Informing eLearning design and practice: lessons learned from the student experience of eLearning

1
Informing eLearning design and practice lessons
learned from the student experience of eLearning

• Mandy Atkinson
• Dr. Kate Armstrong

2
Project Overview

• Building on a previous research project involving
  the student experience of eLearning (Atkinson,
  2005) it involves qualitative focus groups with
  undergraduate students experiencing elearning
  through their studies within three different
  Schools within the University.

3
Project Context

• Funding sought from LEAP in 2006 to research the
  student experiences of eLearning further.
• This time looking at eLearning experiences across
  three Schools within the University and looking
  at first and third year undergraduate students,
  as they start and end their undergraduate studies
  (BUS, CMS, HUM)
• There are limited studies in the area of the
  student experience and fewer studies that look at
  the study of eLearning comprehensively. Most
  studies in regard to the innovation of eLearning
  are taken from a tutor perspective (Sharpe,
  Benfield, Lessner DeCicco, 2005).
• The investigation drew on an instrument developed
  by (Delvin 2002) for gathering student
  perceptions of teaching and learning which
  acknowledges the significant value of detailed
  student views on their learning environments.

4
Aim and objectives

• To explore students understanding of e-learning
• To explore the students past and present
  experiences of e-learning
• To explore the students perceptions of their
  type of learning style
• To explore students preconceptions of learning
  expectations prior to joining University
• To explore positive and negative aspects of the
  student experience and how this can inform
  elearning practice amongst teachers and improve
  elearning delivery.

5
Challenges of eLearning

• As a result of the rapid development of the
  internet and web based resources there has been a
  substantial expansion in elearning, which impacts
  upon the quality of teaching and learning
  received (Kramer 2000)
• The prominence and importance of ICT in HE
  continues to grow each year (Selwyn 2003)
  although social pscychological barriers are
  still paramount despite ICT skills (Crampthorn
  2004)
• The wide range of participants getting involved
  in elearning is so diverse adding to the
  challenge (Harris and Higgson 2003)
• Use of technologies vary tremendously in purpose
  and practice (Ehrmann 1995)

6
Methodology

• The study aims to explore experiences and
  expectations
• Methodology was qualitative and takes an
  interpretive, phenomenological approach
• Interpretive researchers begin their study with
  the assumption that a phenomenon can only be
  understood through the mouthpiece of the
  individuals who experience it (Myers, 1997).

7
Interpretive Research

• Interpretive research understanding phenomena
  through meanings that people assign to them
• Does not predefine variables, but focuses on the
  complexity of consumer behaviour as the situation
  emerges (Kaplan and Maxwell, 1994)

8
Phenomenology

• Phenomenological inquiry asks What is the
  structure and essence of experience of this
  phenomenon for people? Patton (1990)
• Rich, thick descriptive data is produced,
  allowing the researcher to then identify patterns
  and themes, so that understanding can be
  generated
• It has implications throughout the research
  design from conception to conclusion

9
Methodological Approach

• Who 1st and 3rd year CMS, HUM, and BUS students
• What 18 focus groups, mixed gender, school, and
  level specific
• Where Greenwich University
• When May 2006 June 2006
• Why To explore student experiences and
  expectations of e-learning at Greenwich University

10
Recruitment

• Email
• Filter questionnaire
• Invitation
• CMS, HUM, BUS 1st 3rd years
• Focus group attendance
• Repeat above until convergence reached

11
Indicative Results

• Majority of students were happy using (and
  expected) technology in their learning
• Perception of elearning
• Some confusion regarding the term elearning
• Elearning is being referred to by students as
  everything on line that facilitates discussion
  communication
• Issues regarding experience and expectations
• Impact of learning styles
• Impact of culture

12
The Cloudiness of E- LearningE is for
Everything?.

• Positively, they all understood that the
  assimilation of knowledge and learning is
  central to e-learning. However, they described
  E-learning as everything that is on line from
  the internet to downloading lecture slides.
• Is this a problem?
• Are we in danger of diluting the impact meaning
  of e-learning? O
• Or should we embrace how they see e-learning, as
  everything on
• line?

