further classification.

Keywords: digital resources, digital educational resources, importance of digital educational resources, classification of digital
educational resources.
Received on 15 October 2014, accepted on 11 January 2015 , published on 17 March 2015
Copyright © 2015 C. Morais et al., licensed to ICST. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unlimited use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
doi: 10.4108/el.2.5.e5
Bearing in mind that all the students are from the
1. Introduction same institution, there is no intention to generalize
the results within the scope of higher education.
More than ever before, technology is influencing However, they can represent secure indicators in the
both directly and indirectly the various contexts in identification and understanding of the importance
which people happen to find themselves, particularly and use frequency of digital educational resources by
the higher education teaching and learning context. undergraduates. Therefore, the main aims of this
Among the several aspects deserving and justifying study are:
scientific research within this particular context, we
• Assess the importance given by
highlight the use and assessment of resources
undergraduates to digital educational resources in
supporting the teaching and learning process. The
the support to learning;
search for good practices challenges teachers and
• Verify the existence of significant
researchers to look for teaching and learning
differences in the importance given to the
strategies which can make the process more
resources between curricular years;
appealing and the learning more effective. In
• Assess the use frequency of digital
general, many of the strategies are supported by
educational resources by undergraduates;
educational resources associated with information
• Verify the existence of significant
and communication technologies (ICT).
differences in the use frequency between
The implementation of teaching and learning
curricular years;
strategies with innovative resources must take place
• Classify the digital educational resources as
with the involvement of its main parties, teachers
well as their use in the support to course units.
and students. This paper gives special focus to the
use of digital educational resources by The data that enables the achievement of these
undergraduates assessed based on quantitative and aims was obtained from the students’ answers to a
qualitative data provided by a sample of 315 questionnaire built and validated for this purpose
students from a Portuguese state higher education and administered in the 2013/2014 academic year. In
institution.

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

1 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
C. Morais et al.

this paper we present the theoretical framework environments, as one of the quality criteria of an
behind digital educational resources, the study educational institution’s e-learning modalities is
methodology, the results, the conclusions and related to the provision of good quality digital
finally, the references. didactic resources.
The selection of good resources is not made
2. Digital educational resources without the involvement and effort of the main
stakeholders. Dahlstrom, Walker, and Dziuban [5]
Achieving the highest level of learning in the
state that in order to find the way to best integrate
shortest time possible and with the lowest effort is a
technology in academic environments, partnerships
challenge that education and training institutions are
must be held between students, teachers and the
trying to overcome. As Davidson and Goldberg [1]
institution they are part of. Similarly, Ramos,
point out, an important share of the future of
Teodoro, and Ferreira [6] suggest that a considerable
learning lies in the development of methods that
part of the impact, either positive or negative, of the
distinguish the good sources of knowledge from the
use of technology on the student’s learning depends
questionable ones. More and more, learning is about
on the context and the actors involved, namely the
how to make the wise choices, epistemologically,
teachers and the learning situations and experiences
methodologically and regarding cooperation
that they can create from using technologies.
partnerships in order to approach complex
As suggested by Connaway, Lanclos, and Hood
challenges and problems.
[7], people are less and less dependent on the
Within the information society, it is important that
resources and technologies provided by their
people can use ICT and digital resources in their
institutions because they have easier access to
professional life as well as in their various roles as
internet connection and devices which allow access
citizens. According to Ramos, Teodoro, Fernandes,
to the open web and to its countless free sources, and
Ferreira, and Chagas [2], educational resources
subsequently to a much wider level of information.
follow the evolution of society, having evolved in
The importance of accessing the web and its
almost all education levels in a similar way to the
resources is shown by Wetzler, Bethard, and Leary
evolution of society: the printed material models
[8] when they refer that Americans spend 138
gave place to digital models, thus following the
million hours a year doing research on the web to
change of technologies and their role in society.
select resources.
Also, in the information society, we are awash with
The resources deserving great attention from
information, tools, knowledge and resources coming
institutions, researchers, teachers and students
from all the regions in the world and from the most
nowadays are digital educational resources.
diverse communities and cultures.
However, the question which must be answered in
In the same sense, Littlejohn, Falconer and Mcgill
the first place by any individual or institution is:
[3] highlight that over the last decades, we have
What are digital educational resources? Considering
witnessed huge changes in teaching methods and
the complexity of the concept and the dimensions
new types of resources available, all based on digital
that it involves, it is not easy to obtain one single and
technologies.
consensual definition. Nevertheless, it is important
The existence of a big quantity and diversity of
that concepts are defined so that their meaning can
resources and information flows coming from
be shared by wide communities of users.
various sources and in various formats poses new
In order to contribute for a definition of digital
challenges to educational institutions as far as the
educational resources, Ramos, Teodoro, and Ferreira
new directions of teaching and learning are
[6] present some characterizations which may be
concerned. Institutions are no longer capable of
admitted as definitions in certain contexts. Thus,
providing all the resources which their inner
they consider digital educational resources as digital
communities need, which implies a special concern
entities produced specifically for purposes of support
with processes which may lead to a search for the
to teaching and learning. These authors claim that
best possibilities to benefit from what exists within a
within a broader perspective, they may include all
context increasingly more global and with more
types of digital resources possessing an intrinsic
potentialities. Cesteros, Romero and Ranero [4]
educational intention, thus increasing the quantity of
point out that among the issues worrying teachers
resources available to the community, namely
and educational institutions is the need to have good
teachers, students and families.
didactic materials in digital format so that they can
Tackling the concept of digital educational
be used in the teaching and learning virtual
resource more specifically, Ramos, Teodoro,

