· web viewthe 2014 ilearn student experience survey is part of a wider learning and teaching...

iLearn Evaluation ReportILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2014

Produced by Jayde Cahir (Chief Investigator), Helen Carter (Co-Investigator), Cathy Rytmeister (Statistical analysis and advice), Lucy Arthur (Faculty iLearn Support Coordination) and Rebecca Ritchie (Central iLearn Support Coordination).May 2015

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSTable of Contents....................................................................................................................2List of Figures.........................................................................................................................2List of Tables..........................................................................................................................2Results and Discussion...........................................................................................................3Demographic Details..............................................................................................................3Technologies used to access iLearn: Student Survey Results...............................................4Student Satisfaction with iLearn............................................................................................5Student Satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching.............................7Student Experience with iLearn...........................................................................................10

Statistics on the use of iLearn Functions: data from the iLearn system..........................10iLearn Functions to organise study.................................................................................12iLearn Functions to engage with unit content..................................................................14iLearn Functions for engagement with learning activities...............................................15

Student Satisfaction with Services and Support..................................................................17Student Satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide (iTeach)...................................................18Appendices............................................................................................................................20

Appendix 1: iLearn Student Experience Survey Questions..............................................20Appendix 2: Survey Advertisements.................................................................................25Appendix 3: Improvements to the iLearn platform..........................................................26Appendix 4: Statistical Analysis of Student Respondents Demographics........................26Appendix 5: Statistical Analysis of Technologies Students used to access iLearn..........28Appendix 6: Statistical Analysis of Student Satisfaction with iLearn..............................36Appendix 7: Statistical Analysis of Student Experience with iLearn...............................40Appendix 8: Statistical Analysis of Student Experience with Online Unit Guide.............45

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience........................................6Figure 2: Student recommendation of Macquarie University's use of iLearn...........................6Figure 3: Student Satisfaction with iLearn for access to unit content......................................7Figure 4: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for organising study..........................8Figure 5: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with fellow students...................................................................................................................8Figure 6: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with teaching staff......................................................................................................................9Figure 7: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for engagement in learning activities....................................................................................................................................................9Figure 8: Students use of iLearn Functions.............................................................................12Figure 9: Student satisfaction with OneHelp for technical issues with iLearn.......................17Figure 10: Student satisfaction with locating 'self-help' resources.........................................17Figure 11: Satisfaction with student 'self-help' resources.......................................................18

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: The iLearn Student Experience Survey Demographic Information for 2012 - 2014...3Table 2: Student ownership and access to technology and Internet.........................................4Table 3: Technologies used to access iLearn according to the 2014 student survey................5Table 4: The percentage of units that used the various iLearn functions...............................10Table 5: Student experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014..................................11

2

Table 6: Students levels of agreement with the usefulness of iLearn Functions....................11Table 7: Student satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide.......................................................18

ILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEYThe 2014 iLearn Student Experience Survey is part of a wider Learning and Teaching Centre (LTC) Quality Enhancement strategy for Macquarie University’s Learning Management System (LMS) and learning technologies more generally. In 2014, iLearn had moved into the second year of its operational phase thus the focus of the 2014 survey was to evaluate student satisfaction with:

the functionality of iLearn from a teaching practice and technical perspective;

the University’s services and support for iLearn; and

to document trends in use to inform future needs in terms of functionality and support.

This focus aligns with the findings and recommendations of the iLearn Implementation 2012: Evaluation Report and the iLearn Evaluation Report 2013 in order to capture the needs and expectations of students and to continue the ongoing quality enhancement cycle.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This evaluation study examined the second year of the operationalisation phrase of the iLearn platform. Data for this evaluation study was compiled through the iLearn Student Experience Survey (Appendix 1). Invitations to complete the iLearn Student Experience Survey were sent over a three-week period in Session 2, 2014, between the 8th and 29th October. The purpose of this survey was to:

monitor engagement with iLearn;

evaluate satisfaction with services and support; and

map changes in learning and teaching across the University.

The surveys were sent to a random sample of 25% of the student population using iLearn, excluding students in the Applied Finance Centre, Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) in Hong Kong, Exchange Students studying in the Northern Hemisphere and International College of Management Sydney (ICMS) students. The student sample also excluded MGSM, at their request, as they were running their own surveys. This approach to selecting the sample aligned with the creation of student sample groups in 2012 and 2013. As in previous years, the survey was delivered through University evaluation system, Teaching Evaluation for Development Service (TEDS), using EvaSys.

DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILSIn Session 2, 2014 invitations were sent to 9,380 and a total of 481 responses were received, which represented 5.6% of the sample.

iLearn Student Experience Survey

Session 2, 2012 482

respondents

Session 2, 2013902 respondents

Session 2, 2014481 respondents

Faculty of Arts 31.4% 28.6% 29.9%Faculty of Science 18.4% 17.4% 16.1%Faculty of Human Science 26.6% 26.4% 32.8%Faculty of Business & Economics

23.4% 27.6% 21.3%

Undergraduate 71% 74.1% 80%Postgraduate 29% 25.9% 20%

3

http://www.mq.edu.au/iLearn/docs/iLearn_EvaluationReport_2013.pdf

http://www.mq.edu.au/iLearn/documents.htm

http://www.mq.edu.au/iLearn/documents.htm

Internal 68% 77.6% 79%External 26.8% 21.5% 25.8%OUA 2.9% 0.3% 0.4%International 16.4% 15.5% 11.4%

First Year 28.5% 36.7% 37.2%Second Year & Beyond 71.5% 63.3% 62.8%

Table 1: The iLearn Student Experience Survey Demographic Information for 2012 - 2014

Further statistical analysis was conducted to ascertain the distribution of student responses from: undergraduate / postgraduate, internal / external, and first year / second year and beyond within each Faculty (see Appendix 4). The results showed that:

Undergraduate students are under-represented (and postgraduate students over-represented) amongst Faculty of Human Sciences respondents;

Postgraduate students are under-represented (and undergraduate students over-represented) amongst Faculty of Science respondents;

Internal (only) students are under-represented (and external only students over-represented) amongst Faculty of Arts respondents;

External (only) students are under-represented (and internal only students over-represented) amongst Faculty of Business and Economics respondents.

First year students are over-represented (and later year students under-represented) amongst Faculty of Business and Economics respondents;

First year students are possibly slightly over-represented (and later year students slightly under-represented) amongst Faculty of Arts respondents; and

Second and later year students are over-represented (and first year students under-represented) amongst Faculty of Human Sciences and Faculty of Science respondents.

TECHNOLOGIES USED TO ACCESS ILEARN: STUDENT SURVEY RESULTSIn the first instance, we asked what technologies the students own or have access to. The rational was that students are not going to access iLearn via Smartphones or iPads etc unless they have access to this technology. The tick-box question was: “I own or have access to the following devices (please indicate ownership or level of access - note that we are assuming that ownership includes regular and reliable access)”, as this would also impact on what technologies they use to access iLearn. The tick-box question was: “My off-campus access to broadband internet is: Regular and reliable; Irregular and/or unreliable; Minimal”. The surveyed students’ responses to these questions are listed below:Technologies students have access to

owner Regular, reliable access

Some, unreliable access

Little or no access

Smartphone (e.g. iPhone, Android, Blackberry) (n=477)

89.9% 4.0% 1.3% 4.8%

Laptop computer (n=477) 87.8% 5.0% 2.9% 4.2%Tablet (e.g. iPad, Android or similar) (n=470)

49.1% 7.9% 8.5% 34.5%

Desktop computer (n=465) 34.2% 23.4% 15.1% 27.3%Portable e-book reader (e.g. Kindle) (n=453)

15.7% 3.1% 5.7% 75.5%

Student Internet Access Regular and reliable

Irregular and/or unreliable

Minimal

My off-campus access to broadband internet is (n=475)

91.4% 7.6% 1.1%

Table 2: Student ownership and access to technology and Internet

4

The results show that a high percentage of the surveyed students (89.9%) own a SmartPhone and laptop computer (87.7%), however, these are not necessarily the devices they use to access iLearn. In order to ascertain the technologies used to access iLearn, the survey respondents were asked to: “Please indicate the frequency with which you use the following devices to access iLearn”: University-provided computer on campus (e.g. office, lab, Library); Desktop or laptop computer at other location/s (e.g. home); My own laptop on campus using OneNet (MQ wireless network); Smartphone (iPhone, Android, Blackberry) at MQ using OneNet; Smartphone (iPhone, Android, Blackberry) at other location/s; Tablet (e.g. iPad, Android or similar) at MQ using OneNet; Tablet (e.g. iPad, Android or similar) at other location/s; Other device/network combination - please specify.