13
The Scope of Elearning

• To see eLearning from the learners viewpoint,
  we must see technology in the broadest sense
  possible.. (Sharpe, Benfield, Lessner DeCicco,
  2005)

14
Student Definitions

• Its to do with on-line facilities and CD-Roms,
  learning through groups as well as individually.
  Interaction outside of the classroom or lecture
  hours. Provides support and extra resources,
  reduces administration (CMS, 3rd)
• The lecturer set us tasks every week and we
  would have to go onto webct and onto the
  discussion board and write a synopsis on what we
  had read in journals that week. Which in affects
  aids your learning. So everyone is posting their
  experiences so it kind of forces you to discuss
  things (BUS, 3rd)

15
Student Definitions

• Our response to e-learning is that e-learning is
  using on-line resources for learning and this
  includes articles, journals, newspapers, emails
  and the internet and webCt (HUM, 1st)
• Basically ..its a means of learning - the
  medium is electronic like internet, email,
  on-line chat systems, discussion boards. I think
  that e-learning is quite vast in its use, because
  we also have a knowledge base which is like an
  on-line library everybody adds information to
  that library and you cannot be an expert in your
  field because things expire so quickly. So if
  you want to have some special information about
  anything you can go on-line and go to a knowledge
  base and get that information from there (CMS,
  3rd)

16
MSN innit?

• Some students talked about their e-learning
  experiences -
• using MSN as a vehicle
• for communicating
• with colleagues to
• share information
• learn.
• This is far-removed from
• traditional definitions of
• e-learning..

I use MSN as opposed to WebCT to talk to my
classmates, because its a lot quicker..thats
what a lot of people in my class do too (Male,
BUS, 1st)
17
Attributes of E-Learning

• The elearners experience is complex and
  conceptually involves many facets. These need to
  be explored and unravelled to understand students
  attitudes, experiences and perceptions (Entwistle
  2002).
• Students remarked on several attributes that they
  perceive with e-learning
• Convenience
• Ease of use
• Flexibility
• Time efficient
• Enhances learning
• NB need for effective student time management

18
Barriers to E-learning

• Need computer/web accessibility
• In student halls we share access to a laptop
  with six other students and if I come into Uni I
  have to queue to use a PC (1st year, HUM)
• IT savvy/literate
• Removed or limited face to face contact with
  tutors.
• Unclear expectations of students and tutors
• Computer problems uncertainty with uploading
• Lack of input from tutors/disinterest
• Lack of consistency across courses
• E-learning is no SUBSTITUTE for face to face
  contact
• Cheating (on on-line tests)

19
Current Climate

• Humanities CD content, online presentations,
  some webct
• CMS Teachmat designed VLE, we thought they
  would be more advanced in terms of approach and
  student experiences
• BUS exclusive WebCT

20
Distinctions Differences

• Surprisingly, no stark difference across the
  three schools
• The same issues/concerns
• Similar positive/negative experiences
• Unsurprisingly (?) differences noted between 1st
  3rd years, with the 3rd years relying more
  heavily on on-line learning tools
• Surprisingly, the 1st years were not as savvy as
  we expected, considering that they are typically
  associated with being an emerging techno
  generation
• Will this change in the future?

21
Cultural Nuances

• International students, especially those from
  India had a higher level of expectation of
  e-learning

In India we had something called the blackboard,
which was like WebCT so the teacher puts all of
the modules that he is doing and you can access
the lecture notes and various resources (BUS,
3rd)
22
Cultural Nuances

• Culture and language have an influence on a
  learners reaction to eLearning (e.g. Engelbright
  Sheldrake 2003)

23
Emerging influences

• The range of influences on student as they learn
  (Trigwell 1995)
• The impact of the tutor
• The impact of pedagogy and design
• Important issues concerning staff development in
  addition to teaching strategies such as teachers
  conception of learning has a major impact on
  planning courses, teaching strategies and how
  students learn (Alexander 2001)
• Learning styles and approaches to study (Mayes
  2004)

24
Learner Style

• Independent vs Group (both please) as reflected
  in Salmon (2004) the need for etutors to
  appreciate their audience
• 1st vs 3rd years
• Learning through interaction
• Face to face contact
• to support on-line
• activities.

I learn better through interaction. I like
going to the lectures asking questions and
things like that. Sometimes you find that
lectures talk about other things.that you
wouldnt get from lecture notes.
Interaction..thats how I learn best and I
remember (Female, CMS, 1st)
25
Learner Style

• Positive technology helps improve learning
  skills, flexible
• Negative should not be in place of face to face
  interaction, should be maintained and updated,
  uniform across courses

It has improved my learning skills..its
empowered me to be independent to get
information whenever I need it (Male, CMS, 1st)
26
Experience vs expectation

• Learners bring with them tremendous differences
  in past experience of education, expectations,
  needs and motivation (Sharpe, Benfield, Lessner
  DeCicco, 2005, Lockitt 2004)
• Tenuous connection between social and learning
  environment

27
Experience vs expectation
28
Experience

• Narratives student experience with elearning is
  key
• Its just depending on our experiencefor some
  of us its faster and easier and saves time,
  because we can get to the internet and search
  through, but someone with no experience, its
  just easier to go to the library to take a book
  out.. (HUM, 3rd)
• What can we do to challenge this status quo of
  perceived difficulty, and get more students using
  e-learning as a first stop?
• Tutor experience, building elearning into the
  design, but not feeding greedy students..

