Note on inclusion of dissertation The following MA Education Dissertation by Andrew Walsh has been included for three reasons: Firstly, it is very well written, in a clear and easy to follow style. Secondly, it does what all good research must do which is be critical of the theories used and the interpretations placed on the data collected. Thirdly, it deals with learning theory and students attitudes to different approaches. A subject that all teachers should be interested in. The list of references provided will assist you with your own literature searches. As with any piece of academic work the dissertation is not perfect but it does have many more strengths than weakness. As you read it you might like to identify five strengths and three areas for further improvement. Unless you are familiar with research methods, I suggest that you don t read the Chapter headed Research Methodology. 1
Abstract. The Moodle e-learning platform is used to support learning on the pre-registration mental health nursing course at Birmingham City University. This study sought to critically evaluate the effect of this resource upon student learning. An attempt was also made to discover what relationship (if any) existed between Moodle use, student learning approach and assessment outcome. Firstly, a literature search into the areas of student approach to learning theory and how this might influence e-learning was conducted. Following this, a group of 31 Mental Health Nursing students completed a questionnaire about their use of and attitudes towards the available e-learning resources. Each student also completed a Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) as developed by Biggs (2001). Quantitative data was gathered about student access to online resources as well as eventual student assessment grades. Following analysis of this material and consideration of questions raised by the literature review a series of semi structured interviews was completed in order to more carefully investigate student attitudes. The study concluded that student learning approaches as described by Biggs (2001) are very close to behaviours described by participants. However, data gathered by the study approach questionnaires was of little use to the study and consequently, questions are raised about the use of such schedules. It was possible to identify student patterns of use and attitudes towards Moodle resources and to relate this to student views about quality of teaching and strategies with which students organise their studies. The study was also able to identify the importance of good quality interactions with lecturers and with other students as being important factors in student learning. The importance of assessment as being a driver of learning was also apparent. Further study around the experience of specific groups of students, placement internet access and the use of Biggs SPQ is indicated. Key Words: e-learning, Mental Health Nursing Students, Moodle, Student study approaches. 2
Introduction. Recent years have seen increased demand for higher education (Bach et al 2007), in 2002, worldwide an average of 29.6% of people aged between 25-64 achieved higher education qualifications, an increase of 13% over 10 years (OECD 2008). International focus on higher education is partly influenced by consensus that it is an important economic driver (OECD 2008). The UK government announced that continued expansion of higher education could partly be aided by developments in e-learning (DfES 2003). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) launched a 10 year strategy on e learning (HEFCE 2005) which acknowledged that many institutions were struggling to implement e-learning. This growth in e-learning use and the problem of how best to use these resources has been reflected in my institution. The University learning and teaching strategy highlights the intention to develop e- learning resources whilst promoting a deeper and more critical approach to learning (BCU 2006). Across BCU 86% of courses use online learning (JISC 2009). In my area, an evaluation of students on the mental health course (JISC 2009) found that over a year there had been an increase to 100% (from 88%) in students accessing online resources. Clearly, we have had some success in the first part of the Faculty strategy of promoting use of e- learning. However, we are less sure about what effect this might have on student learning approaches and the quality of this learning, it is these questions that will be addressed in this study. This dissertation investigates mental health nursing students engagement with e learning resources and how these may be related to subsequent learning outcomes. This study is personally relevant to me because I am involved in development of e-learning resources. From reflection and discussion with colleagues it is clear that we don t clearly understand how students use these tools. Questions such as what they find useful, their attitudes towards e-learning and the relevance to future working require clarification. Another question is effectiveness, the University has encouraged e-learning but what difference does this make to student learning? 3
A previous literature review (Walsh 2008) found no studies about e-learning within mental health nurse education, concluding that this was an area for future study. The most important area identified was the need for us to gain feedback about attitudes towards these resources. It is also intended to consider student approaches to learning and how this influences the use of these resources. It is hoped that this study will make a practical contribution to our understanding of how best to use e-learning. This study aims to do the following: Explore student s usual approaches to learning? Investigate associations between student learning approach, individual patterns of e- learning activity and final assessment grade? Investigate what Moodle course usage data can show about individual and group patterns of e learning? Investigate student attitudes towards e-learning accessed, what aspects do they find useful and what not? This paper commences with a review of literature critically examining student interaction with e-learning as well as a discussion of educational theory into student approaches to learning. There follows a description of the research methodology adopted and a discussion of aspects such as validity and reliability. The dissertation will present a critical analysis of the data obtained before discussing findings, suggesting conclusions and areas for future study. 4
