Drawing upon research into students’ perceptions of their learning experience as distance learners, this paper explores what works well and what doesn’t. How to more effectively support the learning process through better directive and interactive communication emerges as a key theme

Clarke, Julie

Kirk, Rachel

Willett, Andrea

English

Northumbria University Research Portal

1Communicating Learning: Evaluating the learning experience of distance learningstudentsDr Rachel Kirk with Julie Clarke and Andrea WillettSchool of the Built EnvironmentNorthumbria UniversityPaper presented at the Higher Education Academy Conference, July 2008SummaryDrawing upon research into students’ perceptions of their learning experience asdistance learners, this paper explores what works well and what doesn’t. How tomore effectively support the learning process through better directive andinteractive communication emerges as a key theme.IntroductionThis paper draws upon ongoing research into the learning experience ofpostgraduate students enrolled on recently developed Masters Distance LearningProgrammes in the School of the Built Environment, Northumbria University. Thefocus is very much on the processes of learning - what works well and what worksless well- from the student perspective. After outlining the background to theresearch project and its aims and methods, the paper goes on to examine thestudents’ responses. As well as identifying those aspects of course delivery thatstudents welcomed, the paper explores the needs identified by students which, ifaddressed, would help to transform their learning experience. The followingdiscussion is very much a result of preliminary analysis. It focuses on the importanceof effective communication – directive and interactive - in terms of supporting theprocess of learning. For example, developing academic and transferable skills withinthe process of studying modules, encouraging deeper learning through moreactive/interactive approaches (both between tutor and students and amongststudents themselves), creating mechanisms which offer mutual support, reassuranceand encouragement, were all highlighted as contributing to a positive learningenvironment. In the context of distance learning, the importance of effectivecommunication is heightened at the same time as communication channels arepotentially constrained – particularly two-way communication. The paper goes on toconsider how to more effectively support the learning process. Finally, theimportance of embedding the development of, and discussion about, distancelearning programmes within the context of current teaching and learning debates isemphasised.Research projectThe MSc distance learning courses that are the focus of the research project are atan early stage in their evolution. The School of the Built Environment developed asuite of professionally accredited Masters Programmes to be delivered by distancelearning which were mainly based on existing campus taught programmes inConstruction/Surveying and Real Estate. These are two-year part time programmesdesigned for students with a non-cognate degree already working in a relevant2professional environment. Initially the modules were mostly made up of a number ofpapers prepared by staff, typically incorporating text, tasks, self assessment,additional directed reading and use of asynchronous communication throughDiscussion Boards. The papers were made available to students via the University’seLearning portal (Blackboard). In addition, students were invited to attend a seminarheld at the university each semester.The research project is supported by the School of the Built Environment through asmall research grant, recognising the importance of obtaining, understanding andacting upon student feedback in terms of developing courses in a student centredway. The project is being conducted by a small team of researchers (some of whomare involved in the delivery of the distance learning programmes) and is due to becompleted by September 2008. The aim is to evaluate the learning experience fromthe student perspective. The project aims to explore students’ views on what workswell – and less well – in terms of supporting learning effectively, and to inform theongoing evolution of the courses. The first and second cohorts of students to studythe courses are the participants in this research.An initial feedback exercise was conducted with 38 students (two thirds of the total)who were attending one of the supporting seminars at the university. Studentsresponded to general questions about their overall learning experience, whataspects they found to be effective and what aspects were less successful in theiropinion, and what, if anything, they felt was missing. Such views were to inform theissues to be followed up further in the research. On the basis of this initialconsultation an individual questionnaire was developed and was carried outelectronically, with a response rate of approximately 50%. Subsequently, focusgroups were conducted to explore selected issues in a qualitative, in-depth way.Again, given time and resource constraints, these focus groups were carried out atthe university with students attending the second bi-annual support seminar. It mustbe acknowledged that all data was anonymous so it is not known to what extentdifferent respondents participated in the different feedback mechanisms. Forexample, it may be that those who study from a considerable distance are perhapsless likely to attend the university seminars and more likely to respond to the e-survey.Additionally, it is intended that interviews will be conducted with key managerial andadministrative staff associated with the distance delivery programmes. These arecurrently underway as the research is still very much work in progress. This paperpresents an opportunity to explore the emerging issues from the student data andhelp inform the ongoing analysis.The students’ viewsThe initial feedback exercise identified many aspects of their experience thatstudents were highly satisfied with, including on-line facilities and feature ofteaching materials such as drop down answers. Other aspects of teaching materialswere seen as problematic, for example, lengthy text to read within papers with nosupporting tasks. A number of students called for greater diversity within teaching3materials. There were split views about Discussion Boards – some strongly dislikingthem and others identifying them as particularly useful. Lack of/slow/poor feedbackemerged as one of students’ major concerns, while the two day seminar attendanceat the university was overwhelmingly one of