29
Rudimentary Recommendations

• Training, training, training involving tutors
  experiencing elearning as students (Beam Zamora
  2002)
• Sharing, sharing, sharing
• We need to ensure that tutors are au fait with
  e-learning ELearning design pedagogy so that
  they can enhance the students learning
  experience
• Uniformity e-learning being used properly and
  effectively
• Wider sharing of knowledge and practice across
  Schools within the University
• More evaluation and research, feeding back
  results to inform eLearning design pedagogy
• Elearning design needs to enhance connections
  between social learning environments

30
Tri-Perspectives

• There are various perspectives to give
  consideration the organisational or faculty
  perspective (for example (Taylor 2002), student
  perspective (for example (Langdon 1997) and the
  teacher perspective

ORGANISATION
TEACHER
31
INFORM PLANNING FOR FUTURE PEDAGOGY AND DESIGN
Teacher
Student
Organisation/ Teacher
32
Stuck at online socialisation?
33
Where next?

• More research
• Broader student study encompassing all Schools
  within the University
• Tutor interviews
• Talking to those that do or potentially implement
  online e-learning
• What do they think about it?
• Why do they do it? Dont do it? What can be done
  to encourage everyone to get involved?
• Longitudinal study
• Some of the students had expectations of
  e-learning, some didnt
• Would be good to track their experiences
• Will there be a higher expectation of e-learning
  as e-learning becomes ingrained in pre-university
  teaching? And social interaction with
  new-technology increases.

34
References

• Alexander, S. (2001). "E-learning developments
  and experiences " Education Training 43(4/5)
  240-248.
• Atkinson, M. (2005). Bridging the gap teaching
  across abilities. Extending the classroom walls,
  eLearning Conference, University of Greenwich
• Beam T. Zamora. V. (2002) Online Instructors
  Must Be Online Students First. ERIC database
  Volume, 1-7
• Crampthorn, C. (2004), An evaluation of the
  Formal and Underlying factors influencing student
  participation with e-Learning web discussion
  forums, Proceedings of the Networked Learning
  Conference
• Delvin, M. (2002). "An improved questionnaire for
  gathering student perceptions of teaching and
  learning" Higher Education Research development
  vol. 21(no. 3) 289 -303.
• Ehrmann, S. C. (1995), "Asking the right
  questions." Change 27(2) 20-27.
• Englebright, L. Sheldrake, S. (2003),
  Overcoming Social Exclusion Through Online
  Learning, NIACE
• Entwistle, N., MCune, V, Hounsell, J. (2002).
  Approaches to studying and perceptions of
  university teaching-learning environments
  concepts, measures and preliminary findings.
  Occasional Report 1, September 2002. Edinburgh,
  School of Education, Edinburgh University.
• Kaplan, B. and Maxwell, J. (1994). Qualitative
  Research Methods for Evaluating Computer
  Information Systems. In Anderson, J., Aydin,
  C., and Jay, S. (eds.), Evaluating Health Care
  Information Systems Methods and Applications.
  Sage, Thousand Oaks

35
References

• Kramer (2000), Forming a fedearayed virtual
  institution through course broker middleware.
  LearnTec, Heidelberg.
• Langdon (1997). "Online education a student's
  perspective." Campus-Wide Information Systems
  14(no. 4) 128-132.
• Mayes, T. (2004) JISC e-Learning Models Desk
  Study Stage 2 Learner centred Pedagogy
  individual differences between learners JISC
  Online
• Myers, M. (1997). Qualitative Research in
  Information Systems. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 21,
  (2), p..241-242.
• Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and
  Research Methods. California, Sage Publications
• Salmon, G. (2004). Moderatingthe key to teaching
  and learning online. Oxon, Routledge Falmer.
• Selwyn (2003) Understanding students' (non) use
  of information and communications technology in
  university, Cardiff University.,
• Sharpe, R., Lessner, E., and DeCicco, E. (2004).
  Final Report Scoping Study for the Pedagogy
  strand of the JISC e-Learning Programme
• Taylor, R. W. (2002). "Pros and cons of online
  learning -a faculty perspective." Journal of
  European Industrial Training 26(no. 1) 24-37.
• Trigwell, K. (1995), Increasing faculty
  understanding of teaching in Wright, WA (Ed),
  Successful faculty development strategies, Anker
  Publishing