Technologies used to access iLearn At least once a

day

A few times a

week

A few times a

month

A few times a semester

Never or

rarelyDesktop or laptop computer at other locations (n = 480)

65.2% 25.4% 2.9% 1.9% 4.6%

Smartphone using another network provider (n = 473)

24.9% 20.5% 10.6% 9.3% 34.7%

My own laptop using OneNet (n = 478) 23.8% 27.8% 11.7% 12.1% 24.5%Smartphone at MQ using OneNet (n = 475) 22.5% 29.7% 12.0% 11.4% 24.4%Tablet at MQ using OneNet (n = 473) 10.4% 15.2% 7.2% 6.3% 60.9%Tablet at other locations (n = 473) 9.3% 9.3% 5.7% 6.4% 69.3%University provided computer on campus (n = 473)

3.8% 15.9% 11.2% 20.9% 48.2%

Other device/network combination (n = 437) 3.0% 2.1% 0.9% 1.1% 92.9%Table 3: Technologies used to access iLearn according to the 2014 student survey

The table above relates to the use of various technologies to access iLearn, as it is essential to monitor if the system is meeting the needs of new technological devices and if the network is able to support the system and devices in all circumstances. The student responses to the last three surveys have shown a consistent approach to which technologies are relied upon to access iLearn with ‘Desktop or laptop computer at other locations’ being the most popular choice. The use of Smartphones using OneNet has slowly increased. In Session 2, 2012 a total of 9.1% of the students surveyed indicated that they access iLearn via their Smartphone ‘at least once a day’. In Session 2, 2013 15.3% of the students surveyed said they use their Smartphone ‘at least once a day’. In Session 2, 2014 a total of 22.5% of the students surveyed indicated that they are accessing iLearn via their Smartphones ‘at least once a day’. This increase would not only be due to the further proliferation of mobile phones but also the introduction of a mobile friendly iLearn site. In response to ‘other device or network combination’ a total of 92.9% of students surveyed selected ‘never or rarely’. There were fourteen comments in the ‘please specify’ section, for example, Smartwatch and internet networks outside of campus were listed.

According to statistical analysis of the survey results there were some significant variations between frequency of use of different devices and networks to access iLearn. Students in the Faculties of Science and Business and Economics indicate frequent use of ‘University computers on campus’ in greater proportion than students in the other faculties; a greater proportion of Faculty of Arts students and Faculty of Human Science students use them "never or rarely". This seems to reflect differences in the extent of on-campus computer laboratory provision in these faculties. Students from the Faculty of Business and Economics are more likely to indicate frequent use of: 'Own laptop at MQ using OneNet', 'Smartphone at MQ using OneNet'; 'Smartphone using another network provider'; 'Tablet at MQ using OneNet'; and 'Tablet using another network provider' than students from other faculties. It is important to highlight that there were no statistical differences in student ownership of Smartphones or Tablets. Students in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science were more likely to indicate infrequent or no use of 'Own laptop at MQ using OneNet', and again, there were no statistical differences in student ownership of laptops. Statistical analysis of the survey results between undergraduate/postgraduate, Internal / External and year of

5

enrolment revealed further significant variations between frequency of use of different devices and networks to access iLearn. Undergraduate students are more likely to access iLearn using 'Own laptop at MQ using OneNet' and 'Smartphone at MQ using OneNet' than postgraduate students. Postgraduate students are more likely to access iLearn ‘at least once a day’ via a 'Tablet using another network provider' than undergraduate students. Internal students are more likely to access iLearn using all devices other than ‘Desktop or laptop computer at other locations’ than external students. Furthermore, external students are more likely to own a laptop than internal students (see Appendix 5).

At the end of the survey were two open-ended questions: “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?”

(n = 377) “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293)

In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” There was only one comment from a student saying they liked how iLearn was mobile friendly. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” There were a total of eight student responses, which referred to better smartphone and tablet integration, ease of use on the iPhone including improving access to grades, quizzes and calendar.

STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN In order to ascertain student satisfaction with iLearn, students were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the following statements about your overall experience with iLearn:

The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience; and I would recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as an example of good

practice to other universities.

Disagreement

Neutral / Mixed Feelings

Agreement

9.0%

19.8%

71.3%

5.1%

15.4%

79.5%

13.6%

14.9%

71.5%

The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience

2014, S2 (n = 462) 2013, S2 (n = 887) 2012, S2 (n = 469)

Figure 1: The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience

Student satisfaction with the way iLearn enhances their learning experience, according to the students surveyed, shows that the level of disagreement with ‘the way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience’ has almost tripled since 2013, which requires further investigation. In Session 2, 2012, 71.3% of students agreed that the way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience, and in Session 2, 2013, 79.5% of students agreed with this statement and in Session 2, 2014 a total of 71.5% of students surveyed agreed with this statement.

6

Disagreement


Agreement

10.4%

20.6%

69.0%

6.0%

13.2%

80.8%

12.6%

13.3%

74.1%

I would recommend Macquarie University's use of iLearn

2014, S2 (n = 459) 2013, S2 (n = 885) 2012, S2 (n = 470)

Figure 2: Student recommendation of Macquarie University's use of iLearn

Students’ responses to ‘I would recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as good practice’ reveal minor variations from 2012-2013 results. Statistical analysis revealed that postgraduate students are less likely to recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as good practice than undergraduate students (p<0.05) and furthermore, first year students are more likely to recommend Macquarie University’s use of iLearn as good practice than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.01). (see Appendix 6).

7

STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN AS A SUPPORT FOR LEARNING AND TEACHINGIn order to ascertain student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching, the scaled questions focused on five areas. Students were asked to: “Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your overall experience with iLearn”.

I am satisfied with the way iLearn enables access to unit information and content. I am satisfied with iLearn as a support for organising my study. I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with

my fellow students. I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with

teaching staff. I am satisfied with the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning

activities.Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for learning and teaching, according to the students surveyed in 2012-2014, has shown some variation to the 2013 survey results, due to a rise in the neutral/mixed feelings and disagreement. The only repetitive comments in the open-ended responses that may provide some insight into this were the student complaints regarding the inconsistent use of iLearn, otherwise a majority of the student comments were positive. Again, this requires further investigation.

Disagreement


Agreement

5.7%

10.6%

83.7%

3.9%

5.7%

90.4%

11.9%

8.7%

79.4%

iLearn enables access to unit information and content

2014, S2 (n = 471) 2013, S2 (n = 896) 2012, S2 (n = 473)

Figure 3: Student Satisfaction with iLearn for access to unit content

Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have tripled since 2013. Statistical analysis revealed that first year students are satisfied to a greater extent with the way iLearn enables access to unit information and content than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.025) (see Appendix 6).

8

Disagreement


Agreement

9.9%

21.1%

68.9%

5.9%

13.4%

84.3%

13.2%

12.5%

74.3%

iLearn as a support for organising my study2014, S2 (n = 471) 2013, S2 (n = 896) 2012, S2 (n = 473)

Figure 4: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for organising study

Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have almost tripled since 2013.

Disagreement


Argeement

10.4%

20.5%

69.2%

10.0%

18.6%

71.4%

14.2%

21.0%

64.8%

iLearn supports interaction and commu-nication with my fellow students

2014, S2 (n = ) 2013, S2 (n = 889) 2012, S2 (n = 473)

Figure 5: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with fellow students

Student responses to this scaled question indicates some minor variations, considering in Session 2, 2013, 71.4% of students surveyed agreed that they are satisfied with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with fellow students, and in Session 2, 2014, 64.8% of students agreed with this statement.

9

Disagreement


Argeement

12.3%

17.3%

70.4%

9.0%

16.8%

74.2%

14.9%

17.9%

67.2%

iLearn supports interaction and com-munication with teaching staff

2014, S2 (n = 463) 2013, S2 (n = 889) 2012, S2 (n = 473)

Figure 6: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with teaching staff

Student responses to this scaled question indicates, again, some minor variations, considering in Session 2, 2013, 74.2% of students surveyed agreed that they are satisfied with iLearn as a support for interaction and communication with teaching staff, and in Session 2, 2014, 67.2% of students agreed with this statement. Furthermore, statistical analysis revealed that students in Faculty of Human Sciences are more satisfied with the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff than students in other Faculties (p<0.025) (see Appendix 6).

Disagreement


Agreement

9.0%

20.9%

70.2%

4.8%

16.6%

78.6%

12.6%

16.3%

71.1%

iLearn supports my engagement in learn-ing activities

2014, S2 (n = 467) 2013, S2 (n = 886) 2012, S2 (n = 470)

Figure 7: Student satisfaction with iLearn as a support for engagement in learning activities

Student responses to this scaled question indicate the levels of disagreement have increased since 2013. However, students in Faculty of Human Sciences are more satisfied with the way iLearn supports their engagement with learning activities than students in other Faculties (p<0.05). Statistical analysis also revealed that first year students are satisfied to a greater extent with the way iLearn supports their engagement with learning activities than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.05) (see Appendix 6).

10

STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ILEARNThis section focuses on student engagement with iLearn using four forms of data sourced from: the iLearn system; the scaled responses; open ended responses; and statistical analysis by Faculty based on the scaled responses in the survey.

STATISTICS ON THE USE OF ILEARN FUNCTIONS: DATA FROM THE ILEARN SYSTEMThe percentages listed in the table below were generated through the iLearn system. The purpose of generating this data is to compare the results between the use of the iLearn functions with the surveyed student responses to the ‘usefulness’ of each iLearn function. This comparison will not be possible for some of the iLearn functions, for example, there is no data available on Twitter Feeds, RSS Feeds, Announcements, Videos, Links to eReserve, Gradebook and Calendar. This is because they are considered to be ‘Moodle block instances’, thus it is problematic to extract this information from the iLearn platform. There are also multiple assignments used in each unit and the introduction of two classifications for assignments in 2013, however, the system showed in Session 2, 2014 there were: 317 units with one or more moodle assignments and 641 units with one or more Turnitin assignments. This equates to 95.6% of iLearn units had either one or more moodle assignments or one or more Turnitin assignments in Session 2, 2014.