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

2 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
 The use of digital educational resources in the support to learning in higher education

Fernandes, Ferreira, and Chagas [2] present it as: an Digital educational resources also appear
artefact stored and accessible in a computer, associated with learning objects and educational
conceived for educational goals and possessing not objects. According to Wiley [14], a learning object is
only identity and autonomy from other objects but any digital resource that can be used to support
also appropriate quality patterns. Examples of such a teaching.
definition are: programs and applications designed Digital educational resources are defined by
specifically for educational purposes and collections Tarouco [15] as any supplementary resource to the
of digital resources which can be used to enhance learning process which can be reused to support
learning. Yang [9] refers that digital resources learning.
include digital video, digital audio, multimedia Learning objects and educational objects have
software, sites, learning management systems, several similarities to digital educational resources,
simulation programs, online discussions and namely their goals of learning a content, topic or
databases. concept, and also in terms of their use, as they can
Carneiro, Rodrigues, Matos, Almeida, and Melo also be used in websites or in learning management
[10] define digital educational resources according environments. The main difference may lie in the
to the nature of their coding, their relevance and way they are structured and can be reused, as
their use as a driving force of ICT for renewing and learning objects have this concern in their genesis
improving learning contexts. They consider them as whereas digital educational resources do not.
products in digital format meant for learning One of the most relevant aspects in the selection,
contexts as well as support services to their use. acquisition, use or sharing of a digital educational
Similarly, Cesteros, Romero, and Ranero [4] resource has to do with its quality. The concept of
present the concept of digital didactic material, quality involves multiple variables and often
which they define as a resource in digital format depends on the aims to be achieved with the
used in the teaching and learning process. This may resource, the context in which it is used and the way
be any digital material that the teacher or the student it may be obtained. Wetzler, Bethard, and Leary [8]
uses within a curricular unit, namely a program, refer that in order to determine which quality aspects
calendar, lesson plan, notes, activities or tutorials. are the most important to users within a particular
Fernández-Pampillón [11] highlights the Spanish domain, it is necessary to admit that the quality of a
norm UNE 71361:2010, which defines digital web resource includes many factors which all
educational resource as any entity which can be used together create a better whole. The authors point out
for learning, education and training. that quality is a multifaceted concept and that
Hylén [12] presents the following advantages of different aspects of quality may be relevant to
using digital educational resources to support different users, in different moments. Among the
learning over traditional materials: results presented by the authors, we highlight several
• They offer the possibility of a greater criteria to measure the quality of a digital
individualization of learning; educational resource such as: user-friendliness,
• Their production is cheaper and they can trustfulness, credibility, exactness, reliability,
easily be updated; erudition, scientific rigor, text quantity, text
• The use of multimedia characteristics can positioning, and charts quantity and quality.
offer different types of learning stimuli to different Regarding the quality of digital educational
students; resources, Fernández-Pampillón [11] points out that
• They enable a higher individualized it has to do with educational and technological
interaction and discussion; efficiency features. The author associates
• The combination of multimedia educational efficiency with the capacity of the
characteristics increases the chances of showing resource to enhance the teaching and learning
experiments which would be difficult to carry out process and consequently improve academic
without using simulations, videos, animations, performance, whereas technological efficiency is
among others. related to the possibility or not of being a good ICT
According to Pinto [13], digital educational product: reliable, portable and scalable.
resources can be classified within the following It is crucial to promote the use of digital
categories: educational software, educational educational resources within educational
platforms, portals of contents, learning tutorials, communities, especially among students, as
electronic files and thematic resources directories. according to Dahlstrom, Walker, and Dziuban [5],
the relation between students and technology is

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

3 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
C. Morais et al.

complex, as they recognize its value but they still and through regrouping according to previously
need support when it comes to using it better for defined criteria. The categories are classes which
academic purposes. However, they value the ways in integrate the record units. These elements are
which technology helps them achieve their academic grouped due to the fact that they share certain
goals and prepares them for their academic and characteristics in an attempt to present the meaning
professional future. of the raw data in a condensed and simplified way.
We believe that the introduction of qualitative Moraes [16] considers categorization as a
aspects in research works can enrich them and procedure to group data considering what there is in
provide data that the quantitative methodology common between its parts. Classification takes place
cannot provide. Therefore, even agreeing that it is by similarity or analogy, according to criteria
necessary to admit some subjectivity in the treatment established or defined previously in the process.
of qualitative data, we chose to approach qualitative After organizing a set of information within a set
aspects in this paper. of categories, the latter must verify at least two
When we have a set of qualitative data, it is essential characteristics: exclusivity and
important to give it a practical and useful sense, completeness. Exclusivity ensures that there is no
organizing it by identifying each of its parts and record unit belonging to more than one category;
grouping it so as to be able to distinguish between completeness ensures that each record unit identified
the most representative information and the least within the set of information was integrated in some
representative of each topic under study. Thus, category.
considering the information under analysis, which Content analysis is essential when researchers
may be a text, a book, a set of answers to a question follow the qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative
or a set of answers to a questionnaire, among others, research is quite complex at times due to the various
the following question arises: how can we measure dimensions it involves as well as the difficulty in
this magnitude (set of information)? Usually, in defining the analysis unit and in codifying the record
order to measure a magnitude, we select a unit and units in coherence with the analysis unit.
then verify how many times the chosen unit “fits” in Therefore, we included a qualitative component in
the magnitude being measured, considering that this paper in order to provide a better understanding
number of times the measure of the magnitude. of the importance given by students to digital
Moraes [16] refers the following stages within the educational resources.
content analysis process: preparation of the
information, transformation of the content into units, 3. Methodology used
categorization, description and interpretation.
The study assumes both a quantitative and a
Within the context of content analysis, and
qualitative approach. Quantitative research is an
considering a set of information for analysis, we
approach which enables to test the relation between
designated as analysis unit the minimal unit which
variables. These variables may be measured by tools
allows us to break down the whole information into
which provide numerical data which can be analyzed
several units. We identified each unit from the
by statistical procedures [18]. According to Kumar
minimal unit and called them record units. After
[19], a study can be considered quantitative when it
organizing the record units into classes according to
intends to quantify the variation of a phenomenon,
clearly defined criteria, we obtain categories. Thus,
situation, problem or question, when the information
each category is a class composed of a set of record
is obtained from variables predominantly
units which have a similar sense or meet the same
quantitative, and the data analysis is oriented
association criteria.
towards the assessment of its variation magnitude.
According to Bardin [17], the analysis unit is the
The qualitative approach implies essentially the
significance unit to be codified and corresponds to
definition of analysis units, record units and
the segment of content to be considered as the base
categories and the integration of the record units into
unit, intending the categorization, the counting and
the respective categories.
the frequency. In other words, we can consider as
The data was obtained through a questionnaire
analysis unit the minimal unit of information which
built by the authors of the study and subsequently
enables to codify the information under analysis
validated, composed of closed-ended questions, thus
within a set of other units, each of which will be
making the variables involved in the research
called record unit. The same author adds that the
assume whole numerical figures. The questionnaires
categorization is an operation of classification of
were administered within the classroom context and
elements included in a set through differentiation

