out of class—out of mind-- the use of a virtual learning environment to encourage engagement in...

8/3/2019 Out of classout of mind-- The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage engagement in out class activities

1/8

Out of classout of mind? The use of a virtual learningenvironment to encourage student engagement in out of

class activities

Maggie Leese

Maggie Leese is subject leader and senior lecturer for the Early Childhood Studies course within theSchool of Education at the University of Wolverhampton. Her research interests include improving the1st-year student experience and the use of technology to support learning. Address for correspondence:Maggie Leese, School of Education, Walsall Campus, University of Wolverhampton, Gorway Road,

Walsall, West Midlands, WS1 3BD, UK. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

With increasing student numbers and a diverse student body, it is crucial to

consider a range of methods to engage students in learning and teaching

activities. This project was used to encourage 1st-year undergraduate students

to engage in out of class activities between taught sessions. The project used a

virtual learning environment (VLE) known as Wolverhampton Online Learn-

ing Framework (WOLF) to encourage collaborative working within learningsets. The central aim was to investigate the potential to improve communica-

tion and mutual support between students and also to encourage students to

make links between taught sessions. They were given weekly tasks that needed

to be completed within their learning sets and they then posted the work in

folders within WOLF by a set time. This allowed for timely feedback from the

tutor and it facilitated sharing of resources across the sets. The final element

involved students using their new knowledge to peer-teach the whole group in

short presentations at the beginning of the next taught session. Feedback was

collected in three ways, including focus groups, module feedback forms and a

short questionnaire about the use of the VLE. Overall, the students feedbackwas positive and they commented on gaining a number of skills including,

using technology, group working and presentations. In addition to this, the

overall pass rate for the module was higher and the average student grade had

also increased.

Introduction

This project was carried out in an attempt to find alternative teaching and learning

activities, for a large Level 1 undergraduate module (n = 74), that would encourage the

students to complete out of class activities (OOCA). The module was run in two separate

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 1 2009 7077doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00822.x

2008 The Author. Journal compilation 2008 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,

UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/8

iterations with each class having 37 students attending. Over the past 2 years, the

student numbers have continued to rise and due to larger teaching groups it was

possible for students to attend the teaching session without really engaging with the

teaching and learning activities. The students were expected to do a range of activitiesoutside of the class that would support the face-to-face taught sessions, but on the

whole the completion of these tasks was ad hoc and the majority of students did not

engage in any OOCA. This presented difficulties because students did not make the links

between the taught sessions, leading to a very atomistic approach to their learning. In

addition to this, the whole programme was being revalidated and the specialist study

skills module was being deleted with a move to embed key skills in all Level 1 modules.

Teaching staff were concerned that with the large student groups there was a lack of

additional time available to encourage the key skills, including giving presentations,

finding appropriate literature and working in groups.

Given the widening participation agenda and the diverse student body (Macdonald &

Stratta, 2001), it has become increasingly important that students are given support to

develop a range of skills that are crucial if they are to succeed in higher education

(Oliver, 2007) and to develop deep approaches to learning (Biggs, 2003) early in their

studies. In order to support students especially during the first semester, it was crucial

that teaching staff used a range of teaching and learning activities that encouraged the

students to take responsibility for their own learning. Oliver (2007) suggests that this

can be achieved using a blended learning approach that is designed to scaffold the

students learning, and Hughes (2005) proposes that by including peer and tutor

support, it is possible to increase student motivation without increasing teaching work-

load. Nicol (2007) reported that when students work collaboratively, their learning is

enhanced and that planned group work has the potential to support positive social

interaction for 1st-year students. This project was designed to develop a range of teach-

ing and learning activities that would encourage student engagement in OOCA and

support them in developing a range of skills (Fox & MacKeogh, 2003).

Planning

This project focused on collaborative working within learning sets, with the potential to

offer a supportive framework to students and encourage them to make links between

taught sessions and other activities (Boyle, 2005; Chou & Liu, 2005; Dutton, Cheong &

Park, 2004). This blended approach to learning combined taught face-to-face sessions

and weekly online tasks that were posted on a university virtual learning environment

(VLE) known as Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework (WOLF). Each learning

set had six or seven members and they had their own group folders to encourage them

to work collaboratively to complete the activities and prepare presentations that they

would group peer-teach to the whole class in the next session. The peer-teaching ses-

sions were 5 minutes in total; therefore, the first 30 minutes of each face-to-face session

would involve the whole group listening to individual groups, discussing how they

completed the weekly task and what resources they had found useful. These resources

were then made available on the VLE for all the students to support their work within

the module. Group work and peer teaching were used as a formative assessment allow-

Virtual learning environment for out of class activities 71

2008 The Author. Journal compilation 2008 Becta.


3/8

ing the teaching staff and the students to assess their learning on a weekly basis.