S2, 2012 S2, 2013 S2, 2014

Number of iLearn Units 1,160 1,034 1,002

iLearn Functions – The % of units that used…Discussion Forum 99.0% 99.1% 99.9%

Online Assignment Submission -------- -------- 95.6%

Labels 94.1% 90.3% 94.0%

Links to readings & external sites 83.5% 89.2% 92.5%

Echo360 61.3% 67.9% 75.0%

Turnitin (includes GradeMark) 31.0% 47.8% 61.6%

Dialogue Module 42.5% 36.9% 38.2%

Quiz 18.8% 20.6% 25.5%

Grouping/Groups 4.9% 6.2% 7.0%

Blog 2.4% 4.4% 5.5%

Chat 4.4% 6.7% 5.0%

Wiki 2.4% 4.3% 3.5%

Book Module 3.2% 3.7% 3.5%

Database 2.0% 2.4% 2.3%

Workshop Tool 1.2% 1.5% 1.4%

Lesson 0.6% 0.9% 1.0%

Table 4: The percentage of units that used the various iLearn functions

In the 2014 Student iLearn Experience Survey, we asked students to indicate if they had used certain iLearn functions during Session 2, 2014 before asking them to rate the usefulness of the tool, thus we are not able to compare this data to the data gathered from the 2012 and 2013 surveys. However, re-framing the question in this way provides us with further insights with regards to what functions are being used and if the students find them useful for either ‘organising their study’; ‘helping them engage with their unit content’ or ‘assists their engagement with learning activities’. Below is a table with the number of respondents to each question and the percentage of those respondents that either used or

11

didn’t use the iLearn Function or if they are not sure or don’t know the iLearn function. The table is organised to show the highest to lowest use of the iLearn functions.

12

Student Experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014

Yes No No sure / Don’t

know this function

N

Online Assignment Submission

95.6% 2.5% 1.9% 476Grades 91.6% 4.8% 3.6% 477Announcements 91.0% 4.6% 4.4% 479Lecture recordings (Echo360)

90.0% 7.3% 2.7% 479Turnitin 88.4% 7.4% 4.2% 476Discussion forums 88.2% 9.5% 2.3% 475Links to unit readings 78.1% 15.8% 6.1% 475Quizzes 77.1% 15.8% 7.1% 476Videos (linked or embedded)

68.3% 22.2% 9.4% 477Links to external websites

67.4% 21.9% 10.6% 470Dialogue module 52.0% 26.6% 21.4% 473Lessons (presenting information)

50.7% 20.0% 29.3% 475

Database 41.2% 29.0% 29.8% 476Book module 33.1% 22.9% 44.0% 477Calendar 27.9% 39.8% 32.3% 480Wiki 18.7% 46.9% 34.3% 475Workshop tool 18.6% 48.7% 32.7% 474Blog 17.4% 51.3% 34.4% 478Glossary 15.5% 37.5% 47.0% 477Chat 10.1% 54.2% 35.7% 474Twitter feeds 7.8% 61.9% 30.3% 475

Table 5: Student experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014

The table below represents the surveyed students’ levels of agreement with the ‘usefulness’ of each iLearn Function. Again, the table is organised the same way as the table above, that is, to show the highest to lowest use of the iLearn functions and number of student responses.

Student Experience with iLearn Functions in Session 2, 2014

Agreement

Neutral / Mixed

Feelings

Disagreement

N


74.9% 14.7% 10.3% 455Grades 79.6% 13.3% 7.1% 437Announcements 59.0% 21.7% 19.3% 424Lecture recordings (Echo360)

85.6% 8.4% 6.0% 431Turnitin 59.0% 21.7% 19.3% 424Discussion forums 72.5% 17.5% 10.1% 418Links to unit readings 80.1% 13.3% 6.5% 368Quizzes 78.9% 13.2% 7.9% 370Videos (linked or embedded)

76.1% 17.4% 6.4% 327Links to external websites

67.5% 24.1% 8.4% 323Dialogue module 71.1% 23.3% 5.6% 249Lessons (presenting information)

79.9% 13.1% 6.9% 244

Database 84.1% 10.8% 5.1% 195Book module 74.2% 18.2% 7.6% 159Calendar 58.2% 26.9% 14.9% 134Wiki 59.7% 30.4% 9.7% 92Workshop tool 77.2% 16.3% 6.5% 92Blog 65.4% 24.7% 9.9% 81

13

Glossary 68.9% 25.7% 5.4% 74Chat 78.4% 11.8% 9.8% 51Twitter feeds 40.0% 25.0% 35.0% 40

Table 6: Students levels of agreement with the usefulness of iLearn Functions

These results show that while there were a high percentage of students that do not know about certain iLearn Functions but the students that did use them found them useful (see Dialogue Module and Glossary). Additionally, the table above also shows that while there were a high percentage of students that did use certain iLearn Functions and did not find them useful (see Announcements and Turnitin). In the case of Turnitin, this could be attributed to the way the question was phrase and how it is used, for example, the survey question was: “Please indicate your level of agreement with: “Using Turnitin helps me with assignment preparation” however, if Turnitin is only set up as a policing mechanism rather than open submissions to check work then Turnitin would not help with assignment preparation. The graph below displays the percentage of students who had used the various iLearn functions with the percentage of those students who agreed the iLearn functions were useful.

Online A

ssign

ment S

ubmission

Grades

Announcemen

ts

Lecture

recordings

(Echo360)

Turn-it-

in

Discussi

on forums

Links

to unit read

ings

Quizzes

Videos (l

inked or e

mbedded

)

Links

to exter

nal web

sites

Dialogu

e module

Lesso

ns

Database

Book module

Calendar

Wiki

Workshop to

ol Blog

Glossary

Chat

Twitter

feeds

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Students use of iLearn Functions

Students who had used the function in S2, 2014 Students who agreed that it was usefulFigure 8: Students use of iLearn Functions

While there were a high percentage of students that did use certain iLearn Functions like Announcements and Turnitin and did not find them useful, there must have also been a misinterpretation of the survey question as there were very few students that used Lessons, Databases, Book Module, Wiki, Workshop tool, Blog and Chat, as the iLearn system data shows, but a large number of these surveyed students agreed that these iLearn functions are useful.

In the following three sections ‘iLearn Functions to organise study’, ‘iLearn functions to engage with unit content’ and ‘iLearn functions for engagement in learning activities’ each of the iLearn functions are analysed using data sourced from: the iLearn system (see Table 4); the scaled responses; open ended responses; and statistical analysis based on the scaled responses in the survey.

ILEARN FUNCTIONS TO ORGANISE STUDYThe iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students in organising their study were: Online Assignment Submission; Grades; Announcements; Turnitin and Calendar. The wording for Turnitin, as mentioned above, was “Please indicate your level of agreement

14

with: “Using Turnitin helps me with assignment preparation” although, it was placed in this category in the survey.

ONLINE ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSIONThe results showed that out of the 96.5% of students surveyed that had used Online Assignment Submission (n=476) a total of 74.9% of students agreed that Online Assignment Submission helped them organise their study (n=455). The system data shows that 95.6% of iLearn units had either one or more moodle assignments or one or more Turnitin assignments in Session 2, 2014. There were twenty-two comments by students that related to Online Assignment Submission in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on convenience of being able to submit an assignment online. There were six comments by students that related to Online Assignment Submission “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These student comments focused on the need for all assignments to be handed in via iLearn and consistency across units. One student also commented that some of their software they need to use for their assignments are not compatible with iLearn, such as PowerPoint presentations, thus they have to be emailed to the lecturer. Statistical analysis revealed that undergraduate students found Online Assignment Submission helped them organise their study to a greater extent than postgraduate students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7). Furthermore, results by attendance mode showed that internal students found Online Assignment Submission helped them organise their study to a greater extent than external students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).

GRADESThe results showed that out of the 91.6% of students surveyed that had used Grades (n=477) a total of 79.6% of students agreed that being able to view their grades helped them organise their study (n=437). There is no system data for Grades because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were thirty-three comments by students that related to Grades in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on this function providing easy access to grades. There were twenty-seven comments by students that related to Grades “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). The students’ comments focused mainly on teaching staff use of Grades, specifically, consistency in use and keeping it updated. In relation to technical improvements the comments referred to an improved navigation within iLearn to Grades and being able to access Grades on their iPhones. Statistical analysis revealed that undergraduate students found Grades helped them organise their study to a greater extent than postgraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).

ANNOUNCEMENTSThe results showed that out of the 91% of students surveyed that had used Announcements (n=479) a total of 59.0% of students agreed that being able to view their Announcements helped them organise their study (n=424). There is no system data for Announcements because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were thirty-three comments by students that related to Announcements in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). Most comments focused on how the announcements keep them informed by providing an effective way to receive important communications from their lecturers and tutors, although there were a few comments complimenting the structure and saying how much announcements are appreciated. There were seventeen comments by students that related to Announcements, in response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). The main focus of these student responses were the organisation of announcements and how it would be beneficial to combine all the new announcements on the iLearn homepage once the student has logged in. For example, one student said: "Recent announcements" section on the home page - this would make it quicker and easier to see if any teachers have made any important announcements such as a cancelled tutorial or room change”.