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

4 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
 The use of digital educational resources in the support to learning in higher education

entire classes were questioned. The questionnaires 4. Results of the assessment of the
were filled in at the beginning of one of the lessons importance and use of digital
of each class involved with the previous educational resources by
authorization of the teachers as well as the presence undergraduates
of at least one of the researchers. The sample was
non-probabilistic as the selection was not random. The results were treated according to the aims
However, an effort was made so that it would be defined for the research. Therefore, we present the
representative of the whole of undergraduates data and the respective interpretation regarding: the
enrolled in the two schools where the data was importance that students give to digital educational
obtained, namely the school of Education and the resources in the support to learning, and the use
school of Technology and Management. In the frequency of digital educational resources.
school of Education, there were 1617 students Throughout the treatment of data, not only will we
enrolled in the 2013/2014 academic year and 210 highlight the results related to the whole sample but
students answered the questionnaire. In the school of we will also give particular attention to the students’
Technology and Management, there were 2285 evolution regarding their relationship with digital
students enrolled in that same year and 105 educational resources by analyzing the results
answered the questionnaire. according to the curricular year in which the sample
Thus, among a population of 3902 a sample of subjects are enrolled.
315 subjects was extracted which corresponds to
approximately 8% of the population. 4.1. The importance of digital educational
Among the characteristics of the sample we
resources in the support to learning
highlight: 93 (29.5%) are male and 222 (70.5%) are
female. The mean age is 20.8 years old, the mode The importance of digital educational resources in
and the median are 20 years old and the standard the support to learning was assessed from the
deviation is 2.7. answers given to the following question: Mark with
Among the sample subjects, 161 (51.1%) were a cross (X) the option which best translates the
enrolled in the 1st year, 70 (22.2%) in the 2nd year importance that you give to digital educational
and84 (26.7%) in the 3rd year. resources in the support to learning for the items
Another feature considered in the sample presented in Table 2.
characterization regards their IT knowledge. The
data was obtained from the answers to the question: Table 2. Digital educational resources in learning
Classify your general IT knowledge (mark only one (n=315)
option): a) Basic; b) Intermediate; c) Advanced.
Digital educational
The results obtained from the answers to this resources are
DA NI LI IM VI EI
question are presented in Table 1. (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
important to:
Study alone 0 0.6 3.2 30.5 40.3 25.4
Table 1. Classification of the sample subjects’ IT Work in group 0 0.3 2.2 23.5 52.1 21.9
knowledge
Do classroom activities 1.9 0 2.2 23.2 50.2 22.5
Do activities outside the
IT knowledge n % 1.0 0 3.5 26.7 44.8 24.1
classroom
Basic 90 28.6 Improve learning
0 0.6 1.3 21.0 43.2 34.0
willingness
Intermediate 199 63.2 Improve the taste for
0.6 0.6 1.6 21.6 45.7 29.8
research
Advanced 24 7.6
Increase knowledge 0.3 0 0.3 11.4 42.2 45.7
Doesn’t answer 2 0.6
Clarify doubts 1.0 0 0.6 14.0 39.0 45.4
Improve written
Considering the data presented in Table 1, we see 0.6 1.3 4.1 24.4 43.8 25.7
communication
that the majority of subjects classified their IT Improve oral
0.6 1.6 7.9 24.8 36.5 28.6
knowledge as intermediate (63.2%). The others communication
consider to have basic IT knowledge (28.6%) and Interpret texts 1.0 0.3 4.8 27.0 39.0 27.9
advanced knowledge (7.6%). Caption: DA – Doesn’t Answer, NI - Not Important, LI – of Little Importance, IM - Important, VI
- Very Important, EI - Extremely Important.

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

5 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
C. Morais et al.