the most positive aspects identified bystudents.The survey (29 respondents) demonstrated a considerable level of satisfaction. Forexample, approximately half of respondents were satisfied with the preparationoffered in advance of study. Almost two thirds of students expressed positive viewsabout the appropriateness and effectiveness of the study materials and the taskswithin them. In relation to contact with other students and academic staff,approximately half of the respondents agreed with positive statements.Nevertheless, the survey did suggest that there were a number of issues where asignificant number of respondents were less than satisfied. As identified above halfof respondents did not agree with positive statements about induction or contactwith staff/students. Technical difficulties were acknowledged by a majority ofrespondents as well as delays in getting responses to queries and difficultiescontacting the right person. The respondents were split in relation to the usefulnessof Discussion Boards, as in the interim feedback. In spite of many positive commentsabout study materials, a majority of respondents agreed with the statement thatthey were of variable quality.A number of topics were explored further within three focus groups. Studentdiscussion highlighted the perceived advantages of the distance learning approach asflexibility, in particular allowing students to study alongside working full time. As wellas the financial benefits, the mutually beneficial position of studying a professionallyaccredited Masters alongside working in practice within that profession was clear.This was something that was picked up on further in terms of the benefits ofmeeting peers at university based seminars and the value of sharing practiceexperience in informing theoretical understanding. While advantages identified bystudents were largely to do with personal and professional issues, the disadvantageswere often about the method of study and its organisation. Issues discussedincluded a sense of isolation, a lack of interaction with students and tutors - inparticular, limited opportunities for feedback or clarification - the reliance ontechnology, a feeling of receiving less help and support than students studying amore traditional mode and being ‘less important’.The focus on communication that was evident in the initial feedback was reinforcedin the focus groups – in particular the negative implications for their learningexperience where students perceived an absence of communication. Additionalformative feedback, additional guidance on interpreting information and moreopportunities for discussion, along with a more extensive induction process at theoutset, were all highlighted as potentially enhancing the learning experience.DiscussionPrimarily, it was clear that the emerging issues from the research were located in thebroader academic discourse on the nature of learning and teaching quality (eg Biggs4and Tang, 2007). The rationale for an interactive approach to facilitate studentlearning is well established, as is the need to enable deep rather than surfacelearning, and to encourage reflective practice (see for example Ramsden, 1992;Biggs, 1987; Campbell and Norton eds, 2007). For Laurillard (1999) learning requiresa ‘conversational framework’, involving reflection and adaptation at both theindividual and organisational level.For a considerable number of the student respondents in the research the extent ofthe ‘conversation’ was being questioned. In contrast to their experiences of face-to-face learning, the perceived loss of opportunities to ask questions and get immediateresponses, to seek clarification within a teaching session, to gain support from peers– and the value of such interaction - was apparent. This was demonstrated in theoverwhelming support for the face-to-face seminar provision, and the desire foradditional sessions amongst those who attended. Inevitably, distance learningpresents challenges in developing an interactive element, however, rather thanaiming to replicate face-to-face provision the development of such programmesneeds to identify approaches and techniques to address the kinds of expectationsand needs identified in this research if they are to impact on learning experiences.Induction is vital to establish expectations at the outset of a programme of study.This is a vital process of communication to ensure that tutors and students have ashared understanding of what is entailed. The research identified the particularsignificance of this for students returning to study at postgraduate level for the firsttime or students studying in a professional area that they are unfamiliar with. Yetthere was some dissatisfaction with the level of preparation provided by the initialon-line induction. A comprehensive handbook was received positively by somestudents but a considerable number were unaware of its existence or had not lookedat it. Students in the focus groups wanted to see face-to-face induction withdemonstrations of the technology and opportunities to meet tutors and peers.Indeed the Programme Director has decided to implement this change for thecoming academic year. While there are issues about attendance for some students –especially those who study at a considerable distance – there seem to be potentiallonger term benefits in terms of setting a framework for subsequent study,understanding how the programme works, clarifying expectations, and establishingrelationships at the outset.In studying the modules, an additional focus on directive communication withinstudy materials was identified, as students seemed to want guidance on process aswell as content. Student feedback highlighted the importance of guidance offered bystaff at the course seminars held at the university. The extent to which informationtransfer approaches dominate at the cost of communicating what to do with theinformation, how to process it needs to be considered in the development of e-learning material. In addition to getting across subject specific expertise andtechnical information, are opportunities to develop academic and transferable skillsexploited effectively within an electronic context? Clarity of communication isessential to an effective learning process if students are to engage effectively,understanding what is expected and why. It is important for students to understand5how the course or module ‘fits together’ to achieve a valuable learning experience.An e-learning environment can present additional challenges in terms of effectively‘telling the stories’ of a module or a course; for example the importance of clearlydeveloping the rationale