Although this work was not part of a summative assessment, it was crucial to ensure

that the students could see how this work would support their final assessment.

There are a number of definitions of a VLE, but the common elements that are used to

describe it are that the environment is computer-based and it involves sharing of infor-

mation between other students and tutors. Further to this, a VLE has the potential to

improve communication and offer support to students. Given all these features, it

appeared to be the most appropriate medium to facilitate the project, although there

were other possibilities, including using the university e-portfolio; however, previous

students indicated that they were more confident using WOLF.

The students were new to the university and they came with a wide range of previous

learning experiences, including A-levels, access courses, as well as mature studentsreturning to study after a number of years. It was imperative to ensure that regardless

of their past experiences, all students were supported and had the skills needed to

participate in the teaching and learning activities as this was crucial to encourage their

engagement (Whitworth, 2005). With this in mind, the students were put into learning

sets so that each member could support the others. Booth, Sutton and Falzon (2003)

highlight that learning sets can give students a shared purpose and that as a result they

feel they can get the job done; therefore, by using peer-learning sets, students are more

likely to feel that the task is achievable (Fox & MacKeogh, 2003). The VLE was the

planned vehicle to bring about this blended approach to teaching and learning, so it was

important to ensure that students felt comfortable with using the university VLE known

as WOLF. To ensure that the students were well supported, they had the opportunity to

highlight their own strengths and also to identify areas that they would need support

with by completion of a short questionnaire. From this information, it was possible to

formulate the learning sets ensuring that all the required skills were available in each

group. Students were put into learning sets ensuring that at least three students within

the group had stated that they felt comfortable with using the VLE for a range of tasks.

Within the early face-to-face session, the students were shown the main features of the

VLE and they had the opportunity to raise any issues that they had experienced either

then or by contacting their tutor by email.

Pedagogical issues

Prior to planning the use of the VLE, it was important to be aware and pay due consid-

eration to any possible constraints in order to ensure that the focus remained firmly on

student learning (Smedley, 2005). It was imperative to be aware of the dominant

discourse that surrounds the increasing use of technology within higher education and

to ensure that there are sound pedagogical reasons for implementing the changes to the

module (Clegg, Hudson & Steel, 2003). It was also crucial to be clear about the rationale

for changing the teaching method to a blended approach to ensure the aims were

explicit to other members of the team. Within the literature, a number of authors make

the point that terms relating to e-learning are used interchangeably and that this can

lead to confusion (Chou & Liu, 2005; Molesworth, 2004; Oblinger & Hawkins, 2005;

72 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 1 2009



4/8

Tavangarian, Leypold, Nolting, Roser & Voigt, 2004). Although this project was clearly

linked to an increased use of technology, the pedagogical underpinning was much more

about a move from teacher-led delivery to student-centred learning (Hunt, 1999).

Gilbert, Morton and Rowley (2007) highlight the importance of considering the impact

on the student and being aware that students may be unsure of their roles as students

and tutors within technology-supported learning activities. Further to this, it was

important to encourage students to engage with the online activities, and Keller (2005)

suggests the technology acceptance model (TAM) that considers what factors will

encourage the student to engage with technology. TAM proposes that students are more

likely to engage with technology if it will enhance their performance, perhaps in an

assessment, make the task easier or if important people suggest that they should engage

with the activities. The literature also highlights that the greatest motivation for stu-

dents to engage with technology is if it is directly linked to assessment (Molesworth,2004). With this in mind, the students were encouraged to view the online work as a

resource for the upcoming assignment in an attempt to ensure that there was clear

alignment between what the student was learning and what they were going to be

assessed on (Biggs, 2003).

Hughes (2005) highlights that some students find it difficult to engage with technology-

based tasks as they may have little prior experience. With this in mind, it was important

to acknowledge the three elements of the 3P model discussed by Biggs (2003), which

suggested that there are three elements that need to be considered: (1) the presage,

which is what the student had experienced prior to this; (2) the process, which refers towhat the students are expected to do; and (3) the product, which would be the end result.