The options considered were: not important, of improve the taste for research and improve learning
little importance, important, very important and willingness.
extremely important. The assessment of the
importance regarding the support to learning was Table 3. Score means regarding the importance
analyzed widely and involved several aspects such given to digital educational resources in the support
as learning strategies, motivation and learning tasks. to learning
In order to better interpret the sample subjects’ Digital educational resources
1st Year
2nd
3rd Year
answers, we decided to give a number to each option are important to: Year
of answer. The options were numbered as follows: 0 Study alone 3.77 4.11 3.85
– doesn’t answer; 1 – not important; 2 – of little Work in group 3.88 4.07 3.92
importance; 3 – important; 4 – very important; 5 –
extremely important. According to this convention, Do classroom activities 3.91 3.84 3.83
we present in Table 2 the percentages regarding the Do activities outside the classroom 3.78 4.01 3.92
distribution of answer scores for the several items
under analysis. Improve learning willingness 4.00 4.17 4.18
Considering the data presented in Table 2, the Improve the taste for research 3.96 4.06 4.06
recognition of the importance of digital educational
Increase knowledge 4.29 4.40 4.32
resources was widely accepted, as in all the aspects
under analysis, over 65% of the answers fell on the Clarify doubts 4.27 4.33 4.20
options very important and extremely important. Improve written communication 3.93 3.90 3.71
By adding up the percentages obtained in the
options very important and extremely important, we Improve oral communication 3.89 3.76 3.68
conclude that the importance of resources according Interpret texts 3.84 3.96 3.83
to the support they can provide to learning ranging
from the most important to the least important is as
follows: increase knowledge; clarify doubts; improve In order to assess whether there were any
learning willingness; improve the taste for research; significant differences in the importance given to
work in group; do classroom activities; improve digital educational resources depending on the
written communication; do activities outside the curricular year that students are enrolled in, we used
classroom; interpret texts; study alone; improve oral the Levene test to analyze the variances in the
communication. distribution of data regarding each curricular year,
Bearing in mind that the study involved subjects and we used Student’s t test to assess the existence of
enrolled in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd curricular years, we significant differences between the means of each
analyzed the way the year in which each subject was pair of groups. Thus, we compared the data regarding
enrolled influenced the importance given to resources each item between 1st year and 2nd year students,
in the support to learning. Thus, and considering the between 1st and 3rd year students and finally,
convention of the numerical value given to each between 2nd and 3rd year students.
option of answer, which makes the answer of each In all the comparisons made, significant
subject to each item assume a value ranging from differences were found only between the groups of
zero to five, we were able to find the mean of the 1st and 2nd year students regarding the item study
score given by the sample subjects from each alone, to which 2nd year students appear to give
curricular year to each one of the items under more importance.
analysis. The distribution of means by curricular year After analyzing the importance given to digital
is presented in Table 3. educational resources in the support to learning, we
Considering the data in Table 3, it is clear that the analyzed the use frequency of such resources by the
students in the 2nd year are those who most value same sample subjects.
digital educational resources to: interpret texts,
clarify doubts, increase knowledge, do activities 4.2. Use frequency of digital educational
outside the classroom, work in group and study resources by undergraduates
alone. On the other hand, the students in the 1st year
appear to value more digital educational resources to The use frequency of digital educational resources
improve oral communication and do classroom tasks. was measured from the answers given to the
The students in the 3rd year do not seem to stand out
question: Mark with a cross (X) the option which
in any of the items, but give most importance, with
the same score as 2nd year students, to the items: best translates the use that you make of the items:
video websites, online encyclopedias, blogs, wikis,

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

6 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
 The use of digital educational resources in the support to learning in higher education

scientific repositories, social networks, e-learning than in physical spaces. They add that the
platforms, discussion forums, and searching engines. dependence on digital spaces coexists with the
The options of answer associated with each constant need students have to be in touch with other
resource were: never, few times, sometimes, many people, whereas it is online or in person. Personal
times, and always. Reading and interpreting data networks and the relationships which compose them
which involves simultaneously several variables and are important factors regarding the strategies for
options of answer for each variable is not searching information.
straightforward. Therefore, we chose to give each After a global analysis of the frequency use of
option a number, thus giving sense to the use digital educational resources by the sample subjects,
frequency of each resource with one single score. we went on to assess whether or not that frequency
The numbers given to each option of answer were as was influenced by the curricular year in which
follows: 0 – doesn’t answer; 1 – never; 2 – few students were enrolled. Considering the scoring
times; 3 – sometimes; 4 – many times; 5 – always. means of the use of each resource from the zero to
This way, the assessment of the use frequency of five scale which was established, we assessed the
each resource was made by analyzing the means existence of significant differences between the
resulting from the defined scoring. The distribution referred means according to the respective curricular
of data regarding the whole of the answers is years. In Table 5, we present the data regarding each
presented in Table 4. group of sample subjects, namely the 1st, 2nd and
3rd year students.
Table 4. Use frequency of the resources in the
support to learning (n=315) Table 5. Means of use frequency of the resources in
the support to learning (range 0 to 5 points)
DA NE FT ST MT AL
Resources
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Resources 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Video websites 1.0 1.0 14.0 30.5 43.8 9.8
Video websites 3.48 3.54 3.3
Online
1.0 4.8 26.3 39.7 23.5 4.8
encyclopedias Online encyclopedias 2.78 3.16 3.07
Blogs 0 9.5 32.1 38.7 16.8 2.9
Blogs 2.6 2.96 2.74
Wikis 1.3 11.7 18.7 40.0 21.9 6.3
Wikis 2.94 2.81 2.85
Scientific
2.5 12.4 26.3 31.7 21.3 5.7 Scientific repositories 2.52 3.01 2.93
repositories
Social networks 1.9 6.3 14.0 14.9 29.5 33.3 Social networks 3.66 3.87 3.4
E-learning
2.2 9.2 21.9 35.9 22.2 8.6 E-learning platforms 2.72 3.2 3.08
platforms
Discussion Discussion Forums 2.22 2.33 2.57
1.3 20.6 39.0 24.4 11.1 3.5
Forums
Searching Searching engines 4.2 4.23 4.27
1.3 1.9 1.6 9.8 39.0 46.3
engines
Caption: DA – Doesn’t Answer; NE - Never, FT – Few Times, ST - Sometimes, MT - Many By observing Table 5, we can see that the 3rd year
Times, AL - Always
students are the ones who presented the highest use
After analyzing the data in Table 4, we concluded frequency of searching engines and discussion
that all the resources under assessment were used by forums; 2nd year students presented the highest
at least some of the students. The information that frequency use of e-learning platforms, social
stands out is that searching engines were used many networks, scientific repositories, blogs, online
times or always by over 85% of the sample subjects encyclopedias and video websites; 1st year students
and that video websites and social networks were presented the highest frequency use only regarding
used many times or always by more than 50% of the wikis. This result concerning 1st year students
sample subjects, whereas discussion forums were deserves some reflection, especially on the type of
used many times or always by only 14.6% of the wikis that students use the most before entering
sample subjects. higher education and what are the reasons which
Connaway, Lanclos and Hood [7] point out that influence the decrease of interest in wikis throughout
according to the opinion of students themselves, they higher education.
look for information by using internet resources such In order to analyze whether or not the difference
as searching engines and social networks more often between the means was significant, we used the