Literature review. Literature review: Introduction Approaches to learning theory form an important part of this study; these ideas have been strongly challenged and this debate has been reflected in the literature review. It was also important to place the current study into context with work done in similar areas. The literature review identifies and critically summarises the most pertinent studies. This section opens by detailing the literature review process and continues with a critical evaluation of the literature. The review concludes with a discussion of conclusions drawn from the literature showing how this has guided the conduct of this study. Literature review: organisation and summary of material accessed Firstly, a literature search schedule was developed based upon the research study questions (see appendix 1). Initial search of databases discovered two hundred and twenty two papers which on the basis of titles were considered possibly relevant. Abstracts were checked for relevance against the literature schedule criteria. This reduced the number of papers down to twenty two. Of these, three were found to be irrelevant, leaving nineteen papers which suggested another ten possibly relevant studies. This literature review is based upon twenty nine research papers. A search was also conducted on the University Library database as well as a manual search. It is now intended to present the literature review which resulted from this process. Literature review In Sweden, Marton and Säljö (1976) gave students passages of prose to read before questioning them about their understanding. Some, who memorised isolated facts in order to answer any questions asked, were labelled surface learners. Others took a more thoughtful approach and not only tried to understand meaning but also attempted to make connections with other learning were said to have taken a deep approach to the task. Critical to this study is the idea that students adopt learning styles depending on their perception of the circumstances of a particular teaching environment; this study was developed by others. 5
In Biggs (2006) work the idea of individual student learning approaches is developed into what is described as the presage/ process/product model of learning. This model (influenced by constructivism) emphasises the importance of the learner s perspective in determining learning outcomes. Learning occurs not as a result of the student collecting facts but is instead a process whereby individuals construct personal understandings. Biggs (2006) argues that student approaches to learning determine outcomes. Students adopting surface approaches minimise study and engagement which results in fragmented learning outcomes, rote learning of key facts and patchy understanding of meaning. Other students initially adopt a deep approach; these students are more likely to study more carefully, seeking to develop personal meanings to study material. These ideas have become very influential and are commonly used as a theoretical background for teaching courses in higher education (Kember et al 2008). The questionnaire used in this study is the two factor SPQ developed by Biggs (2001) (see appendices section) Much research has investigated the internal reliability of this instrument concluding that it was a reliable tool for the evaluation of student approaches to learning. This instrument has since been evaluated and used in a wide range of educational studies ( i.e. Burnett & Dart 2000, Case, J 2004, Segers et al 2008, Walsh A 2007), all of which advocate the validity of this tool in assessment of student learning approaches. The literature search discovered many examples of the usage of this instrument which has been used in a variety of settings. An example is Ramburuth and Mladenovic s (2004) study involving 966 Australian accountancy students. This study investigated the effect of learning approach on final grades. Using Biggs s (2001) questionnaire, an assessment of preferred learning style was completed at the start of the course. This was matched to assessment data on completion of the course. The study found that students with higher surface approach scores achieved lower assessment grades. However, there was no corresponding relationship between a deep approach and higher assessment grades, a finding of no significant difference was recorded. 6
Theoretical work (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006) suggests that teaching environment is important. Consequently, researchers examined whether changes to teaching practice could influence learning. In a longitudinal study involving 158 Australian accountancy students (Hall, Ramsay and Raven 2004) participants completed a Biggs (2001) SPQ on commencing a 3 month long course, repeating this at the end. Lecturers introduced problem based small group sessions, designed to encourage students to adopt deep learning approaches. The authors reported small but statistically significant differences in deep approaches to learning and a decrease in surface learning approaches. The study had a low response rate of 37% (158 out of 427 possible students) and the longitudinal figures include people who completed the first but not the second questionnaire and vice versa, a limitation which is mentioned but not commented upon in the study paper. The study does not mention whether this made any difference to assessment scores. A similar study (Struyven et al 2006) concluded that environment (in this case assessment type) does not influence learning style and that it may also be impossible to influence deeper approaches to learning amongst students. Struyven et al s (2006) study of 790 Belgian students investigated the effect that different learning environments had on learning styles. Five sub groups were exposed to differing teaching approaches (i.e. lectures or problem based learning) and differing assessment (i.e. portfolio presentation, MCQ s, exam). The study concluded there was no evidence that student learning approach was influenced by any of the factors studied. However, a finding was that it was easy to inadvertently encourage surface approaches to learning if students perceived an over burdensome workload. Some have questioned assumptions about the desirability (or even the existence) of deep as opposed to surface learning approaches. Haggis (2003) has professed surprise about the degree of uncritical acceptance of these ideas within Higher Education. She argues that acceptance of this theory has minimised attention to alternative ideas about how people learn. Haggis also makes a point that became quite apparent during an earlier review of this material (Walsh 2008) - a great deal of research sets out to confirm existing theory. 7