Assessing the presage was difficult within the short period of time, but students wereasked to self-identify where they felt their skills lay and what areas they would want

support with. The students were then put into learning sets according to their own

assessment of needs. The process included the students working together on carefullyplanned online tasks that were devised to support them in obtaining key skills, includ-

ing negotiating, working in groups and presenting. Finally, the product is the studentsability to peer-teach the whole group on their given topic as well as reinforcing contentfrom taught sessions. The main purpose of the tasks was to encourage peer support

within the learning sets, but it was also crucial to ensure prompt feedback from the

tutors as this is said to be a strength of using the VLE (Thurston, 2005; Weller, Pegler &

Mason, 2005). A number of tasks required the students to engage with an online

discussion and at least one member of the teaching team would also engage in these

discussions, but on the whole this task was carried out by the module leader. It was

crucial that the teaching staff checked the group work before the students presented the

work, as students had requested an opportunity to discuss any errors before they

planned and carried out their peer teaching. This was facilitated through email contact

with their tutor and a commitment by teaching staff to give feedback on the students

planned presentation prior to the next session. During the peer-teaching session, stu-

dents were given feedback, initially by the tutor, but after Week 3, the students watching

the presentation also gave constructive verbal comments.




5/8

Results

All of the learning sets completed the activities to some extent, but there were a number

of complaints from learning sets that individual students were not pulling their weight

within the team. The students were encouraged to explore ways of dealing with theconflict, and they were supported by teaching staff to come up with solutions. All of the

groups worked through their difficulties and the solutions included changing the times

that the groups met and also working remotely using the VLE, email and text messages.

A number of learning sets needed support to deal with the conflict, but the support

offered was focused on the students finding their own resolutions rather than teaching

staff intervening because this would be a key skill that is needed in the graduate market.

The workload for the module was heavier in the initial stages as each activity had to be

planned and posted on WOLF. It was also important to give students timely feedback to

ensure that any errors were corrected before the peer-teaching session. This was quite

intensive at first, but after Week 3, students needed very little tutor input and they wereencouraged to make contact by email if there was a problem or they needed support.

The emails were generally related to difficulties with technology and these were easily

resolved either by a reply to the email or signposting the student to the university

computer support staff.

Following completion of the module, data were collected from the module evaluation

forms, two focus groups and a questionnaire (Appendix). Feedback from the students

was, on the whole, positive, with a range of comments that included WOLF is veryefficient, easy to access and simple to use, the use of technology was the best so far and thegroup work and presentations made me more confident in other modules. Although thesecomments and many others were very positive, it was important to remember that the

students who enjoyed the use of technology were more likely to make comments.

Despite the efforts to ensure that all students engaged in the activities, a number of

students did so very minimally, citing work or family commitments as a reason.

Negative comments included lack of support when they came across problems with the task

and difficulties with organising roles and responsibilities within the group. A number ofstudents commented that they would have preferred time during taught sessions to

work on the computers with support from a tutor. Two students commented that some

members of the groups did not contribute to the group work but that the other

members of the groups had ensured that the task was completed.

A number of comments were generic, including I enjoyed the module and benefited froma number of teaching styles and being encouraged to think and work in groups. During thefocus groups, these were further explored and the students reported that it was the

combination of teaching and learning methods that they found helpful. They reported

that, you knew what was expected of you every week and one student stated that the work

I did helped when I came to do my assignment. On the whole, students commented more

about the skills that they gained from the group work, including doing presentations

and using technology, with only two students commenting on how the activities

improved their learning on the module. The module results for semester one, prior to the




6/8

project, had a pass rate of 69%, which was slightly lower than other Level 1 modules.

After implementing the changes in semester two, the module had a pass rate of 82%

and all students who submitted work actually achieved a passing grade. The results also

showed an increased average grade, with eight students obtaining an A grade, com-pared with one student in the first semester. This will need to be monitored further to

analyse the possible impact of the changes on student achievement within the module.

During the focus groups, students commented on the difficulty when working with a

diverse range of students, but they also identified that this was something that they

were going to have to do when they graduated and entered the workforce. There was

also some discussion about the difficulties with technology that at times impacted on

the work of the learning sets. This included a number of students who did not have

access to computers at home and they felt that this increased the impact on them

because we had to stay on campus when other people could go home. In response to thesuggestion that it should be compulsory to complete the tasks on campus, two studentscommented that it would not be possible for them because of either work or childcare

obligations. A number of students commented that there were difficulties with meeting

with their sets because it was, impossible to find a time when everyone was not in lectures.