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

7 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
C. Morais et al.

Levene statistical test to assess the equality of to course units were obtained from the answers
variances and Student’s t test to assess the equality given by the sample students to the question:
between the means. Highlight two adjectives which classify: a) The use
When comparing the scoring means of 1st and of educational resources in the support to course
2nd year students, we assumed the equality of units; b) Digital educational resources.
variances by applying Levene’s test, thus it was not After reading all the answers and after assessing
possible to reject the null hypothesis with a which analysis unit best translated the subjects’
significance lower than 5%, in all variables except answers so as to enable their categorization, we
the variable social networks. By applying the t test to defined as analysis unit: “each adjective identified in
the variables in which we assumed the equality of the answers given by the subjects who participated
variances between the distribution of data, we in the study”. This analysis unit enabled us to
concluded that there were significant differences identify all the adjectives in the answers, each of
between the two groups of students in the variables which was identified as a record unit.
online encyclopedias (Sig. 0.009), blogs (Sig. Not all the sample students answered the given
0.006), scientific repositories (Sig. 0.003), and e- question. Among the 315 sample students, 155
learning platforms (Sig. 0.003). In all the situations sample subjects (49.2%) answered point a), whereas
mentioned, the group which presented the highest 135 sample subjects (42.9%) answered point b). In
use frequency was the 2nd year subjects group. the answers given to point a), we identified 266
When comparing the 1st and 3rd year subjects, record units, whereas in the answers given to point
and combining the Levene test of the equality of b), 223 record units were identified.
variances with the application of the t test for the Bearing in mind that the main aim of asking the
equality between means, we concluded that there question presented was to obtain from students the
were significant differences between the two groups classification of digital educational resources and of
in the variables online encyclopedias (Sig. 0.025), their use in the support to course units, on the whole
scientific repositories (Sig. 0.008) and e-learning of all the record units, we defined for each point a)
platforms (Sig. 0.020). In all the situations and b) the following categories: support to learning;
mentioned, the group with the highest use frequency resources specificities; resources potentialities; and
was the 3rd year subjects group. others.
By following the same procedures to compare the Considering the fact that the adjectives used by
groups of 2nd and 3rd year subjects, we concluded students to characterize digital educational resources
that there were significant differences between the and their use in the support to course units were the
groups only in the variable social networks (Sig. same ones, we defined the same categories for the
0.023). In this case, 2nd year subjects presented a answers to both points a) and b).
higher use frequency than the 3rd year ones. We hereafter present the definition of each one of
To sum up, with the exception of social networks, the categories mentioned as well as examples of the
in all the cases in which significant differences were adjectives which compose them:
found, the higher is the curricular year in which the
subjects are enrolled, the higher the use frequency of  Support to Learning: it includes all the
resources supporting learning is. adjectives which translate aspects regarding the
global characteristics of the resource or of its
use. Examples: support, help, essential,
4.3. Classification of digital educational important, useful, crucial;
resources and of their use in the support to  Resources Specificities: it includes all the
course units by undergraduates adjectives which translate specific aspects or
characteristics of the resources or of their use.
The presentation of results concerning the Examples: appealing, flexible, enthralling,
classification of digital educational resources and of practical, quick, and simple;
their use to support course units follows a qualitative
 Resources potentialities: it includes all the
approach. Therefore, we defined an analysis unit,
adjectives which translate potentialities
identified record units, defined categories and
associated with the resources or their use.
integrated the record units into the respective
Examples: research, cooperation, exploration,
categories.
communication and interaction;
The results regarding the classification of digital
educational resources and of their use in the support