Another criticism is that this model is epistemologically confused in that it combines detailed statistical analysis of responses with what is clearly subjective and qualitative data. This critique was also made from a phenomenographic stand point by Webb (1997) who questioned the possibility of a lecturer making neutral and objective observations about student learning. Other critics include Coffield et al (2004) who raised serious questions about the basis for much of this theory. They concluded that the approaches to learning theoretical model is over complex and inaccessible, as a result it could be misused and also criticised the lack of attention to social factors in learning. Another criticism is that despite this theory having had a great deal of influence in the preparation of newly appointed higher education teaching staff it has little to say about how one might actually change practice. Responding to Haggis (2003) critique, Marshall and Case (2005) conceded that an over reliance on learning style theory was unproductive. They suggest that rather than using this theory as an absolute truth about learning it is better to consider it a thinking tool a means of trying to look at teaching practice and student activity. The authors stress the importance of studies being aware of context and socio-cultural considerations. Reference to original material by Entwistle (1989) would suggest that wider considerations may actually have been considered. Discussing the use of learning style evaluations, Entwistle (1989) stated that this provided a language of concepts and categories through which to discuss more precisely teaching and learning in higher education. Entwistle suggests that this work allows discussion of learning interactions, leading to discussion with students about how they learn and might learn more effectively. Another argument favouring qualified use of learning styles is provided by Rayner (2007). Examining Coffield et al s (2004) critique, Rayner agrees that over rigid application of this theory, where learners are given labels such as deep or surface is a mistake. He rebuts criticism that there is little consensus amongst proponents of learning style theory by arguing that in common with any good teacher understanding of pedagogy and individual 8
learning is a work in progress. Good teachers it is argued are constantly making and breaking their own models of what is effective teaching practice. The fact that learning style theorists disagree indicates that this area has developed by an empirical process of testing and falsification. It is therefore, natural that disagreements become apparent. Rayners conclusion is similar to Entwistle, learning assessments are a tool and not an end in itself useful for helping educators to consider pedagogical improvements. There was some evidence that student approaches to learning influenced use of e- learning resources. In a study involving 95 Open University psychology undergraduates Jelfs and Colbourn (2002) found some co-relation between deep learners and positive perceptions of e-learning. Students identified as surface learners tended to complain about time constraints and engaged less with online resources. This study found much stronger co-relations between confidence of using IT and student perceptions of e-learning. Students who were less confident at using IT were correspondingly less likely to positively evaluate e- learning. The authors acknowledged that this was a small study and that therefore findings could not be considered very widely relevant. Another study was completed with 134 students in a US institution (Jordanov 2001). This study used Kolb s (1999) learning style inventory and a questionnaire examining attitudes towards technology use. The study reported an association between an active learning style and positive student attitudes towards e-learning material. Of 300 students invited to participate only 134 (44%) actually participated. The possible effect of this limitation is not acknowledged by the study, for example, did only the most engaged students reply and what effect would this have on the study outcome? A smaller qualitative study (Heaton-Shrestha et al 2007) of 43 students attempted to examine the effect that learning style had on approaches to and use of e learning. The authors found no evidence that e-learning made any difference to student learning style. However, there was some evidence that students used this differently depending upon individual learning style. Access was much lower, 45% of the surface learners used it frequently as opposed to 82% of the deep learners. Deep learners were the only students 9
who looked at online resources in preparation for lectures whereas surface learners tended to look at material after lectures as part of revision. The authors concluded that e-learning was unlikely to influence learning approaches but that these approaches did influence how students interacted online. A study into student satisfaction with e-learning was conducted by Nian-Shing, Lin and Kinshukc (2008). This Taiwanese research study did not look specifically at student learning approaches. Instead, a consumer satisfaction questionnaire was used to study attitudes amongst 230 (88% response rate) students. This identified four important areas which influenced student s views on e-learning. Course administration, ease of e-learning use/ access, quality of educational materials and perceived quality of group and instructor interaction were the most critical factors. Overall, the study recommends that IT support is especially important to quality of e-learning experienced. Another Taiwanese study reached similar conclusions (Sun et al 2008). This study of 295 students (45% response) attempted to identify the most critical factors which may influence learner satisfaction with e-learning. Less emphasis was placed on factors such as IT support and technical ability, the most important variable was perceived quality of educational materials. The study concluded that perhaps students are now more comfortable with technology use. The authors acknowledge however that this study is limited in that it only examines satisfaction, there is no indication of the effect that use of this technology might have on learning outcome such as course grades. All of the above studies sought to investigate the possible effects of e-learning, such studies are problematised by Clark s (2001) critique of assumptions made in such studies. As can be seen from the above review, there is little evidence to suggest that e-learning outcomes are any different to other forms of learning. It is suggested by Clark (2001) that this is because there is no difference between the two. Clark argues that instructional media make no difference to student learning. What is important is teaching methods, it doesn t matter how this teaching is delivered any more than the truck which delivers the groceries 10
has an influence on our nutrition. Clark (2001) also argued that educational studies showing an advantage to e-learning are methodologically flawed. Finally, an interesting perspective was offered by Malcolm & Zukas (2001) review of literature surrounding the general application of pedagogical ideas in higher education. The authors concluded that the most dominant ideas were drawn from psychology. This suggests that education is something that focuses upon the learner as an individual. The authors argue that there is an assumption that students learn (or fail to learn) because of their individual characteristics or because of the qualities (or failings) of individual teachers. They argue that this approach ignores possible social, political, gender or class issues. An attempt by Higher education managers to focus upon knowable facts that can lead to policy changes is suggested as a reason for this focus. A general review of the literature in the current study reveals that all of it originates from a psychological view point and that this would appear to be a valid criticism of this study. Literature review: Discussion, conclusions and implications for study. The literature reviewed in this study fell into several broad categories. Firstly, those proposing student approaches to learning theories (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006) followed by studies which used these as a theoretical background. This was followed by studies investigating possible links between student learning and use of e-learning resources. The review concluded by including some ideas critical of learning style theory as well as those defending these ideas. It is important to attempt to identify what (albeit tentative) ideas can be drawn from this review and how these ideas have shaped the study. Firstly, it is necessary to consider the criticism of the learning theory used as a basis for this study. The studies covered in this review do correspond to Haggis (2003) critique that they seek to (quite uncritically) confirm existing theory, possibly at the expense of alternative understandings of learning. This fits with the argument (Malcolm & Zukas 2001) that psychological ideas are privileged at the expense of other possible understandings. Given that the introduction to this paper discusses the demographic changes in higher education it would be a serious omission if aspects such as possible gender, race or age 11
differences were not considered. For this reason, survey data covering these aspects will be specifically examined for indications of effects other than individual psychological factors. It is also intended that the semi structured interviews should seek student views about what they feel may be possible influences on their learning. Other criticisms have been examined, especially Coffield et al (2004) who questioned an over reliance on learning style theories. This critique was considered alongside arguments advocating a qualified and cautious use of such work, especially as a means of examining teaching practice (Marshall and Case 2005) as well as an aid to individual teacher reflection (Rayner 2007). It was decided that for this study the implications were that possible conclusions should be considered context specific, attempts to more widely generalise should be done very cautiously. This is in any case a reasonable conclusion for this study because the cohort size would not justify generalisability. Theoretical work which laid the foundations of learning style theories (Marton & Saljo 1976, Biggs 2006) has clearly been influential. It has been widely accepted by Higher Education institutions (Coffield et al 2004, Haggis 2003, Rayner 2007) and this paper has cited several studies which use these ideas. Reference to these studies show that their results and conclusions vary considerably. All of the studies appear to have uncritically accepted the idea firstly that students actually have characteristic approaches to learning, secondly that these approaches can be influenced by educators and thirdly that this is something worth doing anyway. Only one study (Ramburuth & Mladenovic 2004) tried to examine possible links between learning approach and assessment score. Results suggested a negative relationship between a surface approach and a low module score and no obvious relationship between a deep approach and eventual module score. Another study (Hall, Ramsay & Raven 2004) claimed to have influenced student learning approaches although this didn t go on to examine what difference this made to learning outcomes. Arguably, both studies might be used to support Haggis (2003) critique that what is actually being promoted 12