Evaluation

One difficulty was that the module is taught by at least two teachers and the other tutor

did not feel confident setting tasks on the VLE; therefore, they needed extra support and

this impacted on the role of the module leader. One possible answer to this is to negotiate

extra time for staff who feel confident with the use of technology to support other team

members when required. The module has just gone through revalidation with the

increased element of technology-supported learning in the new module and the results

from this project have informed the planning for the module. Given the students com-

ments about needing tutor support for initial tasks, it will be important to ensure that

the students have time within taught sessions to gain the necessary skills that they will

need to complete the ongoing assessment. There needs to be a support network for the

students and this might include telephone support, in-class demonstration workshops

and email contact with tutors.

The project set out to use a blended approach to learning to encourage students to

engage with OOCA and this was achieved on the whole. The students took responsibility

for their own learning and at the end of the module they had clearly learned a number

of key skills that will support their studies at Levels 2 and 3. There was more tutor

support needed especially in the early stages, but this was back to normal by Week 4

with minimal email support needed. The students were all positive about peer teaching

and they became confident in working with groups, presenting and resolving a number

of conflicts. The learning sets were identified for the students based on their own assess-

ment of skills and this ensured that each set had the required skills. This resulted in

some learning sets having difficulty meeting because of timetable conflicts so it might be

beneficial for the students to identify their own sets either based on friendships or based

on availability to meet and work together.




7/8

ReferencesBiggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (2nd ed.). Buck-

ingham: SRHE & Open University Press.Booth, A., Sutton, A. & Falzon, L. (2003). Working together: supporting projects through action

learning. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20, 225231.Boyle, F. (2005). The implementation of a VLE: not so virtual after all. Serials, 18, 3, 179183.Chou, S. & Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: a

learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 6576.Clegg, S., Hudson, A. & Steel, J. (2003). The Emperors new clothes: globalisation and e-learning

in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24, 1, 3953.Dutton, W., Cheong, P. & Park, N. (2004). The social shaping of a virtual learning environment:

the case of a university-wide course management system. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2, 1,6980.

Fox, S. & MacKeogh, K. (2003). Can eLearning promote higher-order learning without tutoroverload. Open Learning, 18, 2, 121134.

Gilbert, J., Morton, S. & Rowley, J. (2007). e-Learning: the student experience. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 38, 4, 560573.Hughes, G. (2005). Learning to learn online: fostering student engagement with online pedago-

gies. In P. Hartley, A. Woods & M. Pill (Eds), Enhancing teaching in higher educationnewapproaches for improving student learning (pp. 6979). London: Routledge.

Hunt, N. P. (1999). PROJECT LEARN: supporting on-campus learning with on-line technologies.Interactive Learning Environments, 7, 23, 269282.

Keller, C. (2005). Virtual learning environments: three implementation perspectives. Learning,Media and Technology, 30, 3, 299311.

Macdonald, C. & Stratta, E. (2001). From access to widening participation in higher education inthe UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25, 2, 249258.

Molesworth, M. (2004). Collaboration, reflection and selective neglect: campus-based marketingstudents experiences of using a virtual learning environment. Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 41, 1, 7992.Nicol, D. (2007). Laying a foundation for lifelong learning: case studies of e-assessment in large

1st-year classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 4, 668678.Oblinger, D. & Hawkins, B. (2005). The myth about e-learning. Educause Review, 40, 4, July/

August, 1415.Oliver, R. (2007). Exploring an inquiry-based learning approach with first-year students in a

large undergraduate class. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 1, 315.Smedley, J. (2005). Working with blended learning. In P. Hartley, A. Woods & M. Pill (Eds),

Enhancing teaching in higher educationnew approaches for improving student learning (pp.8092). London: Routledge.

Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M., Nolting, K., Roser, M. & Voigt, D. (2004). Is e-Learning the solutionfor individual learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2, 2, 273280.

Thurston, A. (2005). Building online learning communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,14, 3, 353369.Weller, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2005). Students experience of components versus integrated

virtual learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 253259.Whitworth, A. (2005). The politics of virtual learning environments: environmental change,

conflict and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 4, 685691.

Appendix

Questionaire: using learning sets to support your learning

Please comment on the questions below

What did you find useful about being in a learning set?




8/8

Can you describe any difficulties that you experienced working in learning sets?

Did you feel that the weekly tasks supported your learning in the module?

How?

Did you feel that the peer teaching supported your learning?How?

What suggestions would you make for improving the module?



out of class—out of mind-- the use of a virtual learning environment to encourage engagement in...

Documents