TURNITINThe results showed that out of the 88.4% of students surveyed that had used Turnitin (n=476) a total of 59% of students agreed that using Turnitin helps them with their assignment preparation (n=424). The iLearn system data showed that 61.6% of units had Turnitin, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who

15

had used this function. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377), there were twelve comments by students that related to Turnitin. Most of the comments just listed Turnitin but one student said: “Turnitin is especially valuable - being able to upload assessments and having an electronic record of grades and comments is invaluable - No printing required, no travelling to the campus to physically submit and then pick up the assessment, and no fear that the hard-copy version may be lost. Unfortunately, not all units utilise this amazing function”. There were nine comments by students that related to Turnitin “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These comments referred to: quicker resubmission time than 24 hours, ability to check the originality, ability to do pre-submission checks, and that it does not facilitate adequate tutor feedback. Statistical analysis revealed that students in the Faculty of Business and Economics found Turnitin helped them prepare assignments (p<0.05) to a greater extent than students in other Faculties. Undergraduate students found Turnitin helped them prepare assignments to a greater extent than postgraduate students (p<0.05) but there were also significant differences in the usage, as undergraduate students use Turnitin more than postgraduate students (p<0.01). Furthermore, results by attendance mode showed that internal students found Turnitin helped them with their assignment preparation to a greater extent than external students (p<0.025). The results by year of enrolment showed that ‘second year and beyond’ have a higher usage of Turnitin than first year students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

16

CALENDAR The results showed that out of the 27.9% of students surveyed that had used the Calendar in iLearn (n=480) a total of 58.2% of students agreed that the Calendar helps them organise their study (n=134). There is no system data for Calendar because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). There were four comments. Three students said that the calendar had helped them while the other said that it does not work. There were eleven comments by students that related to Calendar in response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). All the comments focused on requests for a personalised incorporating important dates especially assignment deadlines, improved useability and more use by teaching staff. Statistical results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of the Calendar than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

ILEARN FUNCTIONS TO ENGAGE WITH UNIT CONTENTThe iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students engage with their unit content were: Lecture Recordings (Echo360); Links to unit readings; Videos (linked or embedded); Links to external sites; Lessons; Book Module and Glossary.

LECTURE RECORDINGS (ECHO360)The results showed that out of the 90% of students surveyed that had used Lecture Recordings (n=479) a total of 85.6% of students agreed that being able to listen to their lectures online helps them engage with their unit content (n=431). The iLearn system data showed that 75.0% of units had Lecture Recordings, which would explain why there was a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. In the open ended responses, there were fourty-four comments by students that related to Echo360 in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments were all positive focusing on convenience, flexibility and accessibility of lecture recordings for the purposes of revision, external student access and timetable clashes. There were twenty-one comments by students that related to Echo360 “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These comments included increased use, improved quality of the recordings, better labelling and filing of the recordings as well as calls for the mandatory use by teaching staff. With regards to technical improvements these students would like to see: the ‘cut-off’ time extended, RSS enabled notification system, the ability for lecture recordings formatted on a broader range of devices. Students in Faculty of Human Sciences found that Lecture Recordings helped them engage with content to a greater extent than students in other Faculties (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).

LINKS TO UNIT READINGS The results showed that out of the 78.1% of students surveyed that had used links to unit readings (n=475) a total of 80.1% of students agreed that using links to unit readings helped them to engage with the unit content (n=368). The iLearn system data showed that 92.5% of units had Links to readings and external sites, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” There were eighteen comments (n = 377) referring to how students believe they are valuable in supporting their learning. Conversely, there were fourteen comments by students that related to Links to unit readings “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) that referred to links require updating, inconsistency of how unit readings are linked, and how external students need all the unit readings at the beginning of the course. Students in Faculty of Business and Economics found Links to Unit readings helped them engage with to a greater extent than students in other Faculties (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).

VIDEOS (LINKED OR EMBEDDED)The results showed that out of the 68.3% of students surveyed that had used videos (n=477) a total of 76.1% of students agreed that watching videos helped them to engage with the unit content (n=327). There is no iLearn system data for videos. There were eight comments that related to Videos in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). All of these student comments listed Videos as valuable function in support their learning. In response to “What improvements would you

17

like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were three comments that related to Videos. These comments focused on improvements to embedded videos features. There were statistically significant differences in the usage of videos with undergraduate students using this iLearn function more than postgraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).

LINKS TO EXTERNAL WEBSITESThe results showed that out of the 67.4% of students surveyed that had used links to external websites (n=470) a total of 67.5% of students agreed that links to external websites helped them to engage with the unit content (n=323). The iLearn system data showed that 92.5% of units had Links to readings and external sites, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. There were six comments that listed Links to external sites in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377) but they offered no further explanation. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were four comments that related to Links to external sites. These comments focused on better organisation of the links in iLearn units.

LESSONSThe results showed that out of the 50.7% of students surveyed that had used the Lessons in iLearn (n=475) a total of 79.9% of students agreed that working through iLearn Lessons helps them to engage with unit content (n=244). The iLearn system data showed that 1.0% of units had used Lessons. There were no references to the iLearn Lesson module in the open-ended student responses and there were no statistical differences in the responses. Thus the meaning of ‘lessons’ could have been miss interpreted for learning activities or general content in each topic in the above scaled responses especially considering this iLearn functions limited use, according to the system’s data.

BOOK MODULEThe results showed that out of the 33.1% of students surveyed that had used the Book module in iLearn (n=477) a total of 74.2% of students agreed that the information presented in iLearn Books helped them engage with unit content (n=195). The iLearn system data showed that 3.5% of units had used the Book Module. There were no comments in the open-ended responses that referred to the iLearn book module. Statistical analysis showed that first year students found the book module helped them engage with unit content to a greater extent than students in their ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).

GLOSSARYThe results showed that out of the 15.5% of students surveyed that had used the Glossary in iLearn (n=477) a total of 68.9% of students agreed that using the Glossary helps them engage with the unit content (n=74). There is no system data for Glossary because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were no references to the Glossary in the open-ended student responses. Statistical analysis showed that postgraduate students found the Glossary helped them engage with the unit content to a greater extent than undergraduate students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

ILEARN FUNCTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH LEARNING ACTIVITIESThe iLearn Functions that were categorised as assisting students engagement with learning activities were: Discussion Fourms; Quizzes; Dialogue Module; Database; Wiki; Workshop Tool; Blog; Chat and Twitter Feeds. The wording for Dialogue Module (sending and receiving emails) was “Please indicate your level of agreement with: “Dialogue messaging assists my interaction within the unit” although, it was placed in this category in the survey.

DISCUSSION FORUMSThe results showed that out of the 88.2% of students surveyed that had used Discussion Forums (n=475) a total of 72.5% of students agreed that using online discussions assisted them in engaging with learning activities (n=418). The iLearn system data showed that 99.9% of units had Discussion Forums, which would explain why there were a high percentage of students surveyed who had used this function. There were fifty-one comments by students that related to Discussion Forums in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). All but one comment referred to how Discussion Forums open up communication with peers, tutors and unit convenors and

18

how this is beneficial in supporting ongoing learning but there were also a few comments that some posts go unanswered for lengthy time periods. There were twenty comments by students that related to Discussion Forums in response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Most of these comments referred to the way it is used or set-up by convenors, however, there was one comment it would be beneficial to be able to mark comments of interest.

QUIZZESThe results showed that out of the 77.1% of students surveyed that had used quizzes (n=476) a total of 78.9% of students agreed that using quizzes helped them to engage with learning (n=370). The iLearn system data showed that quizzes were in 25.5%. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377), there were twenty-one comments by students that listed online quizzes as a valuable iLearn function and one that supports ongoing learning. There were seven comments by students that related to Quizzes function in response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). These student comments mentioned: implementing an alert system, scrolling issues and how it is possible to cheat when completing online quizzes. There were statistically significant differences in the usage of quizzes with undergraduate students using this iLearn function more than postgraduate students. Also, results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of Quizzes than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.01). Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences by attendance mode as internal students used quizzes to a greater extent than external students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

DIALOGUE MODULEThe results showed that out of the 52% of students surveyed that had used the dialogue module (n=473) a total of 71.1% of students agreed that the dialogue module assisted their interaction with the unit (n=249). The iLearn system data showed that 38.2% of units had a Dialogue Module. There were six comments that listed Dialogue Module in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377). These comments focused on how dialogue with teaching staff is invaluable. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) one student requested notification when there is an announcement or new dialogue message. There were statistically significant differences by attendance mode as external student use the Dialogue Module to a greater extent than internal students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

DATABASEThe results showed that out of the 41.2% of students surveyed that had used the Database in iLearn (n=476) a total of 84.1% of students agreed that the database tool assisted their engagement with learning activities (n=195). The iLearn system data showed that 2.3% of units had used Databases. There were no student comments in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377) and “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Statistical results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of the Databases than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.01). There were also statistically significant differences by attendance mode as internal students used databases to a greater extent than external students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 7).

WIKIThe results showed that out of the 18.7% of students surveyed that had used the Wiki in iLearn (n=475) a total of 59.7% of students agreed that using the wiki helped their engagement with learning (n=92). The iLearn system data showed that 3.5% of units had used Wikis. There were no student comments relating to wikis in response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377) and “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293). Statistical analysis showed that postgraduate students found the Wiki helped them engage with the unit content to a greater extent than undergraduate students (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).

WORKSHOP TOOLThe results showed that out of the 18.6% of students surveyed that had used the Workshop Tool in iLearn (n=474) a total of 77.2 % of students agreed that using the iLearn workshops assisted their engagement with learning activities (n=92). The iLearn system data showed

19

that 1.4% of units had used the Workshop Tool. In response to “What aspects of iLearn do you find most valuable for supporting your learning?” (n = 377) one student commented on the complexity of the Workshop Tool. Statistical results by year of enrolment showed that first year students have a higher usage of the Workshop Tool than ‘second year and beyond’ (p<0.05) (see Appendix 7).