is a traditional view of what learners should behave like as there is little evidence that outcomes are affected in any way. There was some evidence that it is possible to inadvertently cause students to adopt more surface approaches to their learning. In an examination of the effects of assessment type, Struyven et al (2006) concluded that they couldn t influence students to adopt deep approaches but in over-burdening students they had managed to encourage a surface approach. Some work has focused upon the relationship between e-learning and student learning approaches. A deep approach to learning was found (Jelfs & Colbourn 2002) to have some relationship with positive attitudes towards e-learning resources, however, this study concluded that confidence in using IT resources was far more likely to influence student perceptions of e-learning. Similar conclusions regarding the importance of IT skills were found in Jordanov s (2001) study which used Kolb s learning style inventory as a foundation. Both of these studies acknowledged that a small sample size as well as poor study response (Jordanov 2001) meant that only very tentative conclusions could be drawn. Further evidence to suggest that e-learning materials do not influence student learning approach was provided by Heaton-Shrestha et al s (2007) work. In a conclusion that had similarities to the findings of Struyven et al (2006) these authors suggested that although e-learning doesn t change the way students approach learning it does change the way that they engage with it. This would also seem to fit with Marton and Säljö s (1976) study which concluded that students will engage differently with written material depending upon the approach to learning adopted. Quality of educational materials as well as factors like relative efficiency of course administration and the relationship between students and teachers was found by two studies (Nian-Shing, Kan-Min & Kinshuk 2008, Sun, P et al 2008) to be of greater importance than learning style. 13
Finally, It has been argued (Clark 2001) that attempts to compare e-learning with other forms of teaching are fundamentally flawed, all that is happening is that researchers are comparing like with like. There are several points from this review that need to be incorporated into the study. Firstly, the literature suggests that a deep approach to learning is a desirable attribute amongst students and one that educators should try to promote. However, literature accessed provides little support for this idea. There is scant evidence for an association between deep approaches to learning and good learning outcomes and some evidence that shallow approaches may be associated with poor outcomes. Students who are stressed by being over burdened with work may adopt a more surface approach to learning. IT support and quality of teaching interaction may be as important as student learning approach. Students with deep approaches to learning may be more positive about e- learning resources. E-learning materials do not influence student approach to learning but approach to learning may influence how materials are used. Studies comparing e-learning to other teaching may be flawed. Possibly an over reliance on individual psychological understanding of learning at the expense of understandings from other areas especially social factors As stated at the start of this section it is intended to show how the literature review conclusions have been incorporated into the format of this study. In the next part of this paper it is intended to clarify the research process adopted and to discuss the methodology and underlying research philosophy of this study. 14
Research Methodology. The research methodology adopted in this study is mostly qualitative in nature but in an attempt to provide a thorough review of research questions asked there are also aspects of quantitative methods. The overall research strategy adopted was a survey and methods used to collect the qualitative data were questionnaires, a learning style inventory ( Biggs 2001) as well as a series of semi structured interviews. Quantitative data was also used to help inform the survey, this was collected by accessing module assessment scores, as well as data recording access of the e-learning resources. Quite clearly this is a mixture of different and potentially conflicting approaches and it is intended to discuss and justify this in the following section. Underlying Research Philosophy Before going on to discuss research methods to be used it is necessary first to examine issues surrounding ontology and epistemology and the effect these may have upon the study. It has been argued (Grix 2004) that ideas around these concepts provide the basis for a study. This will influence subsequent decisions about research questions and the methods used to gather and process information about these. This section will briefly discuss these issues and attempt clarification about how these have influenced this study. It is then intended to describe the methodological approach before going on to examine strengths and weaknesses of the study approach as well as considerations of reliability, validity and bias. Ontology has been defined as outlining the system of beliefs that we hold about the nature of the world and is concerned with beliefs (as well as the different positions)held by people concerning the relationship between knowledge and reality (Smith 2003). An important area of disagreement are the differing positions held by people concerning ideas about objectivism and constructivism Grix (2004). An objectivist approach suggests that social phenomena may exist independently, be measurable and comprehensible independently of social actors. A constructivist approach differs by arguing that social phenomena cannot be understood as something distinct from social actors, furthermore, 15