for the programme/module and its assessment, makinglinks between aspects of the course or material within a module more explicit,signposting within the material in order to help students effectively process it andproviding students with the opportunity to query, debate and gain reassurance.As identified earlier, peer interaction was highly valued amongst students. Buildingon a more substantial induction process, students suggested the creation of anonline forum for students would help to develop relationships providing support,sharing experience and tackling isolation. Another suggestion was the creation of a‘buddy system’.Discussion Boards provided some interaction and were welcomed by respondentsfor benefits such as networking and sharing of views. However, other studentsdisliked Discussion Boards and did not use them for a variety of reasons. Theseincluded: dissatisfaction with quality/timing of responses; not liking the sharedaccess to queries and responses; lack of time to engage with them. Studentfrustrations with one to one communications with lecturers – often via e-mail –highlight the significance of having a shared understanding of expectations and alsothe capacity, resource wise, for staff to meet these. In addition building mechanismswithin the module to deal with some of the queries, for example, developing aFrequently Asked Questions page, was something that some focus group participantsthought would be useful. Although the university-based seminars were perceived asmeeting some of these needs, the problems of excluding non attendees and theresource issues for students and the university mean this is not necessarily realisticor appropriate.The potential to facilitate active learning within distance learning context is evident(Rowntree, 1990; Hanna et al 2000, Fisher, 2003 and Salmon 2006). However, theway in which some distance delivery programmes originate does not necessarilyeasily lend itself to integrating such approaches. Distance delivery programmes areinevitably a new departure for teams of staff in many instances. Practically orpragmatically, delivery methods may initially be rather ‘conservative’, using a textdominated approach. Staff development is crucial to developing more innovative,interactive student-centred material. Such development activity should not befocused on distance learning in isolation but firmly grounded in teaching andlearning debates. Ultimately, development has to focus on providing a qualitylearning experience, albeit involving different mechanisms to achieve it, not justtechnical know-how. Training for staff is a vital element of this, ensuring approachesthat are effective for all concerned. In order to embed interactive learning and gainconfidence within the distance-learning context, a similar debate about theinadequacies of traditional lectures needs to be paramount in the development ofstaff involved in preparing and delivering distance learning ensuring issues thataffect students learning are addressed.6As well as the nature of staff development activities, the attitudes and motivations(and resources) of the staff involved are key to the extent to which interactivepotential is achieved. For example, if the initiative is imposed from above andperceived by staff to be inadequately resourced it may be met with resistance andcharacterised by a minimalist approach to design and delivery. Resource allocationand management issues inevitably shape how programmes are developed andsubsequently run. As Salmon (2006:98) comments, ‘Some organisations believe thatthey can obtain a better return on their investment in e-learning by disposingentirely of lecturer, trainer or e-moderating costs…I think that discarding humanintervention is rarely appropriate or successful”. This is certainly reinforced by theviews of student respondents in this research; the human interface was what manyof them valued more than anything. Staff engagement with the ongoing delivery ofdistance learning, (albeit interacting via different mechanisms which may in somecases be more time consuming than traditional delivery), seemed to be essential to apositive student learning experience. If the quality of the learning experience is tobe the driving force then management needs to reflect this in terms of the extentand nature of resources invested in the development and implementation ofdistance learning programmes. As Hanna et al (2000) state, ‘Myth: Timerequirements for teachers are lower in an online environment’.ConclusionStudent feedback highlighted how the learning experience can be shaped by thedesign and delivery of the programme. The importance of effective direction andinteraction in informing students learning was evident, including peer interactionwhich was seen as vital to providing support and aiding understanding (especially inthe context of professional courses). Also, the significance of module design and theimportance of minimising any sense of isolation, remoteness or uncertainty were allillustrated by student responses. Such issues pose particular challenges in a distance-learning context. It is the potential for the much valued interaction - which both thestudent and tutor can take for granted in a face to face delivery context – that needsto be maximised in order to promote more effective and rewarding learning andteaching experiences for students and staff involved in distance delivery.ReferencesBiggs J B (1987) Student approaches to learning and studying Hawthorn, Victoria:Australian Council for Educational ResearchBiggs J and Tang C (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University 3rd EditionMaidenhead: Open University PressCampbell A and Norton L (2007) Learning, Teaching and Assessing in HigherEducation: Developing Reflective Practice Exeter: Learning MattersFisher M (2003) Designing Courses and Teaching on the Web Oxford: ScarecrowEducation7Hanna D, Glowacki-Dudka M, Conceicao-Runlee S (2000) 147 practical tips forteaching online groups Madison: Atwood PublishingLaurillard D (1999) A Conversational framework for individual learning applied to thelearning organisation and the learning society Systems Research and BehaviouralScience 16, 113-122Ramsden P (1992) Learning to teach in Higher Education London: RoutledgeRowntree D (1990) Teaching through self instruction: How to develop open learningmaterials London: Kogan PageSalmon, G (2006) E-tivities: the key to active online learning London: RoutledgeFarmer8

Communicating learning: evaluating the learning experience of distance learning students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northumbria University Research Portal