BLOGThe results showed that out of the 17.4% of students surveyed that had used the Blog in iLearn (n=478) a total of 65.4% of students agreed that using the Blog helps them engage with learning activities (n=81). The iLearn system data showed that 5.5% of units had used the Blog. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) one student said they particularly enjoy the blog function.

CHATThe results showed that out of the 15.5% of students surveyed that had used the Chat in iLearn (n=477) a total of 78.4% of students agreed that using the Chat tool helps them engage with learning activities (n=51). The iLearn system data showed that 5.0% of units had used Chat. In response to “What improvements would you like to see in iLearn?” (n = 293) there were four comments that focused on having access to the Chat function as well as instant chat with tutors during consultation hours. Students in Faculty of Business and Economics found Chat helped them engage with learning activities to a greater extent than students in other Faculties (p<0.025) (see Appendix 7).

TWITTER FEEDSThe results showed that out of the 7.8% of students surveyed that had used Twitter Feeds in iLearn (n=475) a total of 40% of students agreed that using Twitter Feeds helps them engage with learning activities (n=40). There is no system data for Twitter Feeds because it is considered a Moodle Block Instance. There were no references to the Twitter Feeds in the open-ended student responses.

STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND SUPPORTIn order to ascertain levels of student satisfaction with the services and support for the iLearn platform, the 2014 iLearn Student Experience Survey focused on two categories:

OneHelp support for iLearn; Self-help resources including both ease in finding and the overall satisfaction

with online resources.

Disagreement


Agreement

0.117

0.252

0.629

0.193

0.241

0.566

Student satisfaction with OneHelp for the resolution of iLearn issues

2014, S2 (n = 320) 2013, S2 (n = 721) 2012

Figure 9: Student satisfaction with OneHelp for technical issues with iLearn

20

A total of 56.6% agree that they are satisfied with OneHelp support for technical issues with iLearn. There were some comments regarding experiencing issues with accessing lecture recordings, links to resources but there were no direct references made to OneHelp.

Disagreement


Agreement

0.28

0.257

0.463

0.31

0.258

0.432

Student satisfaction with locating online resources

2014, S2 (n = 403) 2013, S2 (n = 851) 2012

Figure 10: Student satisfaction with locating 'self-help' resources

A total of 43.2% agree that they know where to locate online “self-help” resources to assist them in using iLearn. There were no comments in the open-ended responses regarding online resources. There were statistical differences in the responses by year of enrolment as first year students are more likely to know where to locate the self-help resources to a greater extent than students in their second year and beyond (p<0.05) (see Appendix 6).

Disagreement


Agreement

22.5%

33.9%

43.6%

Student satisfaction with iLearn online resources2014, S2 (n = 319)

Figure 11: Satisfaction with student 'self-help' resources

A total of 43.6% agree that they are satisfied with the assistance provided by online “self-help” resources for iLearn. As mentioned above, there were no comments in the open-ended responses regarding online resources. Student satisfaction with resources could be further explored through future focus group with students in order to gain an understanding of the difficulties and possible solutions.

STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH THE ONLINE UNIT GUIDE (ITEACH)

21

In order to ascertain student satisfaction with the online Unit Guide, students were asked to indicate how they access their online unit guides, if the online unit guide met their needs and if it was an improvement upon the previous version. The questions for this section of the survey are listed below:

I accessed the Online Unit Guide via an iLearn link in: all of my units; some of my units; none of my units.

The Online Unit Guide met my information needs in: all of my units; some of my units; none of my units.

If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to Session 2 2014, do you find the current (Session 2) version of UNITS: an improvement on the previous version; much the same as the previous version; not as good as the previous version.

These three questions were new to the survey, as we needed to update the survey questions with the recent update to the systems, specifically, the unification of iTeach and UNITS (online unit guides) now referred to as iTeach. The number of student responses vary thus the number of responses (n=) received are indicated.

Student Satisfaction with iTeach in Session 2, 2014

All of my units

Some of my units

None of my units

N

Online Unit Guide via an iLearn link. 74.3% 19% 6.7% 478Online Unit Guide met my information needs. 61.8% 31.4% 6.8% 471

Improvement

Much the same

Not as good

N

Students that had used Online Unit Guides prior to S2,2014.

47.3% 45% 7.6% 393

Table 7: Student satisfaction with the Online Unit Guide

The 2014 survey also included an open-ended section asking students to ‘Please comment on your experience of using the Online Unit Guide facility’. There were a total of 167 comments that related to the Online Unit Guide facility and a further ten comments that referred to iLearn in general. A majority of the comments relating to the online unit guide were positive. These students detailed how the online unit guide facility was easy to navigate and user-friendly, the importance of having this information before enrolling in a unit and how useful/helpful it is to have this information in general. Some students referred to problems with how the facility is used, for example, the delay in receiving the unit guides; the system not being used; the information provided in the guides being inadequate, specifically, the publication of incorrect dates for assessments and the confusion cause when there are two unit guides with inconsistent information in each. A few students also commented on the usefulness of new unit guide link but noted that the link is not always accessible. With regards to suggested improvements one student requested that unit guides are available earlier and another suggested removing the case sensitivity in the online unit guide search facility as well as the link to the unit guide being clearly signposted.

According to statistical analysis of the survey results there were some significant variations between in satisfaction between Faculties, undergraduate/postgraduate, Internal and External and year of enrolment. Statistical analysis revealed that students in the Faculty of Human Sciences were less likely to agree with the statement the ‘online unit guide met my information needs’ in ‘all of their units’ than students in other Faculties (p<0.05). Postgraduate students and external students were less likely to agree with the statement the ‘online unit guide met my information needs’ than undergraduate students and external students respectively (p<0.01). Furthermore, postgraduate students and external students were less likely to access the online unit guide via an iLearn link in ‘all of their units’ than undergraduate students and internal students (p<0.025) and (p<0.01) respectively. Additionally, students in their ‘second year and beyond’ are less likely to access the online unit guide via an iLearn link in ‘all of their units’ and ‘some of their units’ than first year students (p<0.01) (see Appendix 8).

22

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ILEARN STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY QUESTIONSThe survey consisted of a combination of multiple-choice, scaled and open-ended questions that focused on:

Demographics relating to the learning and teaching context. Technologies used to access iLearn. Experiences of learning and teaching using the iLearn functions, which focused

on:1. Organising teaching; or2. Engaging with learning activities.

Most valuable features and suggested improvements. Overall satisfaction with iLearn, iTeach and associated support services.

In 2014, additional questions were included in the iLearn Student Experience Survey regarding the Online Unit Guide Facility.

It is important to note that the iLearn Student Experience Survey used a five point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral/mixed feelings, disagree and strongly disagree), which has been reduced to Agreement (strongly agree + agree), Neutral/mixed feelings and Disagreement (strongly disagree + disagree) in all the tables and graphs in this report. This same approach is used for the satisfaction questions, again the five point Likert scale (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral/mixed feelings, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied) has been reduced to Satisfied (very satisfied + satisfied), Neutral/mixed feelings and Dissatisfied (very dissatisfied + dissatisfied) this decision was made for readability purposes. In each of the tables and graphs the number of student responses vary thus the number of responses (n=) received are indicated in each, in order to provide further clarity to the findings. Where possible, the iLearn Student Experience Survey results are presented with the corresponding results from the 2012 and 2013 surveys. This was not always possible as each year the survey questions have slightly changed to correspond with the modifications within the system and the transition from the iLearn implementation to the operational phase.

23

APPENDIX 2: SURVEY ADVERTISEMENTS Various communication strategies were used to raise awareness of the iLearn surveys; for example, survey advertisements on screens across campus including the central courtyard, Campus Hub, Macquarie University Sport & Aquatic Centre, E4B, W6B and the Library. A link to the iLearn improvements document and the advertisements with further information regarding the surveys were published in LTC Faculty Reports, the LTC Blog Teche and the iLearn homepage (once the user had logged into the system). Individual emails were sent to all Departmental Administrators asking that they notify teaching staff about the surveys and for them to announce it in their tutorials and lectures. Again, this message included the iLearn improvements document and advertisements. There were also incentives for students to complete the survey, ten $30 iTune vouchers, which were drawn after the survey had closed. These ten students were the lucky winners: A. di-Giacomo, A. Fergusson, A. Nasiry, C. Sayers, E. Clarkson, G. Healey, J. Speer, M. Curby, N. Wilson and S. Henderson.

ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE ILEARN HOMEPAGE

ADVERTISEMENT FOR CAMPUS SCREENS, POSTERS AND ATTACHMENTS TO EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS

28

http://teche.ltc.mq.edu.au/

APPENDIX 3: IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ILEARN PLATFORM

Since the iLearn implementation in 2012 the iLearn team has made continual improvements to the system. The improvements made in 2014 include:

the new iLearn theme; the introduction of a mobile friendly iLearn site; the iTeach-UNITS integration; the launch of iShare; the introduction of iLearn status page (http://status.ilearn.mq.edu.au/); the inclusion of a new question type in the IPA transcription; updates to Unit readings block and Category block; updates to Echo360 to enhance stability and maintain security; the streaming and screen capture capabilities for Echo360 were extended to an

additional 20 venues across campus, and the new iTeach integration improved convenor access methods, resulting in fewer requests to grant academics access to their units within Echo360.