these phenomena are a product of social interaction and constantly being revised. Ontology then, concerns what it is that we may know, and it can be seen that this will have an influence on epistemology which is concerned with how we come to know about the world. Epistemology can be described as the study of knowledge and specifically, possible ways in which researchers gather knowledge about social reality (Grix 2004), clearly, our views regarding this will be influenced by ontological beliefs. The questions that are asked within a study are directly influenced by the underlying epistemological paradigms adopted. For example, a positivist research position holds that it is possible to discover facts and to deal with data which can be statistically manipulated to prove or disprove pre-determined hypotheses (Kumar 2005). Alternately, phenomenology emphasises the importance of subjectivity and the meanings that people give, recognising that personal values may influence research processes (Denscombe 2003). In this approach, researchers do not assume an objective stance to the research process and the idea that it is possible to maintain an uninvolved and detached stance has been problematised (Grix 2004). It is important to acknowledge the influence of ideas surrounding Symbolic interaction to this discussion. The theory of Symbolic interaction suggests that external events and interactions ( the other ) are only comprehensible in terms of their relationship to ones self (Denzin,& Lincoln 2003). This has had an influence upon the conduct of qualitative research because an attempt to conduct objective and uninvolved social research would be incompatible with such a stance. It has been suggested (Bilton et al 2002) that the most important feature of symbolic interaction theory can be seen in it s influence on qualitative research, especially where researchers attempt to understand a situation from the point of view of it s participants. It can be argued then that there are different ways of understanding the world & gathering knowledge about it and therefore it is important to be clear about the influence this may have on this study. Because of the need to attempt understanding from differing view points the research study design utilises a variety of data gathering techniques to produce a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative data. This approach is described as triangulation by Denscombe 16
(2003) who argues that as debate has failed to establish the superiority of any one epistemological approach this allows the researcher to compare and contrast information gathered around a subject. As will be seen, it is intended to access numerical data about student class attendance and also the number of times they access the e-learning resources. This numerical data about quantity of student access is only partially revealing because it gives no information about what the student actually does whilst accessing it, it is possible for example to log on to the site just to see who else is doing so or to sit in class and think of something else. Only qualitative data can possibly give an indication of expressed student attitudes towards the e-learning resources but on it s own gives no indication of whether (if at all) the student ever accessed the material. For these reasons then, this study will attempt to access a mixture of data sources. Generalisability The extent to which an attempt can be made to apply the study conclusions more generally is an important issue. Silverman (2000) has stated that generalisability is an important aim of quantitative research studies. Qualitative researchers tend to argue that this paradigm rejects the idea of an external and objectively measurable truth to be uncovered and therefore only rarely try to make claims about the generalisability of their research (Maxwell 1998). The tendency is to produce smaller scale and more subjective studies that are applied to particular situations. Whilst this study is specifically intended to inform my own teaching practice the conclusions will be shared with other colleagues. That there are limitations to the extent to which the study conclusions may be generalisable will be acknowledged. Whilst conclusions are intended to be applicable to and of use in my own work it may be that in other areas this study will form no more than a platform for possible future studies and reflection. Sampling. It was necessary to consider issues both around the group of students accessed and also issues about sampling within this initial sample. Although it was decided to try and access as large a number of students as possible it was clearly impossible to access all of 17
them due to the large numbers involved. Purposeful sampling(maxwell 1998) is described as a process in which a smaller group is deliberately selected as being partially representative of the larger group. In this case it was decided to focus on one group taking a Diploma in mental health nursing course module. This group was chosen because it comprises a larger number of students who will be studying the course at the same time. The initial questionnaires will be given to all of the group members and numerical data about their usage of module e-leaning resources and module assessment scores will be accessed by the study. Firstly, Biggs (2001) SPQ produces scores for respondents around three factors, surface, deep and achieving approaches. Secondly, the whole group will be given a brief questionnaire asking about how they use e-learning resources at the University and whether they think these are useful as part of this, students will also be encouraged to add any comments they wish about these elements of their course. Thirdly the numerical data about course e-learning access frequency and course module score will be considered. Silverman (2000) suggests that purposive sampling requires the researcher to think critically about the parameters of the group to be studied whilst Denscombe (2003) describes an advantage of purposive sampling as being the ability to home in on individuals, identified as being important to the research. According to Denscombe (2003) a qualitative study involves a process of discovery (rather than testing of a hypothesis) in which to some extent a sample is allowed to emerge depending upon earlier decisions. In this study then, it is intended to select from within the group a selection of respondents for semi structured interview depending upon their responses to the earlier questionnaires and information taken from quantitative data collected. Strengths and weaknesses : Disadvantages of survey As discussed above, it is intended to use a mix of both qualitative and quantitative data to inform this study. A possible problem of this approach is that it inevitably increases the quantity of data produced which will have the effect of reducing the available time to process this, I have made the judgment that finding this extra time is necessary. Reliability, validity and bias 18
