Monday, 30 July 2012

2012 Distance learners: Connected, mobile and resourceful individuals


Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology
2012, 28(4), 565-579
Distance learners: Connected, mobile
and resourceful individuals
Trish Andrews
The University of Queensland
Belinda Tynan
University of Southern Queensland
In recent  years the  student  experience  of  higher  education  in  general  and  distance
education  in  particular  has  been  strongly  influenced  by  the  wide  scale  uptake  of
Internet  based  learning  approaches  and  an  expanding  distance  education  market,
amongst many  other trends. As  competition within the  sector  increases  because  of
access to the WWW and other in-country socio-political influences, the push to attract
and  retain  students  is  becoming  a  key  issue  for  institutions.  Understanding  the
distance  student’s  voice  in  relation  to  these  trends  and  developing  appropriate
responses to  ensure a  satisfactory learning  experience is of  critical importance. This
paper  reports  on  a  recently  completed  study  that  explored  the  distance  learners’
experience at one dual-mode Australian institution. The paper outlines a rationale for
investigating the  student  voice to meet the unique needs  of the distance learner. It
describes the approaches that were adopted to undertake the research and discusses
some  of  the  main  themes  that  emerged  from  the  study  -  individualness,
connectedness,  quality,  mobility,  and  resourcefulness.  The  paper  concludes  with
considerations for  policy  and  practice  in relation to  utilising the  distance  learners’
voice in enhancing distance leaners’ experiences.
Introduction
During the last decade several trends have influenced distance education. These trends
include rapid growth in distance education and particularly online learning (Allen &
Seaman,  2008;  2010);  the  widespread  adoption  of  information  and  communication
technologies (ICT) to  support teaching and learning activities (Guri-Rozenblit, 2009):
the  merging  of  modes  of  learning  (Guri-Rozenblit,  2009);  the  impact  of  student
diversity (Kennedy, Dalgarno, Bennett, Gray, Judd, Waycott, Chang, Bishop, Maton &
Krause, 2009); a growing part time, mature age student cohort (Jones, Ramanau, Cross
& Healing, 2010) who are working and upskilling, and the expansion and globalisation
of higher education generally (Harmon, 2005).
Definitions  of  distance  education  have  become  blurred  in  recent  times  with  the
widespread  adoption  of ICT  to  support  a range  of  teaching  and  learning  activities
including distance  education. As discussed  by Guri-Rozenblit (2009),  several terms,
including online learning, eLearning, virtual learning and distance learning are used
synonymously,  further  blurring  understandings  of  distance  education.  For  the
purposes  of this  paper,  distance  learning  is  defined  as  all  learning that takes  place
where there is no face to face interaction between students and between students and566 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
teachers.  Any  interaction  between  learners  and  between  learners  and  teachers  is
mediated  by technology (Keegan,  2008). However, this  broad definition  of distance
learning, along with the interchange of terms, overlooks the particular circumstances
of the distance learner. For the purposes of this paper, distance learners are defined as
those  learners  who  participate  in  80%  or  more  of  their  courses  and  programs  off
campus, thus having little opportunity for formal and informal face to face learning
opportunities with peers and teachers (Allen & Seaman, 2008, 2010).
This  paper  describes  aspects  of  a  qualitative  study  to  explore  distance  learners’
experiences  of where  and  how they  learn,  often  captured  under the term  ‘learning
spaces’, learners’ mobility and their use of ICT for learning. The focus here is on the
overarching themes that emerged from the study and how the role of the student voice
can enhance the distance learner experience. More discussion of other aspects of the
study  including  learning  spaces  and  mobile  learning  are  reported  elsewhere.  The
paper concludes with some considerations for key stakeholders.
Literature
As the ownership and use of personal technology has become increasingly ubiquitous,
the  adoption  of  ICT  by  higher  education  has  continued  to  grow  rapidly,  with  all
Australian institutions integrating technology into the learning experience. This occurs
primarily through the use of learning management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard,
Moodle, and other more home grown varieties (Smithers, 2009) and tools such as webbased  lectures  or  podcasts (Gosper,  Green, McNeill,  Phillips,  Preston & Woo,  2008;
Woo,  Gosper,  McNeill,  Preston,  Green  &  Phillips,  2008;  Preston,  Phillips,  Gosper,
McNeill, Woo & Green, 2010). As an outcome of these changes, distance learners have
moved  with  the  technology.  They  have  had  to  manage  a  shift  from  print  based
correspondence  packages  alongside  technologies  such  as  CD-ROMs  to  web-based
learning environments. For many, the situation has become reasonably challenging as
the traditional distance education model transforms with the affordances provided by
the use of ICT (Szücs, Tait, Vidal & Bernath, 2009; Taylor, 1995). A consequence of this
shift has been that in many cases the focus on supporting the distance learner which
characterised earlier models of distance education has been lost (Guri-Rozenblit, 2009).
This focus, which supported distance students academically, personally, socially and
technically  was  recognised  as  critical  to  their  success.  The  current  situation  is
potentially problematic for distance learners,  as the use of technology has become a
key  component  of  distance  learners’  experience,  because  it  could  bypass  support
structures (Forsyth, Pizzica, Laxton, & Mahony, 2010).