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

8 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
 The use of digital educational resources in the support to learning in higher education

 Others: it includes all the adjectives which were To sum up, the adjectives associated with digital
not included in the previous categories. resources and with their use in the support to the
Examples: fair, free. teaching and learning process within the scope of
course units can be integrated in the following
In Table 6, we present the distribution of the categories: support to learning, specificities of digital
record units identified in students’ answers among educational resources, and potentialities of digital
the respective categories. educational resources. According to the answers
given by undergraduates, the most representative
Table 6. Classification of the use of digital categories are the two first ones.
educational resources in the support to course units
(n=266)
5. Conclusions
Categories Record Units This paper presents results obtained from a study
N. of units % carried out in the 2013/2014 academic year, among a
sample of 315 undergraduates from a Portuguese
Support to learning 144 54.1 higher education institution. The data was obtained
Resources specifities 98 36.8 through a questionnaire containing both closed-
ended and open-ended questions. The main aims of
Resources 22 8.3
potentialities the study were: to assess the importance given by
Others 2 0.8 undergraduates to digital educational resources in
the support to learning; identify the use frequency of
digital educational resources in the support to
In the light of the data presented in Table 6, we learning; and classify digital educational resources
can conclude that the majority of students associate according to the students’ opinions translated into
the use of digital educational resources with the adjectives associated with digital educational
support to learning, with a significant resources and with their use. Among the results
representativeness of the percentage of adjectives obtained from this study we highlight:
associated with the specific characteristics of each - Most subjects who participated in the study give
digital educational resource. great importance to digital educational resources to:
In Table 7, we present the distribution of the increase knowledge, clarify doubts, improve learning
record units identified in the answers among the willingness, improve the taste for research, work in
respective categories. group, do classroom activities, improve written
communication, do activities outside the classroom,
Table 7. Classification of digital educational interpret texts, study alone, and improve oral
resources (n=223)
communication. By comparing the referred aspects
Categories Record Units between the groups of students enrolled in the 1st,
N. of units % 2nd and 3rd curricular years, we concluded that there
are significant differences between the 1st and the
Support to learning 89 39.9 2nd year groups regarding the item study alone, to
Resources specifities 112 50.2 which the group of students in the 2nd year gave
more importance.
Resources 19 8.5
potentialities - The digital educational resources which are most
Others 3 1.3 used many times or always by over 50% of the
sample subjects are: searching engines, social
networks and video websites. By comparing the use
Considering the data presented in Table 7, we frequency between the 1st and 2nd year groups, we
conclude that given the number of record units found significant differences, with a level of
included in each category, the most representative significance lower than 5% in the variables online
categories are Resources specificities and Support to encyclopedias, blogs, scientific repositories and e-
learning, thus showing that students value the learning platforms. The 2nd year group presented the
specific characteristics of each resource and the highest use frequency in all the cases. When
support to learning that each resource may provide comparing the use frequency of digital educational
within the course units. resources between the 2nd and the 3rd year student
groups, significant differences were identified in the

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

9 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5
C. Morais et al.