Reliability in a quantitative study is an indication of the extent to which the research methods used are objectively measuring some external phenomena and could be duplicated elsewhere if necessary (Kumar 2005). This study will partially rely upon statistical data around student usage of e-learning as well as module assessment marks but as discussed above it is not expected that this data alone will suffice. Silverman (2000) suggests that reliability in a qualitative study is more concerned with demonstrating how the process adopted by an individual researcher led to the conclusions reached. It is therefore important that data used as well as individual reflection upon this is made available so that if necessary others can verify or question the process adopted. Validity can be defined as the extent to which a research study actually measures what it sets out to study (Silverman 2000). The same author also describes validity as the degree to which one can be confident that research conclusions are based upon all of the data produced and not simply that utilised selectively to justify a pre determined conclusion. Silverman (2000) also argues that a means of increasing the validity of conclusions reached is to employ a triangulation approach to data. In this way a study which can demonstrate that different forms of data gathered has been compared and contrasted can arguably be shown to be producing more valid conclusions which, as discussed is the intended approach of this study. The use of reflection as part of qualitative studies is discussed by Boyd and Fales (1983) who advocate the importance of qualitative researchers being able to develop understanding but also being able to account for this development process. In this study then it is intended to maintain a reflective journal in which it will be possible for a reader to follow the process adopted, allowing a judgment to be made about the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn. As part of allowing for external scrutiny it is also intended to make available all of the data used in the study making it possible that others might examine this and either agree or dispute conclusions drawn. The meaning of bias can vary (Hammersley 1993) depending upon the epistemological approach adopted by the researcher. In a quantitative study this is a 19
systematic error causing erroneous results whereas in a qualitative study it refers to a possible tendency a researcher might have to interpret data in a more subjective way, perhaps to confirm pre-conceived ideas. Discussing the management (in qualitative studies) of potential bias issues (Maxwell 1998) argues that our past studies, beliefs and inclinations have led us to ask the questions in the first place and it is neither necessary or desirable to try and present ourselves as being impartial observers. Rather, it is important to acknowledge these personal views and to make data used available as part of the abstract so that it can be checked independently. As stated at the outset of this paper I have an interest in the area of e-learning, arguably, it could be against my interest to produce a study which concluded that our pursuit of e-learning was a waste of time. Whilst I have tried to acknowledge this it has also been necessary to include data used in an appendix as well as the reflective record of decisions taken which should enable another person to evaluate data and make a judgment about conclusions reached. Ethical considerations It is intended that this study should be conducted with regards to ethical standards. These have been summarised by Denscombe (2003) as ensuring that researchers have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of participants, avoid harm and operating with honesty and integrity. Ethical approval for the study will be sought from the Faculty of Education at Birmingham City University (see appendix two) Firstly, there is a need to ensure that participants are able to give voluntary informed consent, Silverman (2000) recommends that participants need to be given information about the nature of the research, and that they should sign to say that they have understood this. It is intended that participants will be given individual handouts (appendix three) explaining the research as well as having it explained to the group before being asked for their written permission to be involved in the study. The need to consider possible harm to participants is important because evaluation in a classroom setting can be perceived as a threat (Bennett 2003). 20
It is intended that for the purposes of writing the study all responses will be anonymised with students not being identified by name and that during the course of the study data will be kept in a securely locked cabinet. Denscombe (2003) discusses the need for researchers to act within the spirit of the data protection Act 1998. In this case then participants will be informed of proposed data to be collected and that it will only be used for the purposes of this study. No data will be kept that is not for use in the study and as stated this will be kept securely and not distributed to other agencies. As required by the Faculty of Education ethical guidance the participants will also be informed at the start of the study about their right to withdraw at any time. Methods Two separate groups of students commencing a third year module on the mental health nursing Diploma and Bsc course were invited to participate in a research study. Firstly, students were asked to complete the Biggs (2001) learning styles inventory to determine their usual approaches to learning as well as a questionnaire asking for their attitudes towards the e-learning resources encountered in their course. Data on student access to the module e-learning resources is routinely available as part of the Moodle e- learning platform as well as information about class attendance and module assessment score. This information will be accessed and matched to individual students, a sample of whom will be selected for further interview. The themes and questions covered by this interview will to some extent be determined by the preceding questionnaires. It is envisaged that aspects such as attitudes to use of e-learning, how well these resources influence their studies and how these resources influence clinical practice will be discussed. Earlier discussion and reflection has identified a variety of patterns of e-learning usage. Some students don t make use of these resources whilst others make frequent use of them, it is intended to try and discuss these patterns with students. At this stage of the study then data will be available about individual learning styles, attitudes towards and usual behaviour in accessing e-learning, e-learning access and final assessment mark. This information will be used to select a smaller sample of students for semi structured interview. 21
