Project Description

The project is based on an analysis of the three delivery modes: online WebCT, physical digital media, hard copy. Our working hypothesis is that each mode incurs media-specific advantages and disadvantages in terms of the efficacy of Teaching and Learning (hereafter ‘TL’) outcomes and user-friendliness. It is anticipated the research will highlight these advantages and disadvantages and clearly indicate user preferences.

These projected conclusions of the major research component have very relevant and near universal ramifications for discussion of TL delivery policy in Australian universities. The proposed research will act as an up-to-date comparative analysis of current learning delivery modes, particularly the place of ICTs in university teaching and learning. It might be the case that increasing the emphasis on server-based, online delivery of TL is difficult to justify from both a pedagogical perspective and from the perspective of user-friendliness.

The minor research component also seeks to examine whether a minimalist approach to pre-lecture reading requirements improves student learning outcomes, especially at transition level. In that, and mentioned above, *the minimalist reading model [MiRM] consists of short extracts from sources, annotated by lecturers, that support lecture content. In the annotated extracts, key terms would be highlighted and supported by glossaries and, where possible, hyperlinked to translation resources. Consequently, students should be able to achieve more (perhaps including some literature search/research) in the study time.

In contrast, the maximalist reading model [MaRM] is the provision of books, book chapters or full length journal articles as required pre-lecture reading, but usually without explanatory annotations indicating “ideas development”, for example; a model that is overly inflexible and often counter-productive. The maximalist reading model is a legacy from the days of “horses for courses”: a time when an elite student group could be set reading lists and be left to read steadily through it.

While in both cases it is true that an increasing abundance of reference resources are available, changes in the attributes of the student cohort have been paralleled by changes in the mode of reference material delivery. A contemporary student risks being overwhelmed by pre-lecture reading requirements and, for example, web surfing to obtain complementary reference resources. With more to grapple with, and less preparation time for doing so, the testing of innovatively designed pre-lecture reading models is all the more important.

The benefits of the MiRM approach are hollow without an underpinning infrastructure: language and learning support resources (annotation, dictionary, thesaurus and translation facilities, skill development strategies and tutorials) are integrated into the delivery of course materials [ILLS]. Such intended improvement in students’ comprehension of course content reading materials is anticipated to translate into enhanced learning outcomes, but this depends, as always, on the success of facilitating engagement. This research project is designed to focus on improving levels of student engagement, particularly in regard to transition-level students, students with learning disabilities and students from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Conceptual Framework

(a) No longer is it sensible to ask the question “Why should students use eLearning since they are coming on campus?”, but rather “How is eLearning contributing to the quality of their campus-based experience?” (Ellis et al 2006: 244)

The task of evaluating and refining teaching and learning delivery modes in universities remains ongoing. The proposed research focuses on pedagogical issues in connection with different modes of teaching and learning delivery.

It is fair to say that the migration of core administrative, teaching and learning tasks has become conventional policy in the tertiary education sector. As well, a number of Australian universities has developed wholly online components as core features of their activity. Yet, in a relatively recent review of its online teaching and learning delivery service (MUSO), Monash University concluded, ‘most use of WebCT Vista was quite limited in terms of pedagogical development, though there was some evidence of plans for more pedagogically innovative and effective uses’ (http://www.monash.edu.au/muso/lmsproject/project/index.html accessed 11/3/07).

As far as possible, the proposed research is not constrained by implicit institutional expectations for one or other mode of delivery for teaching and learning. This value-neutrality further recommends the component of the proposed research which broaches the efficacy of ICTs in university pedagogy.

(b) …in our view reading lists are often a waste of time. (Fairbairn & Fairbairn, 2001: 88)

Despite reading being recognized as a core academic skill, surprisingly little research – recent or otherwise – has been undertaken into university lecture reading requirements (undergraduate or otherwise). Generalist books such as Lorraine Marshall and Frances Rowland’s A Guide to Learning Independently (1995), Gavin and Susan Fairbairn’s Reading at University (2001) or Kate Chanock’s Introducing students to the culture of enquiry in an arts degree (2004), however excellent, tend to locate the “problem” of reading within a skill development framework. Useful reading strategies (skimming, scanning, summarizing and mark-up techniques) are discussed, but little attention is paid to the pedagogical issues embedded in the design of reading lists. Understandably, possible, alternate approaches are not broached.

Academic research into this issue tends to focus exclusively on students’ approaches to reading at university, overlooking important issues of doubtful and entrenched pedagogical practice. Paul Ramsden (1992), for example, places his discussion of reading at university within the broader context of learning theory, specifically ‘the concept of approach to learning’ (p39). Michael Prosser and Keith Trigwell (1999) continue Ramsden’s emphasis on ‘students’ approaches to learning’ (p. 83).

We will continue to base our research on a student-centred approach. However, we are also very concerned to liaise with lecturers and ideally mediate an innovative and productive approach to this study skill “blackspot”. Given the effective dissemination of our research findings, we expect our research to have considerable implications for the way lecturers approach the design of pre-lecture reading lists in the future.

The project seeks to advance existing research in the field of TL delivery policy in Australian universities. Some research has reported positive results for first-year international students and provision for ancillary support which includes ethnographically inspired investigations (eg. Clerehan, 2006) while others emphasise the generic nature of electronic resources as a default and standard resource (eg. Allison 2007, cf. Son, 2007; Ellis et al, 2006; Clerehan, 2006; McLoughlin & McCartney, 2000). Research from the global tertiary sector (eg. Delfino & Persico, 2007; Meskill & Anthony, 2007; Trentin, 2006) will also form a basis for investigation.