The introduction of technology has promised increased and enhanced communication
and  interaction  for  distance  and  online  learners  (Bates,  2005).  Regardless  of  the
opportunities, there is limited evidence to support that this in fact occurs in practice.
Indeed, some recent studies (Lonn & Teasley, 2009; McKeogh & Fox, 2009) suggest that
most lecturers make little use of the interactive features of many ICT tools. There is
also  some  evidence that  although  some tools  such  as  lecture recordings  are widely
utilised, the majority  of  lecturers make  no  changes to their  curriculum  practices to
integrate these technologies (Gosper et al., 2008; Preston et al, 2010). Indeed, Conole
(2007, 2008) suggests that there is a gap between rhetoric and policy in relation to the
use of ICT for teaching and learning.
Distance  students  are  recognised  for  their  busy  lives  (Kirkwood,  2000)  and  their
preference for anywhere, anytime learning (Anderson & Elloumi, 2008), and much isAndrews and Tynan 567
also made of  students’ ownership  and use of mobile technology and its potential to
create and support mobile learning through active and engaged learning activities and
making more  effective  use  of  situated  and  contextual  learning  environments (Ally,
2009). Nevertheless, to date the majority of higher education institutions in Australia
appear  to  have  largely  ignored  this  opportunity  to  encourage  and  support  mobile
learning  on  an  institutional  scale  (ACODE,  2011).  Adding  to  the  opportunities  for
learners to  experience  learning with  a range  of technologies, the  adoption  of  social
networking  tools  such  as  Facebook,  Twitter and  SMS  also  continues to  grow  apace.
Despite the opportunities offered by such tools, current research indicates that much of
the focus of students’ use of tools such as Facebook is social (Madge, Meek, Wellens &
Hooley  2009;  Selwyn,  2007). As with much  of the work into the  student  experience
with ICT for teaching and learning (Conole, 2008; Fitzgerald & Steele, 2008; Jefferies,
2009; Kennedy  et  al.,  2009) the focus  of these  studies is upon first  year,  on  campus
students.
Consequently, little is understood about the perceptions of distance learners in relation
to  their  learning  experience  with  ICT.  What  is  evident  is  that  distance  learners
experience a high level of attrition in  some online  courses, up to 40% in many  cases
(Patterson & McFadden, 2009). This gives cause for concern about the nature of their
learning experience, and impetus to develop a better understanding of the impact of
ICT on distance learners.
The notion of ‘digital natives’ put forward by Prensky (2001) dominates much of the
ongoing  discussion  around  the  students'  learning  experience  (Jones  et  al.,  2010).
Prensky proposed that the ‘net gen’ students (those born between 1980 and 1995) and
now entering university are computer savvy ‘digital natives’ with high levels of digital
competency  and  high  levels  of  expectation  relating  to  the  use  of  technology  for
teaching  and  learning  activities.  Other  authors  support  this  notion  (Oblinger  &
Oblinger,  2005). These papers  are highly influential  but few  are  based  on  empirical
research (Jones et al., 2010). The mistaken assumption in much of this work is that first
year  students are homogeneous groups and thus little attention may be given to the
needs  of  mature  age  students  within  these  cohorts.  Recent  studies  investigating
student experiences with ICT for both personal and learning purposes (Conole, 2008;
Fitzgerald & Steele, 2008; Kennedy et al. 2009; Wood & Dodd, 2010) provide evidence
to refute this notion of homogeneity, however the focus of these latter studies is still
largely upon on campus first year students, with little understanding of the experience
of distance learners.
Investigating the student experience
With the rapid adoption of ICT for teaching and learning as outlined above, there has
been considerable interest in exploring the impact of technology on student learning.
Consequently practitioners and researchers have investigated and disseminated their
work across numerous journals and conferences which have a focus on the use of ICT
in education. However, the majority of these studies into ICT use in higher education
were  “written from the perspective  of the practitioner  and  are under the  control  of
institutions or teachers” (Mayes, 2006, p.3).
Consequently,  while  these  studies  provide  useful  information,  this  approach  to
understanding the use of ICT for teaching and learning:568 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
... largely neglects a genuinely learner-centred perspective: that students experience
formal learning in emotional terms, that their motivation to learn is only
understandable by looking at their lives holistically, and that technology is embedded
in their social experience. (Mayes, 2006, p.3)
It  appears,  then,  that  while much  of  the  dissemination  around  the  use  of  ICTs  for
teaching  and  learning  is  interesting,  there  is  a  tendency  to  the  evaluation  of  ‘war
stories’ of practice, that are from the ‘teachers perspective’ and few have developed
methodologies for incorporating the student voice to inform and enhance the learning
experience  of  specific  cohorts  of  students.  Further  to  this,  while  there  has  been
considerable  activity  around  including  the  student  voice  in  quality  processes  and
activities (Little & Williams,  2010),  as Porter (2008) points out, much of this  activity
relates to structures and there is a need to consider how institutions can focus on the
students and their individual perspectives, as well as their wider contributions.
JISC (2009) point out different cohorts of learners experience learning differently. For
example,  on  campus  students  have  different requirements  to  mature  age  working
professionals  who  study  primarily  at  a  distance.  However,  many  of  the  support
systems  in  place  in  institutions tend to relate to the  on  campus  learner rather than
those students who might study through different modalities (Forsyth et al, 2010), and
do not address the specific needs of the distance or online learner. Additionally, Jara &
Mellar (2010) found that where data is collected from distance learners it is not always
acted  upon,  even  in  institutions  where  online  distance  learning  is  a  key  focus  of
institutional activities. This would  come as no  surprise to many as institutional data
collected across the higher education sector is quite widely known to be poorly used.
The comparative analysis showed that the main issues missing from the quality
assurance documentation that were mentioned by the interviewees were those related
to student participation and the support provided to the students… This failure was
due to either the inappropriateness of the quality assurance procedures or the
inadequate recording of their implementation (Jara & Mellar, 2010, p. 711.)
Methodology
Given  the  paucity  of  specific  information  available  about  the  distance  learner  in
general, a gap has been identified which requires addressing, to enable institutions to
assist  their  students  to  progress  in  their  studies  in  a  satisfactory  manner.
Understanding  and  acting  on  improving the  student  learning  experience  can  assist
institutions  and  students to  counter  challenges that they might face in their  studies.
The student voice can also be used to inform how institutions and their staff can plan
for  successful  learner  experiences  including  drawing  upon  appropriate  pedagogies
that account for the diversity of students and their needs. To date there appears to be
limitations in how these pedagogies respond directly to the distance learner.
This qualitative study took a phenomenological approach to investigating the student
voice as this was deemed as being the most appropriate way in which to answer the
research  question,  "What  are  the  experiences  of  distance  learners’  use  of  ICTs  for
teaching and learning?" The research question is framed from the perspective of the
‘lived  experience’  of  the  distance  learners  and  therefore  consistent  with  the
methodological  approach. The aim of using the phenomenological approach for this
study as opposed to other qualitative approaches was to:Andrews and Tynan 569
... describe as accurately as possible the phenomenon, refraining from any pre-given
framework, but remaining true to the facts (Groenworld, 2004, p.5).
Participants
Students were  purposively  selected to  provide  a  participant  cohort that reflected  a
range  of  distance  learning  experiences.  This  included  choosing  participants  on  the
basis of information rich cases (Mayes, 2006). Once ethical approval was approved, a
letter outlining the types of learning experiences that were preferred, was sent out to
prospective  participants  via  the  student  services  InsiderGuide blog  page.  The
participants sought were:
• International students studying by distance
• Students living on campus and studying by distance
• Postgraduate students working full time
• Undergraduate students working full time
• Students who may be combining on campus and distance courses
The final group of 12 participants represented a wide diversity of distance  students’
learning experiences. However, no international students or students living on campus
and studying by distance came forward.
Methods
In  keeping  with  the  phenomenological  approach,  student-centred  approaches  to
research allow for the collection of thick descriptions and capture the students’ feelings
in relation to their  activities  as well  as  information  about these  experiences (Mayes
2006). The methods for this study included:
• A literature review (literature was considered data in this study)
• The day experience method (DEM) (Learning Landscape Project Team, 2008)
• Charting the Week’s Activities (CWA - drawing upon the day reconstruction method)
• Photos of learning spaces
• Focus groups
As in other phenomenological studies (e.g. Ganeson & Ehrich, 2010) diaries are a key
method of data collection. For this study two approaches to using diaries were utilised,
the DEM  and the CWA.  Students were  encouraged to provide  a digital dairy using
either video or audio (Jefferies, 2009) but were also given the choice of using print if
they preferred,  as  it was thought that this would  better  capture the ways  in which
students  use  technology, rather  than requiring  a  use  that may  not  be  part  of  their
normal use of technology.
The  day  experience  method  (DEM)  was  adapted  from  Riddle  &  Arnold’s  (2007)
resource  kit to meet the  needs  and requirements  of this  study. DEM  is  based  on  a
combination  of  the  Day  Reconstruction  Method (DRM)  and  the  Experience Sampling
Method (ESM) (Hektner et al, 2007). The DRM is designed to gather information about
how people  experience  various  activities  and  events in their lives (Kahneman  et  al,
2004).  ESM  involves  “signaling  questions  at  informants repeatedly  throughout  the
sampling periods” (Khan et al, 2009, p. 15). In particular the DEM was used to capture
students’ learning activities over an 18-hour period. Students were sent SMS messages
on their mobile phones at irregular intervals through this period and were asked to570 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
describe their activities, where they were and who they were with, the resources they
were using and how they were feeling. Students were asked to provide as much detail
as possible.
Unique to this study is the CWA. Devised by the researcher, the CWA was developed
tp  overcome  perceived  limitations  of  the  DEM  in  capturing  common  patterns  and
routines of study not fully addressed in one 18 hour time slot. Consequently, drawing
on the DRM (Hektner et al. 2007), the CWA was developed so that participants could
provide  a daily  summary  of their work  over  a  longer time  period  so  as to  identify
these learning patterns and routines. They were asked to log their learning, personal
and  social activities, the resources they used for teaching and learning activities and
their feelings in relation to these experiences. Riddle & Howell (2008) note that using
tools such as the DEM is an:
attempt to reduce recall distortion and the ideological biases of other sampling
methods such as interviews, survey and focus groups (p.4).
The CWA and DEM processes were complemented by asking participants to take part
in  a focus group where they  shared their  experiences  and described how they went
about learning with ICTs (Riddle & Howell, 2008).
Data  collected  from  these  approaches  were  analysed  using  N V I V O and  an
interpretative thematic approach (IPA). The data analysis followed a four step process
outlined by Ganeson and Ehrich (2010) and drawing on Giorgi’s (1985b, 11-18) process
for IPA. To  ensure the accuracy of analysis and the  consequent interpretation of the
data, the completed voice studies were returned to the participants for checking. All 12
participants agreed that the studies accurately reflected their experiences and required
none or very minor textual adjustments. In general the students were extremely happy
with the studies (student names are pseudonyms):
WOW, wow, wow....
Thank you for doing such great justice to my 'voice' both my positive experiences and
comments and the negative experiences and comments. (Ingrid, email comment, 23
Feb 2011).
Results and discussion
Data generated  a number of  common themes  across the  12 voice  studies during the
analysis  stage. In  this  paper,  and  given  space,  the five  themes  are  discussed.  They
include individualness, connectedness, quality, mobility and resourcefulness.
Individualness
For each of the learners in this project, the ways in which they organised their learning
spaces  and  used  ICT  technology  to  support  independent  learning  varied  widely
depending on their different needs and requirements (Kirkwood, 2000). Each situation
is  highly  individual,  as  distance  learners  fit  their  learning  in  around  their  other
interests  and  commitments, impacting on the  choices these learners make  about the
use of ICT for teaching and learning and the spaces they choose to learn in, creating
particular challenges in how institutions can effectively support this great diversity of
distance learners’ needs (Anderson & Elloumi, 2008). This individuality has particular
implications for:Andrews and Tynan 571
• learning design,
• personal learning environments, and
• quality processes (specifically the ways in which student feedback is collected,
managed and responded to).
For some students, it can feel as though the institution is not listening and responding
to the feedback they  provide  and there  is  little recognition  of  individual  needs. As
Ingrid pointed out:
It doesn’t always feel that our feedback is valued and actually considered and you
know, the individualness of our various voices, it doesn’t always feel that that’s being
taken into account (Ingrid, Focus group discussion, November, 2010).
For the  participants  in this  study, the  opportunity to  have their  voice  heard was  a
strong motivating factor for agreeing to be part of the study. This suggests that some
students would like to provide input into their teaching and learning activities in ways
that are not currently available to them.
Connectedness
Connectedness in this study refers to students’ ability to interact with each other, their
lecturers  and the  institution.  Connectedness was  a  strong theme  across the  student
voices in this study, although the nature of how different students like or would like to
experience  connectedness  varied  considerably  between  participants  (Anderson  &
Elloumi,  2008).  Students  made  use  of  both  institutional  and  non-institutional
technologies to support connectedness. It is important to note here that where students
used non-institutional social networking tools to support their learning activities, they
quite often set up separate social networking sites apart from their personal sites for
this purpose.
While  some  students  still  make  little  use  of  informal  learning  communities  and
networks,  for  half  the  students  in  this  study  the  ability  to  participate  in  informal
learning  communities  or  networks was  highly  valued (Anderson  &  Elloumi,  2008).
Additionally, two students expressed an interest in participating in informal networks
but  were  unsuccessful  in  establishing  such  networks,  with  no  support  from  the
institution in this regard. For one student, the preference for independent learning was
more  about  expediency, where  completing  the  course  as  quickly  as  possible was  a
higher priority than interaction with other students.
Also  of  interest  was  the  reporting  by  three  of  the  participants  in  this  study  that
podcasting played an important role in their feeling of connectedness to the institution.
Connectedness and social networking sites
For the students in this study the institutional page serves a valuable support role. For
all of the participants, being able to connect to the institution through the use of the ED
UNE (student support services Facebook site) served a very useful purpose in keeping
them  up  to  date  with  administrative  and  technical  aspects  of  their  courses  and
programs. Additionally, some students also liked the ability provided by this ‘official’
Facebook site to get to know other  students in their  courses  so that they  could form
informal  learning  communities.  This  ability  to  connect  to  other  students  is  very
important to some students. While residential schools are a key tool for students to get
to  know  each  other,  not  all  students  have  the  opportunity  to  participate  in  these572 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
activities.  Further to this,  as  some  courses  and programs do  not  include residential
schools  and the ongoing inclusion of residential  schools  as part of distance learning
offering is not necessarily guaranteed, institutional use of social networking tools such
as Facebook can  play  a  critical role  in  enabling  students  to  link  up with  other  likeminded people to create informal learning support groups.
This study provides some evidence that student-initiated social networking sites such
as Facebook, MSN and Twitter provide opportunities to meet a complex range of social,
academic  and  administrative  needs,  depending  on  individual  preferences.  This  is
similar to findings by Conole (2008) who found that  students use  a wide variety of
social  networking  tools  to  interact  with  their  peers.  Nevertheless,  this  study  also
indicates that where the use of technology is well designed and the learning activities
engaging  and providing perceived value, these  students  appear to  be very  satisfied
with their learning experience.
As a student studying for an undergraduate degree via the Internet, I did not feel that
I missed out on social interaction due to the discussion forums, wikis, chat rooms as
well as the few residential schools that I attended. I feel that I actually got to know
some of the lecturers a lot better than if I sat in on their lectures in person. (Dorothy,
notes, October, 2010).
This  is  supported  by  Allen  (2010),  who  suggests  that  engagement  is  the  key  to
involving students.
For the participants in this study, non-compulsory informal student networks appear
to be the most successful in terms of ongoing student participation in and benefit from
participation in such groups. It may be that the ability to drop in and out of such tools
at times that suit the learners might be more attractive to distance education students
than tools such as Skype which require a more formal organisation. Or, it may be that
different technologies support different learner needs for different circumstances.
Quality
In this  study, while  students were  satisfied overall with the general quality of their
courses, they identified a number of factors impacting on the quality of the distance
learner’s  experience  with  ICT  for  teaching  and  learning.  These  factors  include  the
provision  of  learning  materials;  learning  design;  online  interactions;  integration  of
technology into teaching and learning; reliability of technology used for teaching and
learning; and staff and student capacity in relation to the use of ICT for teaching and
learning.  The  quality  of  courses  in  relation  to  these  factors  varied  widely  across
programs,  highlighting  issues  regarding  the  ways  in  which  quality  processes  are
developed and implemented for technology mediated distance learning (Jara & Mellar,
2010). From this  experience it  can be deduced that quality processes  are indeed not
necessarily applied to the technologically supported aspects of learning, as suggested
by other researchers (Guri-Rozenblit, 2009; Jara & Mellar, 2010).
Guri-Rozenblit (2009) expressed concerns that the careful quality processes applied to
traditional  distance  learning  materials  are  not  necessarily  applied  to  ICT  based
distance learning. Students in this study identified that consistency of presentation and
accuracy  of  information  of  online  content  can  sometimes  be  a  problem,  confirming
Guri-Rozenblit’s (2009) concerns.Andrews and Tynan 573
Some students, while valuing the inclusion of podcasts in their courses and programs,
found that in some cases these recordings overlooked the inclusion of distance learners
as  participants  in these  activities.  This  supports the  contention that the majority  of
lecturers make little or no changes to their curriculum or teaching practice to include
these technologies (Gosper et al., 2008; Preston et al, 2010).
Issues of quality also extend to online interactions:
The other thing that affects the quality of the technology and the technology learning
experiences and the distance education for distance ed students is actually the
enthusiasm of the lecturers to participate through the ICT that’s available to them.
Some lecturers and unit coordinators are enthusiastic in terms of working with
students using ICT, online chat rooms, email, voice call, that sort of stuff. Some
lecturers seem much more reticent to interact with students in that online forum. Some
lecturers have a very relaxed and open feel to their discussion boards in their units.
Some lecturers heavily regiment the discussions in their discussion boards (Ingrid,
CWA, October, 2010).
This  comment  highlights the  concerns raised  by Hughes (2009),  amongst  others,  in
relation to the digital divide that is becoming evident between students and teachers
with respect to  expectations  students have about how technology might be used for
teaching and learning, and the reality of how lecturers are using it.
The  challenge  of  appropriate  staff  development  for  teaching  and  learning  is  a
contentious  one  and  one for which there  is  no  easy  answer  in  an  higher  education
environment that  still has  a  strong  emphasis  on research  outputs. How universities
respond  to  this  could  be  critical  to  their  ongoing  role  in  providing  education  to
students as more alternatives to participate in learning continue to emerge. As long as
institutions  lack  the  will  to  engage  with  and  address  these  issues,  as  Ehlers  &
Schrekenberg (2010) currently suggest is the case, this will continue to be an issue. As
Conole (2007,  2008) points  out, more  needs to  be done to  address the  gap  between
rhetoric and practice.
As well  as being  an issue for  staff, digital literacy  can  also be  an issue for learners.
While applications vary widely between courses and programs, the use of technology
for  teaching  and  learning  is  common  for  distance  learners.  However,  as  in  other
studies, the level of ICT competency varies widely across cohorts (Fitzgerald & Steele,
2008; Kennedy  et  al,  2009; Wood & Dodd,  2010),  as well  as  amongst the  co-learners
who form part of the smaller learning communities these students participate in. This
can  have  a  negative  impact  on  learners’  experiences  in  online  forums,  particularly
where they feel that other learners are not adding value to the activities.
Mobility and mobile learning
For the majority of learners in this study, learning is integrated into work, social and
family aspects of their lives and  consequently mobility and mobile learning is a key
aspect  of  their  learning  experience. Mobility  here refers  both  to  the  ways  learners
interact with learning activities and the technologies they use to support their learning,
as well  as their  physical mobility  supported  by the  use  of mobile technologies (ElHussein & Cronje,  2010). Mobile materials, technologies  and learning design  are  all
vital aspects of this mobility. To support this mobility, several of the students made a
deliberate decision to purchase mobile technologies to  support their mobile learning574 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
and  to  enable  continuity  of  learning  (Kulkulska-Hulme,  2009),  as  they  went  about
other  activities. This has particular implications for the design  of learning for these
learners.
Much is made of the opportunities of mobile learning for 'anywhere, anytime' learning
(Traxler, 2009, 2011; Ramaprasad, 2009) and students are actively seeking to use their
mobile  technologies  to  support  their  learning  (van  Der  Werf  &  Sabtier,  2009).
However, in this instance, little attention has been paid to supporting mobility through
integrating mobile learning into online learning materials and activities in any of the
programs students participating in the study are enrolled in. This finding is reflected
more  broadly  in  the  Australian  context  in  the  results  of  a  recent  survey  which
indicated  that  mobile  learning  activities  at  this  stage  remain  fairly  limited  in  the
majority of institutions (ACODE, 2011).  While the lack of support for mobile learning
appears to be becoming an issue for some learners, there can also be problems with the
ways  in  which  the  learning  activities  are  integrated  into  a  course.  In  some  cases,
participants reported that the learning design  can limit  students’ mobility making it
difficult to use materials in flexible ways.
While  some  tools  such  as  podcasts  are  well  suited  to  mobile  learning  and  are
considered to provide pedagogical  benefits (Woo  et  al.,  2009), in the  context  of this
study,  they  are  often  inconsistently  available  for  students,  creating  frustration  and
disappointment through their lack of availability.
As  well  as  considering  the  development  and  implementation  of  policy  around
technology  use  to  support  distance  learners’  desire  to  be  more  mobile  learners,
consideration also should be given to redesigning learning activities and materials to
better  suit mobile learning  environments  and platforms. While there is  considerable
activity  at  a  course  level  in relation  to  mobile  learning,  and  some  institutions  are
beginning to offer mobile access to LMS such as Blackboard, the recent ACODE (2011)
survey  showed few  indications that  institutions  are recognising  or responding to  a
society  that  is  generally  becoming  more  mobile  (Traxler,  2010,  2011),  and  to  the
implications this has for teaching and learning.
Drawing  on  the  results  of  this  study,  there  are  indications  that  enabling  distance
students’ mobility  through  the  design  and  integration  of mobile  learning  could  be
considered an important consideration in providing a positive learning experience for
distance learners, and one that is consistent with general perception that students want
more flexible anywhere, anytime learning (Ally, 2009; Williams, 2011).
Resourcefulness
For the participants in this study, being distance learners was generally a choice they
had made to  either  support their learning while they managed health issues,  enable
them  to  juggle  work,  family  and  busy  lives,  or  enable  them  to  study  while  they
contributed to their communities as a major part of their regular activities. While the
participants were  generally happy with their  choice, they demonstrated remarkable
resourcefulness  in  overcoming  challenges  and  finding  ways  to  achieve  satisfactory
learning outcomes. For example:
Log into Facebook and Skype to see what others are doing – we have a quiz for one of
the units that we decide that we’ll try and do together this afternoon ….  (Christine,
CWA data, Wednesday 27 October, 7.00 pm).Andrews and Tynan 575
Additionally, although all the participants found the technical support provided to be
of a high standard, they were adept at ‘trouble shooting’ when help was not available,
or  seeking  help  from  family  members  and  friends  to  overcome  technical  issues.
Students  are  also  resourceful  in  utilising  available  technology  to  solve  what  they
consider  are  limitations  in  their  learning  experience.  As  Ingrid  (Ingrid,  CWA,  28
October 2010) pointed out:
I’ve had one unit where a whole bunch of us actually moved the entire unit’s
discussion onto Facebook because the bulletin board was so heavily moderated.
Conclusions
This  study  has  sought  to  recognise  the  importance  of  the  student  voice,  having
identified the  area  as  a priority need for  empirical investigation. The results  of this
study  have  generated  a  range  of  possibly  useful  outcomes  for  stakeholders  who
include  senior managers within Universities, Government analysts who write policy
around  quality  assurance,  educational  designers,  academics  more  generally  and
students  themselves.  The  five  themes  -  individualness,  connectedness,  quality,
mobility, and resourcefulness - can be extrapolated for specific consideration by these
stakeholders.
Educational designers, for example, should take note of how Web 2.0 tools are being
utilised by learners and give  consideration to ways in which  connectedness through
both  formal  and  informal  avenues  can  be  more  effectively  fostered  for  distance
learners. Consideration  also needs to be given to  appropriate  and  effective  capacity
building for  online  learning for  both  staff  and  students.  As  pointed  out  previously
(Anderson  &  Elloumi,  2008;  Bates,  2005),  while  there  is  much  hype  around
engagement  and  interaction  with  these  tools,  with  the  notable  exception  of  two
programs  the  participants  in  this  study  largely  do  not  experience  these  types  of
activities in a consistent manner across their courses.
For  senior  administrators,  quality  processes  and  ‘closing the  loop’  on feedback  has
emerged  as  significant for the total  learning  experience  and for meeting  individual
student needs. While in this research students were active in providing their feedback
to  the  institution  they  did  not  necessarily  feel  that  the  feedback  was  then
acknowledged or acted upon. The participants felt that feedback mechanisms did not
address their individual needs.
It doesn’t always feel that our feedback is valued and actually considered and you
know the individualness of our various voices it doesn’t always feel that that’s being
taken into account (Ingrid, focus group discussion, November, 2010).
This sentiment echoes Porter’s (2008) view that many of the processes that collect the
student voices overlook the individualness of students’ voices and experiences as well
as Jara and Mellor’s (2010) findings that where data on distance learners’ experiences is
collected, institutions often failed to act on this information. Additionally, the need to
consider  how  institutions  can  appropriately  acknowledge  and  respond  to  the
individualness of online learners is a further consideration of administrators. These are
but three significant examples of the impact this work can have.
This study also represents the start of a new approach to address the gap in knowledge
about distance learners and ICT and it is hoped it will provide new methods for others576 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
to incorporate into their own development of learning experiences for their students.
The approach, particularly the researcher’s innovation in Charting the Week’s Activities
(CWA)  aimed  to  gather  information  that  goes  beyond  generalisations  about
homogenous  cohorts and rather provide an approach that others may find useful to
gathering data to inform the distance learner  experience in localised  and globalised
contexts.
Acknowledgment
This paper is a revised and expanded version of the work reported in Andrews, T. &
Tynan,  B.  (2010).  Why  the  student  voice?  The  case  for  investigating  the  distance
learners’  experience  of  ICT  in  distance  education.  In  Curriculum,  technology  &
transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010. http://ascilite.org.
au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Andrews-concise.pdf
References
ACODE (2011). 2011 Australasian Educational Technology Survey. ACODE, Australasian Council
on Open, Distance and e-learning. [verified 14 Apr 2012]
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/resources/documents/2011ed-techsurvey.pdf
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008.
Needham, MA: Sloan-C. [verified 14 Apr 2012] http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/staying_course
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009.
Sloan Consortium, Babson Survey Research Group. [verified 14 Apr 2012]
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf
Ally, M. (Ed.) (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca,
Canada: Athabasca University Press. http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120155
Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. (Eds) (2008). Theory and practice of online learning, 2nd ed. Athabasca,
Canada: Athabasca University Press. http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/
Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, eLearning and distance education (2nd ed.). USA & Canada:
Routledge.
Conole, (2007). Relationship between policy and practice - the gap between rhetoric and reality.
In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research. (pp.
286-310). London: SAGE.
Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The ever changing landscape of technology use
for language students. ReCALL, 20(2), 124-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000220
Ehlers, U. D. & Schneckenberg, D. (2010). Preface. In U. D. Elhers & D. Schneckenberg (Eds.),
Changing cultures in higher education: Moving ahead to future learning. Berlin: Springer.
El-Hussein, M. O. M. & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education
landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.
http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_3/3.pdf
Fitzgerald, R. & Steele, J. (2008). Digital learning communities: Investigating the application of social
software to support networked learning. Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/grants_cg_report_dlc_uc_feb09.pdfAndrews and Tynan 577
Forsyth, H., Pizzica, J., Laxton, R. & Mahony, M. J. (2010). Distance education in an era of
eLearning: Challenges and opportunities for a campus-focused institution. Higher Education
Research and Development, 29(1), 15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360903421350
Ganeson, K. & Erich, L. (2009). Transition into high school. A phenomenological study. In G.
Dall’Alba (Ed.), Exploring education through phenomenology: Diverse approaches, (pp. 66-84).
West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Gosper, M., Green, D., McNeill, M., Phillips, R. A., Preston, G. & Woo, K. (2008). Final report: The
impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and future practices in learning and teaching.
Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/
resources/grants_project_webbasedlecture_report_aug08.pdf
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42-55. [verified 14 Apr 2012]
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/4484/3622
Guri-Rozenblit, S. (2009). Challenges facing distance education in the 21st Century: Policy and
research implications. In A. Szücs, A. Tait, M. Vidal & U. Bernath (Eds), Distance and elearning in transition: Learning innovation, technology and social challenges. London: Wiley-ISTE.
http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1848211325.html
Harman, G. (2005). Internationalization of Australian higher education: A critical review of
literature and research. In P. H. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds), Internationalizing higher
education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 119-140). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method:
Measuring the quality of everyday life. London: SAGE.
Hughes, A. (2009). Higher Education in a Web 2.0 world. JISC.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/heweb2.aspx
Jara, M. & Mellar, H. (2010). Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student
feedback. Computers & Education, 54(3), 709-714.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.016
Jefferies, A. (2009). STROLL (Student Reflections on Lifelong eLearning): Methodology Report.
University of Hertfordshire. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/
elearningpedagogy/strollmethodologypaper.pdf
JISC (2009). Transforming curriculum design and delivery through technology.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/curriculumdelivery.aspx
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there
a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(2), 722-732.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N. & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method
for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702),
1776-1780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
Keegan, D (2008). The impact of new technologies on distance learning students. eleed, 4.
[verified 14 Apr 2012] http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/4/1422
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Chang, R., Bishop, A.,
Maton K. & Krause, K-L. (2009). Educating the net generation: Implications for learning and
teaching in Australian universities: Final report. ALTC.
http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/toolkit.html578 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2012, 28(4)
Khan, J. V. & Markopoulos, P. (2009). Experience sampling: A workbook about the method and the
tools that support it. http://vjkhan.com/old/content/publications/ExperienceSampling-Aworkbook-about-the-method-and-the-tools-that-support-it.pdf
Kirkwood, A. (2000). Learning at home with information and communication technologies.
Distance Education, 21(2), 248-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158791000210204
Learning Landscape Project Team (2008). The Cambridge Pathfinder Journey: The Experience of the
Learning Landscape Project. http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/blogs/llp/
Little, B. & Williams, R. (2010). Students' roles in maintaining quality and in enhancing learning:
Is there a tension? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 115-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485740
Lonn, S. & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and
uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal
learning at university: 'It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for
actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923606
Mayes, T. (2006). LEX: The learner experience of e-learning: Methodology report. Glasgow Caledonian
University. [verified 14 Apr 2012]
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lex_method_final.pdf
McKeogh, K. & Fox, S. (2009). Academic staff in traditional universities: Motivators and
demotivators in the adoption of e-learning. In A. Szücs, A. Tait, M. Vidal & U. Bernath (Eds.).
Distance and e-learning in transition: Learning innovation, technology and social challenges.
London: Wiley-ISTE. http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-
1848211325.html
Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. EDUCAUSE.
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
Patterson, B. & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2).
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.htm
Porter, A. (2008). The importance of the learner voice. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching,
2(3). http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_importance_of_the_learner_voice/
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,%20digital
%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf
Preston, G., Phillips, R., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Woo, K. & Green, D. (2010). Web-based lecture
technologies: Highlighting the changing nature of teaching and learning. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 26(6), 717-728.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/preston.html
Ramaprasad, A. (2009). Ubiquitous learning: An ontology. Ubiquitous Learning: An International
Journal, 1(1), 57-65. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1305686
Riddle, M. & Howell, C. (2008). You are here: Students map their own ICT landscapes. In Hello!
Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ASCILITE Melbourne 2008.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/riddle.pdfAndrews and Tynan 579
Riddle, M. D. & Arnold, M. V. (2007). The day experience method: A resource kit.
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/dtl_publish/12/67585.html
Selwyn, N. (2007). Screw Blackboard ... do it on Facebook!: An investigation of students’
educational use of Facebook. Paper presented at the Pole 1.0 – Facebook Social Research
Symposium. University of London. http://www.scribd.com/n.selwyn/d/513958-Facebookseminar-paper-Selwyn
Smith, A. & Smith, E. (2006). Learning for success: Distance education students’ use of their
learning materials. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 3(1),
http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol3/iss1/5
Smithers, M. (2009). Learning management systems in Australian universities. [verified 14 Apr 2012]
http://www.masmithers.com/2009/07/10/learning-management-systems-at-australianuniversities/
Szücs, A., Tait, A., Vidal, M. & Bernath, U. (Eds.) (2009). Distance and e-learning in transition:
Learning innovation, technology and social challenges. Wiley-ISTE.
http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1848211325.html
Taylor, J. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-7. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet11/taylor.html
Traxler, J. (2009). Students and mobile devices: Choosing which dream. In Proceedings ALT-C 09.
http://repository.alt.ac.uk/643/
Traxler, J. (2010). Sustaining mobile learning and its institutions. International Journal of Mobile
and Blended Learning, 2(4), 8-66. http://www.igi-global.com/article/international-journalmobile-blended-learning/49679
Traxler, J. (2011). Education and the impact of mobiles and mobility. In B. Bachmair,
Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (Media literacy in new cultural spaces). Weisbaden: VSVerlag für Sozialwissenschaft, pp103-113.
Van der Werf, M. & Sabatier, G. (2009). The College of 2020: Students. Chronicle Research Services.
https://www.chronicle-store.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ID=78921&WG=0
Woo, K., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Preston, G., Green, D. & Phillips, R. (2008). Web-based lecture
technologies: Blurring the boundaries between face-to-face and distance learning. ALT-J,
16(2), 81-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687760802315895
Wood, D. & Dodd, A. (2010). Preparing students and community organisations for effective use
of ICT through a service learning initiative. In Curriculum, technology & transformation for an
unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010.
http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Wood-full.pdf
Authors: Dr Trish Andrews, Senior Lecturer in Higher Education
Teaching and Educational Development Institute, The University of Queensland
Email: t.andrews@uq.edu.au Web: http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/staff/81
Professor Belinda Tynan, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality)
University of Southern Queensland. Email: Belinda.Tynan@usq.edu.au
Please cite as: Andrews, T. & Tynan, B. (2012). Distance learners: Connected, mobile
and resourceful individuals. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 565-
579. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/andrews.html

No comments:

Post a Comment