Semi Structured interviews. The interviews were conducted to gather more information about how students felt about their learning experiences. Analysis of these interviews is included in the findings of this paper, this section aims to briefly discuss the justification for the structure adopted. The format of semi-structured interview was decided in preference to that of a more structured approach. Discussing these approaches, Oppenheim (2000) suggests that the purpose of a less structured approach is to develop ideas rather than statistics. Up to this point, the study has focused on gathering quantitative type data. As it is not intended to develop any further such data it was necessary to identify an interview process that would access more subjective information. As well as seeking subjective material from respondents, the authors own influence must be acknowledged. Although an attempt was made to reduce the author s role in the interview (as advocated by Oppenheim, 2001) it seems clear that this is only possible to a limited extent and it was therefore decided to acknowledge and record author impressions as part of the data collection process. The main disadvantage of the approach adopted was that it produced a great deal of data. Because of time constraints it was impossible to process a large number of responses and therefore the size of this part of the study sample had to be restricted. Firstly, a set of headings was decided upon around which the interview was based. These are based upon the research questions identified at the start of this study. In qualitative studies however, the focus of the interview and it s analysis is an ongoing, iterative process ( Sapsford & Jupp 2006). This is unlike a more quantitative approach which sets out to either prove or disprove an initial hypothesis. Again, it was necessary to adopt a reflective approach to data as it emerged which allowed for the process to be explicit to an external reviewer. Because there is a lot of data produced in an interview it was decided to use a voice recorder. Participants were informed about this and given assurances regarding it s use and 22
storage. Consideration was also given to location and timing of interview, in order not to take up too much of participants time, interviews were kept to 30 minutes. It was also necessary to ensure that the environment was comfortable and free from distractions. Sample size was considered, ideally, each one of the 31 respondents would be interviewed. However, time constraints dictated that a smaller interview sample be chosen. It has been argued that the smaller a study sample, the less detailed and more generally descriptive the eventual analysis should be ( Sapsford & Jupp 2006). Four students were asked if they would agree to participate in the interview process. Analysis commenced by transcribing student responses and then carefully reading through these, making general notes about anything that appeared significant. For example, It was especially important to try and identify similarities or differences between respondents as well as anything that might be significant enough to justify including in future interviews. The next stage involved gathering responses together into categories of data. These categories were either suggested by the research questions, literature review or from ideas that emerged as part of the initial reading of responses. At this stage the aim was to generate as many categories as possible. The general intention was to form an overall descriptive sense of the data, again, a reflective process was necessary to record and justify decisions made. Following this process a set of analytical categories was developed these have been incorporated into the findings section and used to give form to the structure of the conclusions to the paper. 23
Study Findings The second part of this paper presents study findings before going on to critically discuss these in relation to research identified in the literature review. As discussed in the research philosophy section, a combination of quantitative and qualitative data has been gathered. This data formed the basis of semi structured interviews which were conducted in July/August 2009. The paper concludes by identifying study findings before ending with discussion and conclusions. Findings The initial data collected was a likert scale questionnaire which also contained sections for students to add comments. Attached to this was a Biggs SPQ (Biggs 2001). Data was also collected about student s e-learning access and module assessment grade. 31 students took part out of a group of 43, a response rate of 72%. 13 of the group (48%) were White, the largest other ethnic group was 5 students (16%) who described themselves as Black/Black British African. As there were such small numbers of ethnic minority students no attempt was made to analyse these separately. 24
Questionnaire Feedback: e-learning: access and attitudes. Generally, students were positive about the module resources, 84% enjoyed this to a large or some extent whilst 90% of the group agreed that Moodle enhanced their learning to either a large or to some extent. 87% of the group felt that Moodle helped them understand clinical practice to a large or to some extent (Appendix 4) Everyone reported that they used e-learning, 87% of the students reported that they used it either a lot (38%) or sometimes (48%). However, reference to the usage data showed that four of these students are recorded as never having accessed this. Assessment scores were compared to Moodle access figures to examine whether students who used Moodle more gained higher marks than those who used it less. As can be seen from the graph, individual student usage varied quite significantly, four students are not recorded as having used it, average use was 78 times and the highest user accessed it on 309 occasions. There was no relationship between Module use and module score. 25