variable social networks, in which the 2nd year SACAUSEF VII, pp. 11-34. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação e
Ciência, disponível em http://www.crie.min-
student group presented the highest use frequency. edu.pt/index.php?section=402&module=navigationmodule
The classification of digital educational resources [7] Connaway, S., Lanclos, D. and Hood, E. (2013), I always stick
and of their use in the support to course units was with the first thing that comes up on Google… Where People Go
for Information, What They Use, and Why”. EDUCAUSE Review
carried out based on the students’ opinions translated Online
into adjectives. In order to treat the data, we defined [8] Wetzler, P., Bethard, S., Leary, H., Butcher, K., Danesh, S., Zhao,
as analysis unit each adjective stated in the answers J., Martin, J. and Sumner, T. (2013), Characterizing and predicting
the multifaceted nature of quality in educational web resources.
and we defined the following categories: support to ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, Vol. 3, No.
learning, resources specificities, resources 3, article 15
potentialities, and others. As examples of the [9] Yang, L. (2014), Integration and utilization of digital learning
resources in community education. In L. Shaozi, J. Qun, J.
adjectives included in each category, we highlight: Xiaohong, J. Park (Eds) Frontier and Future Development of
support to learning: support, help, essential, Information Technology in Medicine and Education, ITME 2013,
important, useful and crucial; resources specificities: pp. 2953-2959. Springer Science+Business Media Dordretch,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7618-0_375
appealing, flexible, enthralling, practical, quick and [10] Carneiro, R., Rodrigues, A., Matos, J., Almeida, J. and Melo, R.
simple; resources potentialities: research, (2010), Recursos educativos digitais: um serviço público. Lisboa:
cooperation, exploration, communication and CEPCEP, Universidade Católica Portuguesa
interaction. The categories found to be the most [11] Fernández-Pampillón, A. (2013), A new AENOR project for
measuring the quality of digital educational materials. TEEM’13
representative of the subjects’ answers in the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technological
classification of digital educational resources were Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 133-139.
Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca
support to learning and resources specificities.
[12] Hylén, J. (2007), Digital Learning resources – possibilities and
This study reveals that students recognize the challenges for the school. Ed. Swedish Agency for School
great value of digital educational resources in the Improvement
support to learning and that many of these are used [13] Pinto, M. (2007), Evaluación de la cálidade de recursos
electrónicos educativos para el aprendizaje significativo. Cadernos
many times or always by the majority of students. SACAUSEF nº 2, pp 25-42
We also point out that in the classification of the [14] Wiley, D., (2000), Connecting learning object to instructionsl
resources, students give particular attention to design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy, Utah
State University Learning Environments Research Group, Logan
general aspects of their use, to their specific
[15] Tarouco, L., Fabre, M., Tamusiunas, F., (2003), Reusabilidade de
characteristics and to their potentialities. objetos educacionais, Disponível em:
In the light of the results presented, and given the http://www.cinted.ufrgs.br/renote/fev2003
/artigos/marie_reusabilidade.pdf
support, the characteristics and the potentialities that
[16] Moraes, R. (1999), Análise de conteúdo, Revista Educação, Porto
undergraduates value in digital educational Alegre, nº 37
resources, we think that these resources must [17] Bardin, L., (2013), Análise de conteúdo, Edições 70
continue to have an increasing importance within the [18] Creswell, J. (2014), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
context of higher education. mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publication
Ltd
[19] Kumar, R. (2011), Research methodology: A step-by-step guide
for beginners. London: SAGE Publication Ltd
References
[1] Davidson, C. and Goldberg, D. (2009), The future of learning
institutions in a digital age. Massachusetts: The MIT Press
[2] Ramos, J., Teodoro, V., Fernandes, J., Ferreira, F. and Chagas, I.
(2010), Portal das Escolas - Recursos educativos digitais para
Portugal: Estudo estratégico. Lisboa: Gabinete de Estatísticas e
Planeamento da Educação (GEPE)
[3] Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I. and Mcgill, L. (2008), Characterising
effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, nº 50, pp.
757–771
[4] Cesteros, A. , Romero, E. and Ranero, I. (2012), Diez criterios para
mejorar la calidad de los materiales didácticos digitales. In Actas
de las VII Jornadas Campus Virtual UCM: valorar, validar y
difundir Campus Virtual., pp. 25-34. Madrid: Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, http://eprints.ucm.es/20241
[5] Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. and Dziuban, C. (2013), with a foreword
by G. Morgan. ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology (research report). Louisville, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research, disponível em
http://www.educause.edu/ecar
[6] Ramos, J., Teodoro, V. and Ferreira, F. (2011), Recursos
educativos digitais: reflexões sobre a prática. Cadernos

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

10 e-Learning
01-03 2015 | Volume 2 | Issue 5 | e5