The proposed research will act as an up-to-date, comparative analysis of current learning delivery modes, particularly the place of ICTs, in university teaching and learning.

Methodology

Participating students in three subject areas in the Arts will be provided access to identical course content via three modes of TL delivery: online WebCT, physical digital media (DVDs) and hard copy (course books). At any time, and for any of the modules, students can choose the delivery mode they prefer. Conventional evaluation processes (essays, presentations) will not change. For the purposes of the research, and on a module by module basis, external testing of students’ comprehension of course content and consolidated learning outcomes will take place. The students’ performances in this external testing will not impact on formal or regulatory internal assessment.

Participants in the study will be required to maintain and regularly submit either in person or online a study-access journal indicating which mode of delivery was utilized, why that mode was chosen, and what the students’ responses were to the use of each mode. It should be possible to automatically track online delivery mode usage. As part of the research budget, provision has been made for inducements or rewards (book vouchers, print or photocopy cards) to ensure satisfactory participant numbers in the test groups. Quantitative results for the pedagogical components of the research will be sought by testing students’ comparative comprehension of different course reading content and lecture content using tests such as MCQ and deep learning assessment techniques (Chin et al 2002). Students’ learning outcomes will also be gauged by conventional methods (essays and completion of examinations).

Qualitative research results will also be sought from both students and course co-ordinators. Qualitative evaluation will mainly be obtained through participant interviews and questionnaires conducted at regular intervals. Similar methodologies have been employed by Allison’s (2007) very relevant parallel research, which has focused on ‘student preference and staff workload running parallel hard copy and online versions of identical course content’. The proposed research extends Allison’s work, first, by including physical digital media as another TL delivery option; secondly, by analysing the integration of language and learning resources into course content, and, thirdly, by testing a minimalist pre-lecture reading model. We intend to emphasize the evaluation of the project in terms of attitudinal factors (staff and students) in relation to the research issues. It is expected that a consultant external to the core research team would be contracted to design a test-model to evaluate participants’ comprehension of course content material and variations in learning levels. Costing for these services has been accounted for in the proposed research budget. This approach accords with very current parallel research being undertaken in this field in Australia: ‘An independent examiner scored the written answers which were common to both units’ (Allison, 2007).

To gauge attitudinal responses to the different TL delivery modes, we expect to employ a range of evaluation tools specifically developed to monitor ‘digital learning materials’ (Nokelainen & Ruohotie, 2004). Nokelainen and Ruohotie’s paper “Empirical Validation of Abilities for Computer Assisted Learning Questionnaire” outlines their evaluation of one such tool (ACALQ) that measures a wide range of learner-attitudes in connection to CAL and ICT-based learning. Attitudes successfully gauged include ‘Learner Goal Orientation’, ‘Control Beliefs’, ‘Learning Styles’ and ‘Learner Motivation’ (2004). We expect to adopt and even adapt the “Abilities for Computer Assisted Learning Questionnaire” in order to obtain valid and substantial quantitative data from participants in the research study. The project will also employ generic data analysis techniques (for example: randomization) to analyse cohort stratification.

Previous research (Clerehan, 2006] indicates that fixed variables such as age and gender are not expected to be significant factors in determining outcomes of this particular research. Instead, socio-cultural factors (1^st language and 2^nd language differences, for example), and previously acquired competency in ICTs will be more likely be significant, and (protected by questions allowing age and gender to be taken into account if need be) evaluation questions will be framed in this context. Participation in the research will be voluntary and ethical approval for the research will be sought from required authorities.

Anticipated outcomes

The project seeks to provide outcomes of interest to the sector as a whole by examining the application and efficacy of standard pedagogical features employed across the tertiary sector.

Within the tertiary sector, the project seeks to provide outcomes to the following organisations: specific programs, departments or schools as model environments for the testing of the efficacy of TL materials such that departments or schools would gain both first-hand and eventual benefit from a variety of the project’s workings - sampling, field-work collaboration, production of electronic and non-electronic resources and detailed recommendations; any program, department or school within the tertiary sector which may wish to review or re-evaluate pre-lecture reading requirements and the efficacy of online media (server-based delivery, eg. WebCT) vis-à-vis physical digital media (eg. DVD format) and hard copy delivery modes; faculty-specific or institutionally-centralised language and learning services which seek to support the needs of both students and the delivery of teaching materials developed by academic staff; various stakeholders within the ‘virtual’ component of tertiary education who are responsible for the type and extent of electronic delivery of the content for academic programs as this type of delivery continues to expand.

In addition to the evaluation of the efficacy of current modes of teaching and learning delivery, the project seeks to re-evaluate conventional maximalist approaches to pre-lecture reading requirements. This, in combination with the findings of the effectiveness of electronic resources, is likely to provide a relevant contribution to tertiary-level policies and suggested strategies relating to learning and teaching in higher education. The integration of generic and specific learning support materials and tools, such as dictionary and translation facilities into the delivery of course content, intends to enhance learning support for students -- local ESB students, as well as local NESB and NESB international students, “at risk” and re-entry students, distance and off-shore students. Implementation of research recommendations should impact positively on students with low-level learning disabilities enabling greater flexibility in the way TL is delivered, and the potential to incorporate disability-specific aids to learning (enlarged print, recorded readings, for example).

Project team

Assoc. Prof. Jim Peterson (Co-Chief Investigator)
School of Geography, Monash University

Dr Le Ha Phan (Co-Chief Investigator)
Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Monash University

Dr Jim Hlavac
Lecturer, Arts Academic Language & Learning Unit, Monash University

Dr Matthew Piscioneri
Lecturer, Arts Academic Language & Learning Unit, Monash University