APPENDIX 4: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT RESPONDENTS DEMOGRAPHICS

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVELSignificant at α = 0.05 (p = 0.03)

Crosstab

Faculty

TotalFOA FOBE FOHS FOS

Program level Undergraduate Count 117 79 117 70 383

Expected Count 114.6 81.7 125.0 61.7 383.0

% within Program level 30.5% 20.6% 30.5% 18.3% 100.0%

Postgraduate Count 26 23 39 7 95

Expected Count 28.4 20.3 31.0 15.3 95.0


Total Count 143 102 156 77 478

Expected Count 143.0 102.0 156.0 77.0 478.0


29

http://status.ilearn.mq.edu.au/

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODECrosstab

Faculty


Attendance mode Internal units only

Count 91 73 108 58 330

Expected Count 102.5 61.8 111.9 53.8 330.0

% within Attendance mode

27.6% 22.1% 32.7% 17.6% 100.0%

External units only

Count 32 4 32 8 76

Expected Count 23.6 14.2 25.8 12.4 76.0


42.1% 5.3% 42.1% 10.5% 100.0%

Both internal and external units

Count 18 8 14 8 48

Expected Count 14.9 9.0 16.3 7.8 48.0

% within Attendance mode 37.5% 16.7% 29.2% 16.7% 100.0%

Total Count 141 85 154 74 454

Expected Count 141.0 85.0 154.0 74.0 454.0


31.1% 18.7% 33.9% 16.3% 100.0%

Significant at α = 0.01 (p = 0.006)

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDYSignificant at α = 0.01 (p = 0.004)

Crosstab

Faculty


Year of study RC

First year Count 59 50 48 21 178

Expected Count 53.1 37.9 58.3 28.6 178.0

% within Year of study RC

33.1% 28.1% 27.0% 11.8% 100.0%

Second or subsequent year

Count 84 52 109 56 301

Expected Count 89.9 64.1 98.7 48.4 301.0


27.9% 17.3% 36.2% 18.6% 100.0%

Total Count 143 102 157 77 479

Expected Count 143.0 102.0 157.0 77.0 479.0


29.9% 21.3% 32.8% 16.1% 100.0%

30

APPENDIX 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGIES STUDENTS USED TO ACCESS ILEARN

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTYNotes: In all tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. There were only 2 responses from OUA students so these have not been reported separately.Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.

Ownership/access to devices…

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

Smartphone col % col % col % col % col %Own 92 88 92 84 90Regular, reliable access 2 8 2 6 4Some/unreliable access 1 2 0 3 1Little or no access 4 2 6 6 5TabletOwn 50 57 50 35 50Regular, reliable access 5 10 7 12 8Some/unreliable access 8 7 10 8 8Little or no access 36 26 33 45 34Laptop computerOwn 91 86 88 84 88Regular, reliable access 2 6 8 4 5Some/unreliable access 3 4 2 4 3Little or no access 4 4 3 8 4Desktop computer **Own 41 36 22 44 34Regular, reliable access 24 22 28 15 23Some/unreliable access 11 14 20 13 15Little or no access 24 27 29 28 27Portable e-book readerOwn 23 14 11 15 16Regular, reliable access 2 4 4 1 3Some/unreliable access 6 7 3 8 6Little or no access 68 75 82 76 75

31

My off-campus access to broadband internet is…

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

col % col % col % col % col %…regular and reliable 90 92 92 92 91…irregular and/or unreliable 8 7 7 8 8…minimal 1 1 1 0 1Frequency of using iLearn with…

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

Uni-provided computer at MQ ***

col % col % col % col % col %

Never or rarely 59 32 54 38 48Moderate frequency 30 34 34 30 32High frequency 11 35 12 32 20Desktop or laptop computer at other locationNever or rarely 6 7 3 4 5Moderate frequency 7 5 8 4 5High frequency 91 91 90 90 91My own laptop at MQ using OneNet **Never or rarely 30 12 25 29 24Moderate frequency 26 22 23 25 24High frequency 44 67 51 47 52Smart phone at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 30 12 28 23 24Moderate frequency 23 20 23 31 23High frequency 48 68 49 45 52Smart phone using another network provider ***Never or rarely 38 27 39 29 35Moderate frequency 20 14 18 33 20High frequency 42 59 44 38 45Tablet at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 66 50 61 66 61Moderate frequency 10 8 18 18 14High frequency 24 43 21 16 26Tablet using another network provider *Never or rarely 73 60 67 78 69Moderate frequency 14 11 12 12 12High frequency 14 29 21 10 19Other device/network combination – specifyNever or rarely 95 88 95 92 93Moderate frequency 1 3 1 5 2High frequency 5 9 4 3 5

32

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVELComparison between views of undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) students. One student did not provide their program level. Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding error. Differences by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01


Program Level Program LevelUGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

UGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

Smartphone col % col % col % Tablet col % col % col %

Own 90 90 90 Own 47 60 50

Regular, reliable access 4 3 4 Regular, reliable access 9 4 8

Some/unreliable access 2 0 1 Some/unreliable access 9 6 8

Little or no access 4 6 5 Little or no access 36 30 34

Laptop computer Desktop computerOwn 88 86 88 Own 35 33 34




Portable e-book reader ** 2.2 My off-campus access to broadband internet is…

Own 15 19 16 …regular and reliable 92 88 91

Regular, reliable access 2 7 3 …irregular and/or unreliable 7 12 8

Some/unreliable access 7 1 6 …minimal 1 0 1

Little or no access 76 73 75

33

Frequency of using iLearn with…

Program Level Program LevelUGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

UGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

Uni-provided computer at MQ

col % col % col %Desktop or laptop computer at other location/s

col % col % col %

Never or rarely 47 52 48 Never or rarely 5 4 5

Moderate frequency 33 28 32 Moderate frequency 4 7 5

High frequency 20 20 20 High frequency 91 88 91

My own laptop at MQ using OneNet *** Smartphone at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 21 38 24 Never or rarely 20 42 24



Smartphone using another network provider Tablet at MQ using OneNetNever or rarely 34 39 35 Never or rarely 60 64 61



Tablet using another network provider ** Other device/network combinationNever or rarely 72 57 69 Never or rarely 93 91 93

A few times a week 11 18 12 A few times a week 2 2 2

At least once a day 17 25 19 At least once a day 5 7 5

34

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODEComparison between views by attendance mode (internal only, external only, both internal and external). 25 students did not provide this information.Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.

Differences by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01


Attendance mode (units)Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

Smartphone col % col % col % col %

Own 91 86 94 90

Regular, reliable access 3 1 4 4

Some/unreliable access 1 4 0 1

Little or no access 5 8 2 5

Tablet **Own 44 65 50 50




Laptop computerOwn 89 84 89 88




Desktop computerOwn 32 42 42 34




Portable e-book readerOwn 14 23 22 16




My off-campus access to broadband internet is…

Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

col % col % col % col %…regular and reliable 92 89 92 91…irregular and/or unreliable 7 11 6 8…minimal 1 0 2 1Frequency of using iLearn with…Uni-provided computer at MQ ***Never or rarely 44 77 54 48Moderate frequency 35 18 33 32High frequency 22 6 13 20

35

Desktop or laptop computer at other locationNever or rarely 4 3 8 5Moderate frequency 4 9 2 5High frequency 92 88 90 91My own laptop at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 16 66 25 24Moderate frequency 23 30 23 24High frequency 61 4 52 52Smart phone at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 15 73 25 24Moderate frequency 25 20 25 23High frequency 60 7 50 52Smart phone using another network provider *Never or rarely 32 44 44 35Moderate frequency 20 23 25 20High frequency 49 33 31 45Tablet at MQ using OneNet ***Never or rarely 59 78 57 61Moderate frequency 13 16 13 14High frequency 28 5 30 26Tablet using another network provider ***Never or rarely 72 52 85 69Moderate frequency 11 19 8 12High frequency 17 30 6 19Other device/network combination – specifyNever or rarely 95 89 93 93Moderate frequency 2 3 4 2High frequency 4 8 2 5

36

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDYComparison between views of first year and subsequent year students.Note: Unless otherwise stated in tables, N = Maximum N; actual total varies due to missing values or NA responses. In the following table, percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.



Year of enrolment Year of enrolmentYear 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

Year 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

Smartphone col % col % col % Tablet col % col % col %

Own 90 90 90 Own 53 47 50




Laptop computer Desktop computerOwn 86 89 88 Own 34 34 34




Portable e-book reader ** 3.2 My off-campus access to broadband internet is…

Own 14 16 16 …regular and reliable 92 91 91

Regular, reliable access 4 2 3 …irregular and/or unreliable 7 8 8

Some/unreliable access 8 4 6 …minimal 1 1 1

Little or no access 73 77 75

Frequency of using iLearn with…

Year of enrolment Year of enrolmentYear 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

Year 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

Uni-provided computer at MQ

col % col % col %Desktop or laptop computer at other location/s

col % col % col %

37

Never or rarely 53 46 48 Never or rarely 7 3 5



My own laptop at MQ using OneNet Smartphone at MQ using OneNetNever or rarely 23 25 24 Never or rarely 23 25 24



Smartphone using another network provider Tablet at MQ using OneNet *Never or rarely 35 35 35 Never or rarely 60 61 61



Tablet using another network provider Other device/network combinationNever or rarely 71 68 69 Never or rarely 93 93 93

A few times a week 10 13 12 A few times a week 2 2 2

At least once a day 20 18 19 At least once a day 6 5 5

38

APPENDIX 6: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITH ILEARN

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY Note: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*

Overall experience with iLearn FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

I am satisfied with… N Mean

SDev N Mean

SDev N Mean

SDev N Mean

SDev N Mean

SDev

the way iLearn enables access to unit information and content 138 3.9 1.3 98 4.1 1.2 156 4.2 1.2 77 4.1 1.1 471 4.1 1.2

iLearn as a support for organising my study 139 3.7 1.4 100 4.0 1.3 153 4.1 1.1 77 4.0 1.0 471 3.9 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with my fellow-students

139 3.6 1.2 96 3.6 1.3 154 3.8 1.2 75 3.9 1.0 466 3.7 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff **

138 3.6 1.3 97 3.7 1.2 151 4.0 1.2 75 3.8 1.1 463 3.8 1.2

the way iLearn supports my engage-ment with learning activities *

139 3.7 1.3 98 3.8 1.3 152 4.1 1.1 76 3.8 1.1 467 3.9 1.2

OneHelp for resolution of technical issues with iLearn 96 3.5 1.4 67 3.6 1.3 108 3.7 1.3 48 3.6 1.2 320 3.6 1.3

I know where to locate online ‘self-help’ resources to assist using iLearn

121 3.1 1.4 75 3.2 1.6 140 3.2 1.2 66 3.3 1.2 403 3.2 1.3

I am satisfied with the assistance provided by online ‘self-help’ resources for iLearn

93 3.2 1.3 66 3.4 1.3 109 3.4 1.2 50 3.3 1.1 319 3.3 1.2


139 3.7 1.3 93 3.9 1.2 153 4.0 1.1 75 3.8 1.1 462 3.9 1.2

I would recommend MQ’s use of iLearn as good practice 137 3.8 1.3 92 3.9 1.3 153 4.0 1.2 75 4.0 1.1 459 4.0 1.2

39

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVELNote: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.

Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*

Overall experience with iLearn UGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

I am satisfied with… N Mean SDev N Mean SDev N Mean SDevthe way iLearn enables access to unit information and content 376 4.1 1.2 94 4.0 1.2 471 4.1 1.2

iLearn as a support for organising my study 375 4.0 1.2 95 3.8 1.2 471 3.9 1.2


370 3.8 1.2 95 3.6 1.2 466 3.7 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff

367 3.8 1.2 95 3.8 1.3 463 3.8 1.2

the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning activities

371 3.9 1.2 95 3.8 1.2 467 3.9 1.2

OneHelp for resolution of technical issues with iLearn 250 3.6 1.3 70 3.4 1.3 320 3.6 1.3

I know where to locate online ‘self-help’ resources to assist using iLearn

315 3.2 1.3 87 3.1 1.3 403 3.2 1.3


248 3.4 1.2 71 3.2 1.3 319 3.3 1.2


367 3.9 1.2 94 3.7 1.2 462 3.9 1.2

I would recommend MQ’s use of iLearn as good practice * 366 4.0 1.2 92 3.7 1.3 459 4.0 1.2

40

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODENote: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.

Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*

Overall experience with iLearn Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

I am satisfied with… N Mean

SDev

N Mean

SDev N Mean

SDev

N Mean

SDev

the way iLearn enables access to unit information and content 324 4.1 1.2 75 4.0 1.2 47 4.2 1.0 471 4.1 1.2

iLearn as a support for organising my study 325 4.0 1.2 75 3.9 1.2 46 3.7 1.2 471 3.9 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with my fellow-students 319 3.8 1.2 75 3.7 1.2 47 3.6 1.2 466 3.7 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff 318 3.8 1.2 74 3.8 1.3 46 3.6 1.3 463 3.8 1.2

the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning activities 323 3.9 1.1 74 3.8 1.2 45 3.6 1.2 467 3.9 1.2

OneHelp for resolution of technical issues with iLearn 210 3.6 1.3 57 3.3 1.2 32 3.8 1.1 320 3.6 1.3

I know where to locate online ‘self-help’ resources to assist using iLearn 272 3.2 1.3 72 3.0 1.3 39 3.3 1.3 403 3.2 1.3


208 3.4 1.2 59 3.0 1.2 32 3.2 1.0 319 3.3 1.2

The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience 318 3.9 1.2 74 3.73 1.2 46 3.8 1.1 462 3.9 1.2

I would recommend MQ’s use of iLearn as good practice 317 4.0 1.2 72 3.8 1.2 46 4.0 1.2 459 4.0 1.2

41

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDYNote: The items in the following table included an abstention response; hence the N is specified for each item.Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*

Overall experience with iLearn Year 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

I am satisfied with… N Mean SDev N Mean SDev N Mean SDevthe way iLearn enables access to unit information and content ** 174 4.2 1.2 297 4.0 1.2 471 4.1 1.2

iLearn as a support for organising my study 174 4.0 1.2 297 3.9 1.2 471 3.9 1.2


174 3.8 1.3 292 3.7 1.2 466 3.7 1.2

the way iLearn supports interaction and communication with teaching staff

170 3.8 1.3 293 3.7 1.2 463 3.8 1.2

the way iLearn supports my engagement with learning activities *

172 4.0 1.2 295 3.8 1.2 467 3.9 1.2

OneHelp for resolution of technical issues with iLearn 116 3.6 1.3 204 3.6 1.3 320 3.6 1.3

I know where to locate online ‘self-help’ resources to assist using iLearn *

148 3.4 1.4 255 3.1 1.3 403 3.2 1.3


118 3.5 1.3 201 3.2 1.2 319 3.3 1.2

The way iLearn is used enhances my learning experience **

173 4.0 1.2 289 3.8 1.2 462 3.9 1.2

I would recommend MQ’s use of iLearn as good practice *** 171 4.2 1.2 288 3.8 1.2 459 4.0 1.2

42

APPENDIX 7: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ILEARN

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTY Note: %Used in the following tables refers to the percentage of survey respondents who indicated that they had used the named tool or facility in their units during Session 2. Differences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.

Helped me organise my study

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev

Announcements/News items

89 4.0 1.1 91 4.3 1.0 92 4.2 1.0 94 4.1 1.1 91 4.2 1.0

Calendar 26 3.6 1.2 40 4.0 1.1 24 3.5 1.2 25 3.7 0.9 28 3.7 1.1


96 4.0 1.2 94 4.2 1.0 97 4.1 1.1 95 4.0 1.2 96 4.1 1.1

Grades 89 4.2 1.1 96 4.4 0.9 89 4.3 1.0 96 4.0 1.3 92 4.2 1.1

Helped me prepare assignments

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev

Turnitin * 86 3.6 1.3 90 4.0 1.2 92 3.6 1.3 83 3.6 1.2 88 3.7 1.3

Helped me engage with content

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev

Links to external websites 70 3.9 1.1 60 4.0 1.1 71 4.0 0.9 67 3.7 1.1 67 3.9 1.0

Links to Unit readings * 85 4.3 1.1 65 4.0 1.1 88 4.4 0.9 64 4.3 0.9 78 4.3 1.0

Lecture recordings * 94 4.4 1.1 87 4.3 1.1 88 4.6 0.8 90 4.4 1.0 90 4.4 1.0

Videos 62 4.2 1.0 62 4.1 1.0 81 4.2 0.9 66 4.1 1.1 68 4.2 1.0

Lessons 44 4.3 0.9 62 4.3 1.0 46 4.2 1.1 60 4.1 0.9 51 4.2 1.0

Book module 32 4.2 1.0 41 4.2 1.2 28 4.1 0.9 35 3.8 1.2 33 4.1 1.1

Glossary 15 4.2 0.9 26 4.3 0.9 11 3.8 1.0 13 3.9 1.2 16 4.1 1.0

Assisted interaction in FoA FBE FoHS FoSE ALL

43

the unit N = 143 N = 102 N = 157 N = 77 N = 481iLearn tool %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev

Dialogue 54 4.1 1.0 45 4.0 1.0 62 4.2 0.9 40 3.9 1.0 52 4.1 1.0

Helped me engage with learning/activities

FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

n SDev %Used

Mean SDev

Discussion Forums 85 4.0 1.2 83 4.1 1.0 94 4.1 1.0 90 3.9 1.0 88 4.0 1.1

Blog 13 3.8 1.3 18 4.4 1.0 22 3.9 1.0 16 3.4 0.9 17 3.9 1.1

Chat ** 8 4.1 1.0 18 4.8 0.5 8 3.9 1.1 8 3.3 1.6 10 4.2 1.1

Quizzes 69 4.0 1.2 89 4.2 1.1 73 4.2 0.9 86 4.1 1.1 77 4.1 1.1

Wiki 18 3.6 1.2 31 4.0 0.9 11 3.9 0.9 20 3.2 1.2 19 3.8 1.1

Database 36 4.4 0.9 52 4.2 1.1 44 4.3 0.8 32 4.2 0.9 41 4.3 0.9

Workshop 14 4.0 1.1 34 4.2 1.1 14 4.2 0.8 18 4.1 1.0 19 4.2 1.0

Twitter feeds 8 2.8 1.5 10 3.7 1.3 7 3.0 1.3 7 3.2 1.3 8 2.2 1.3

44

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVELDifferences in means by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01 Differences in tool usage rate by Program Level significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01


UGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean

SDev

Announcements/News items 92 4.2 1.0 86 4.1 1.1 91 4.2 1.0

Calendar 28 3.7 1.1 28 3.7 1.2 28 3.7 1.1

Online Assignment Submission*** 95 4.2 1.0 98 3.8 1.3 96 4.1 1.1

Grades ** 92 4.3 1.0 88 4.0 1.1 92 4.2 1.1

Helped me prepare assignmentsTurnitin * ††† 90 3.7 1.2 81 3.4 1.5 88 3.7 1.3

Helped me engage with contentLinks to external websites 70 3.9 1.0 57 4.1 1.1 67 3.9 1.0

