Learning to reference: an undergraduate e-learning project

1
Learning to reference an undergraduate
e-learning project

• C Brown, R. Dickson, V McQuillan, AL Humphreys
• (School of Health Sciences Liverpool Reviews
  Implementation Group)
• Funded by a University of Liverpool Teaching and
  Learning Grant

2
Why?

• Two concerns
• Weak academic writing
• Evidenced throughout all years of the program
  despite significant feedback on assignments
• Plagiaristic behaviour
• Our experience
• University guidelines
• Lessons from the literature

3
Program design assumptions

• Adult learning theory
• Flexible
• Student controlled
• Multi-media
• Demonstrably relevant
• High reward (50 of assignment mark)
• Sufficient support

4
Learning to Reference resources

• Seven audio-visual modules archived in Horizon
  Wimba
• 1 introduction
• 2 rationale and basics of referencing
• 4 Using EndNote software
• Accessed through VITAL module link
• Tracking
• Supporting material

5
Findings (n52)

• Access to computers
• 92.2 university libraries
• 86.3 at home
• 27.5 public library
• 70 own mobile phones, digital TVs, Digital
  camera, MP3 players
• 70 use PCs, e-mail and the internet daily
• 80 perceived current IT Skills as sufficient

6
Uptake

• self-report indicated lt30 uptake of 1st 2
  modules
• Reasons given too busy (58.7), left it too late
  (34), prefer print material (26.1), already
  know how (19.1)

7
And so?

• Students report sufficient IT literacy
• Students report a perceived need
• The incentive was high
• Access to the resource was flexible
• No one attended for in-person assistance

8
We built itbut no one came
When it comes to Self-directed E-learning, the
indefatigable human spirit (that lives in every
lecturer) is not enough
9
What the literature has to say about our new
question

• Uptake is a frequent problem
• (Ehrmann 94, Devitt 99, Greenhalgh 01, Lewis
  01, Steele 02, Hahne 05, Calverley 03,
  Vichitvejpaisal 01)
• Students dont always identify technical problems
• Fear
• Peer pressure
• Cost/benefit analysis
• (Selim 2003, Van Braak 2004, McNulty et al 2006)

10
Mistaking IT literacy for readiness

• Here and now orientation (why spend time now?)
• Buy into better than a class-room
• Additional disincentives
• Telephone costs (most used home/halls)
• Competing demands
• Peer norming
• Learning style

11
Things to considerif it were that simple word
would have gotten around (Derrida in Cilliers
1998)

• Computer assisted learning is complex
• Be clear about motives
• Be aware of the time teaching demands
• Supporting Best Practice in E-Learning across the
  NHS (2005)
• a flexible, inquisitive attitude to a range of
  learning mediums (particularly CBL) must be
  instilled in training
• 2 Key needs
• staff skills to design, deliver develop
• Student skills to undertake e-learning

12
Teaching competencies, Teaching capabilities

• Competencies- demonstrable, measurable skills
• Capability defensible confidence to
  problem-solve in both known novel contexts
  (Phelps et al 2005)
• We assumed competent with IT transferable and
  built capability
• Is the NHS making the same assumption?
• Skills training attitudes and beliefs

13
Recommendations

• Focus on user engagement (before content).
• What mediates engagement (CWAM?)
• Not all students are Adult Learners
• Schedule
• Is it really taught best by e-learning?
• Student culture- students as part of design team.
• Learning what you dont know (continuous
  assessment opportunities)