Learning Environments Research

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 179–196 | Cite as

Validation of a Spanish version of the Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES) in Spain

  • Maria Dolores Fernández-Pascual
  • Rosario Ferrer-Cascales
  • Abilio Reig-Ferrer
  • Natalia Albaladejo-Blázquez
  • Scott L. Walker
Original Paper


The aim of this study was to examine the validity of the Spanish version of the Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (Sp-DELES). This instrument assesses students’ perceptions of virtual learning environments using six scales: Instructor Support, Student Interaction and Collaboration, Personal Relevance, Authentic Learning, Active Learning, and Autonomy. Further, the Sp-DELES includes an additional scale that assesses students’ Satisfaction with their classes. The original DELES has been used in at least 27 independent studies with strong reliability and validity. For this study, we sampled 265 students from the University of Alicante enrolled in various hybrid and distance education courses taught by the Department of Health Psychology. We analysed the Sp-DELES for validity using principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation, and for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The Sp-DELES exhibited good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha for the scales ranging from 0.86 to 0.97) and the original six-factor structure was replicated and accounted for 72.9 % of the total variance. Overall the results are consistent with those of the original English-language version of the instrument. The Sp-DELES has proven to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing psychosocial learning environments in tertiary-level hybrid and distance-education settings.


DELES Distance education Instrument validation Psychosocial learning environment 


  1. Aguaded, J. I., & Fandos, M. (2009). Las plataformas educativas en el e-learning en la educación secundaria: Análisis de la plataforma educans. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación a Distancia, 12(1), 125–168.Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J., Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D., Trinidad, S., & Wood, D. (2003, April). Monitoring the success of an outcomes-based, technology-rich learning environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. United States of America: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
  4. Anderson, G. L., & Walberg, H. J. (1968). Classroom climate group learning. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 2, 175–180.Google Scholar
  5. Azaiza, K. (2010). Women’s dialog and distance education: A university in the Arab world. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Florida.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, M. J. G., Simpson, C., & Walker, S. L. (2006). Student perceptions of learning environments. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10, 182–186.Google Scholar
  7. Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Benito, B., & Salinas, J. (2008). Los entornos tecnológicos en la universidad. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, 32, 83–100.Google Scholar
  10. Díaz, V. M., & Berea, G. A. M. (2011). El alumnado universitario cordobés y la plataforma virtual moodle. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, 38, 121–128.Google Scholar
  11. Ferrer-Cascales, R., Walker, S. L., Reig-Ferrer, A., Fernández-Pascual, M. D., & Albaladejo-Blázquez, N. (2011). Evaluation of hybrid and distance education learning environments in Spain. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1100–1110.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Guerra, S., González, N., & García, R. (2010). Utilización de las TIC por el profesorado universitario como recurso didáctico. Comunicar, 35, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Adaptación de tests para su uso en diferentes idiomas y culturas: fuentes de error, posibles soluciones y directrices prácticas. In E. J. Muñiz (Ed.), Psicometría. Madrid: Universitas.Google Scholar
  18. Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & S. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  20. Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  21. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in Web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelsey, D. K., & D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance: Does interaction matter? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 1–10. Retrieved October 20, 2005 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/kelsey72.html
  23. Liang, J. S. (2006). Motivations for older adults´ participation in distance education: A study at the National Open University of Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  24. MacLeod, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Development, validation and application of a modified Arabic translation of the What Is Happening In this Class (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 13, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martín, B., & Rodríguez, D. (2012). La evaluación de la formación universitaria semipresencial y en línea en el contexto del EEES mediante el uso de los informes de actividad de la plataforma moodle. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación a Distancia, 15(1), 159–178.Google Scholar
  26. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2012). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario. Curso 2011–2012, Secretaría General Técnica. Subdirección General de Información y Publicaciones, Madrid. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/sue/datos-y-cifras-sistema-universitario-espanol.pdf?documentId=0901e72b814eed28
  27. Ministry of Education. (2009). University strategy 2015. Executive summary Ministry of Education. Spanish Government. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://www.educaciones/universidad2015/portada.html
  28. Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human environments: An overview. In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus (pp. 5–29). Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.Google Scholar
  29. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of women in online degree-completion programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  30. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers & Education, 56, 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Özkök, A., Walker, S. L., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2009). Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the DELES. Learning Environments Research, 12, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ray, J. A. (2009). An investigation of online course management systems in higher education: Platform selection, faculty training, and instructional quality. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 5(2), 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodríguez, J. S. (2009). Plataformas de enseñanza virtual para entornos educativos. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, 34, 217–233.Google Scholar
  35. Rojo, V. Á., López, J. C., Flores, J. G., Santero, J. R., & Rodríguez, S. R. (2011). Plataforma FORCOM, un recurso virtual de ayuda para el profesorado universitario. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios y Educación, 38, 49–61.Google Scholar
  36. Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 113–119.Google Scholar
  37. Schonrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., Van Hell, E. A., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2009). Necessary steps in factor analysis: Enhancing validation studies of educational instruments. Medical Teacher, 31, e226–e232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shehab, S. A. J. (2007). Investigating content validity of an instrument to measure undergraduate learners’ perceptions of blended learning and its relationship with some demographic and experimental variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, D., Wanstreet, E. C., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, E. J. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
  42. Trinidad, S., Macnish, J., Aldridge, J., Fraser, B. J., & Wood, D. (2001). Integrating ICT into the learning environment at Sevenoaks Senior College: How educators and students use educational technology in teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Perth.Google Scholar
  43. Tsai, C. W. (2010). Facilitating students to earn computing certificates via blended learning in online problem-solving environment: A cross-course-orientation comparison. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 6(2), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  46. Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welch, A., Cakir, M., Peterson, C., & Ray, C. (2012). A cross-cultural validation of the technology-rich outcomes-focused learning environment inventory (TROFLEI) in Turkey and the United States. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Witowski, L. L. (2008). The relationship between instructional delivery methods and student learning preferences: What contributes to student satisfaction in an online learning environment? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minnesota.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Dolores Fernández-Pascual
    • 1
  • Rosario Ferrer-Cascales
    • 1
  • Abilio Reig-Ferrer
    • 1
  • Natalia Albaladejo-Blázquez
    • 1
  • Scott L. Walker
    • 2
  1. 1.University of AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  2. 2.Northwest Vista CollegeSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations