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