Links to Unit readings 78 4.3 1.0 77 4.3 1.0 78 4.3 1.0

Lecture recordings ††† 95 4.5 1.0 70 4.3 1.0 90 4.4 1.0

Videos †† 71 4.2 1.0 56 4.2 1.0 68 4.2 1.0

Lessons 52 4.2 1.0 46 4.4 1.0 51 4.2 1.0

Book module 32 4.1 1.1 37 4.2 1.1 33 4.1 1.1

Glossary *** 16 4.0 1.0 13 4.8 0.6 16 4.1 1.0

Assisted interaction in the unitDialogue 50 4.1 1.0 60 4.1 1.0 52 4.1 1.0

Helped me engage with learning/activitiesDiscussion Forums 89 4.0 1.1 85 4.0 1.0 88 4.0 1.1

Blog 18 3.9 1.0 17 3.9 1.3 17 3.9 1.1

Chat 10 4.3 1.0 11 3.8 1.4 10 4.2 1.1

Quizzes ††† 86 4.2 1.0 43 4.1 1.1 77 4.1 1.1

Wiki ** 20 3.6 1.1 16 4.3 0.7 19 3.8 1.1

Database 43 4.2 0.9 32 4.4 0.7 41 4.3 0.9

Workshop 17 4.1 1.0 25 4.4 1.0 19 4.2 1.0

Twitter feeds 7 3.3 1.3 8 2.9 1.5 8 2.2 1.3

45

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE

Differences by Attendance Mode significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01Differences in tool usage by Attendance Mode significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01


Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

nSDe

v%Used

Mean

SDev

Announcements/News items 91 4.2 1.0 90 4.0 1.2 92 4.1 1.1 91 4.2 1.0

Calendar 28 3.8 1.1 26 3.2 1.3 27 3.4 1.1 28 3.7 1.1

Online Assignment Submission ** 96 4.2 1.0 95 3.8 1.3 96 3.9 1.2 96 4.1 1.1

Grades 92 4.2 1.1 90 4.1 1.2 90 4.4 1.1 92 4.2 1.1

Helped me prepare assignmentsTurnitin** 88 3.8 1.3 85 3.3 1.3 92 3.5 1.4 88 3.7 1.3

Helped me engage with contentLinks to external websites 65 3.9 1.0 71 4.1 1.0 74 3.9 1.2 67 3.9 1.0

Links to Unit readings 77 4.2 1.0 86 4.3 1.0 75 4.5 0.8 78 4.3 1.0

Lecture recordings 90 4.4 1.0 92 4.5 1.0 96 4.5 0.9 90 4.4 1.0

Videos 67 4.1 1.0 73 4.2 1.0 73 4.5 0.7 68 4.2 1.0

Lessons 50 4.2 1.0 44 4.2 1.1 56 4.4 0.7 51 4.2 1.0

Book module 34 4.0 1.1 21 4.1 1.2 33 4.2 1.2 33 4.1 1.1

Glossary 14 4.1 1.0 13 4.3 0.9 21 3.6 0.9 16 4.1 1.0

Assisted interaction in the unitDialogue ††† 47 4.0 1.0 75 4.2 1.0 45 4.0 1.1 52 4.1 1.0

Helped me engage with learning/activities

Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean SDev %Us

edMea

nSDe

v%Used

Mean

SDev

Discussion Forums 88 4.0 1.1 96 4.1 1.1 87 4.3 0.9 88 4.0 1.1

Blog 14 4.0 1.0 24 4.1 1.1 23 3.3 1.3 17 3.9 1.1

Chat 9 4.3 1.1 8 3.7 1.5 13 4.0 0.6 10 4.2 1.1

Quizzes ††† 82 4.1 1.0 55 4.0 1.1 81 4.1 1.3 77 4.1 1.1

Wiki 19 3.7 1.0 11 3.4 1.2 21 3.7 1.3 19 3.8 1.1

Database ††† 44 4.2 0.9 27 4.3 0.7 30 4.7 0.5 41 4.3 0.9

Workshop 17 4.1 1.0 15 4.0 1.2 15 4.3 0.8 19 4.2 1.0

Twitter feeds 7 2.9 1.3 8 3.0 1.3 6 4.5 1.0 8 2.2 1.3

46

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF ENROLMENTDifferences in means by Year of Enrolment significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01Differences in tool usage by Year of Enrolment significant at †α = 0.05, †† α = 0.025, ††† α = 0.01


Year 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

iLearn tool %Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean

SDev

%Used

Mean

SDev

Announcements/News items 92 4.1 1.0 90 4.2 1.0 91 4.2 1.0

Calendar ††† 33 3.7 1.1 25 3.7 1.2 28 3.7 1.1

Online Assignment Submission 96 4.1 1.1 95 4.1 1.1 96 4.1 1.1

Grades 94 4.3 1.0 90 4.2 1.1 92 4.2 1.1

Helped me prepare assignmentsTurnitin ††† 85 3.8 1.3 91 3.6 1.3 88 3.7 1.3

Helped me engage with contentLinks to external websites 64 4.1 1.0 69 3.9 1.1 67 3.9 1.0

Links to Unit readings 77 4.4 1.0 79 4.2 1.0 78 4.3 1.0

Lecture recordings 90 4.5 1.0 90 4.4 1.0 90 4.4 1.0

Videos 66 4.3 0.9 70 4.1 1.0 68 4.2 1.0

Lessons 51 4.4 0.9 50 4.1 1.1 51 4.2 1.0

Book module * 30 4.3 0.8 35 4.0 1.2 33 4.1 1.1

Glossary 11 4.2 1.0 18 4.1 1.0 16 4.1 1.0

Assisted interaction in the unitDialogue 52 4.1 1.0 52 4.1 1.0 52 4.1 1.0

Helped me engage with learning/activitiesDiscussion Forums 90 4.2 1.0 87 4.0 1.1 88 4.0 1.1

Blog 19 3.9 1.1 17 4.0 1.1 17 3.9 1.1

Chat 11 4.0 1.3 9 4.3 1.0 10 4.2 1.1

Quizzes † 82 4.2 1.1 74 4.1 1.0 77 4.1 1.1

Wiki 19 3.9 0.9 19 3.7 1.2 19 3.8 1.1

Database ††† 45 4.2 1.0 39 4.3 0.9 41 4.3 0.9

Workshop † 24 4.3 0.8 15 4.0 1.1 19 4.2 1.0

Twitter feeds 8 3.5 1.4 7 3.0 1.3 8 2.2 1.3

47

APPENDIX 8: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ONLINE UNIT GUIDE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY FACULTYDifferences by Faculty significant at: α = 0.01***; α = 0.025**; α = 0.05*.

Online Unit Guides FoAN = 143

FBEN = 102

FoHSN = 157

FoSEN = 77

ALLN = 481

I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link in: col % col % col % col % col %

All of my units 75 85 68 71 74Some of my units 18 12 23 22 19None of my units 7 3 9 7 7The online unit guide met my information needs in: *All of my units 61 74 53 65 62Some of my units 32 23 37 31 31None of my units 7 3 10 4 7

If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to Session 2 2014, do you find the current (Session 2)version of UNITS:

FoAN = 119

FBEN = 83

FoHSN = 121

FoSEN = 68

ALLN = 393

col % col % col % col % col %

An improvement on the previous version 45 59 40 52 47

Much the same as the previous version 46 33 54 44 45

Not as good as the previous version 9 8 7 4 8

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY PROGRAM LEVEL

Differences by Program Level significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01

Online Unit Guides UGN = 384

PGN = 96

ALLN = 481

I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link in: ** col % col % col %

All of my units 75 73 74Some of my units 20 15 19None of my units 5 13 7The online unit guide met my information needs in: ***All of my units 60 68 62Some of my units 34 20 31None of my units 6 12 7

If you used UNITS Online Unit Guides prior to Session 2 2014, do you find the current (Session 2) version of UNITS:

UGN = 328

PGN = 64

ALLN = 393

col % col % col %An improvement on the previous version 48 47 47Much the same as the previous version 44 48 45Not as good as the previous version 8 5 8

48

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY ATTENDANCE MODE

Differences by Attendance Mode significant at *α = 0.05, ** α = 0.025, *** α = 0.01

Online Unit Guides Internal N = 332

External N = 76

BothN = 48

ALLN = 481

I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link in: *** col % col % col % col %

All of my units 78 59 65 74

Some of my units 17 24 31 19

None of my units 5 17 4 7

The online unit guide met my information needs in: ***

All of my units 62 60 49 62

Some of my units 33 24 45 31

None of my units 5 16 6 7


Internal N = 279

External N = 53

BothN = 40

ALLN = 393

col % col % col % col %

An improvement on the previous version 48 34 58 47

Much the same as the previous version 46 53 38 45

Not as good as the previous version 7 13 5 8

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY YEAR OF STUDY


Online Unit Guides Year 1N = 179

Year 2+N = 302

ALLN = 481

I accessed the online unit guide via an iLearn link in: *** col % col % col %

All of my units 84 69 74Some of my units 11 24 19None of my units 5 8 7The online unit guide met my information needs in:All of my units 67 59 62Some of my units 29 33 31None of my units 4 8 7


Year 1N = 136

Year 2+N = 257

ALLN = 393

col % col % col %An improvement on the previous version 51 46 47Much the same as the previous version 41 47 45Not as good as the previous version 8 7 8

49

· web viewthe 2014 ilearn student experience survey is part of a wider learning and teaching...

Documents