learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Jake Leith et al. Data was collected anonymously after the group projects had been handed in; access to the survey questions was kept open for both year groups for one month. Some students may have received marks for the units in question by this stage, but due to the nature of the questions asked this should not have had a significant impact upon the replies given. 20 responses were received from the first year cohort of 113 students, and 13 responses from the second year cohort of 96 students. We recognise that this is a small sample, but the responses seem to be representative of the cohort as a whole taking into account the qualitative data in the form of observations captured by staff over the course of the unit. One feature of the data captured so far is that there appears to be little discernable difference between the responses of the different year groups surveyed – for the next stage of this research we will be conducting focus groups from within each year group and will be looking for further evidence on this point. We have also documented the experiences of the professional practice staff team involved in the implementation of the programme. 6. Findings 6.1 Ownership and use of technology Computer ownership is almost ubiquitous: only one respondent did not have a computer of his/her own for exclusive use for University studies. This is comparable to the data collected from the LEaD project (94% PC ownership). Ownership of other electronic devices was similar across both cohorts as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1: Ownership of electronic devices, with comparison between cohorts Over 80% of students from both years owned an MP3 player, digital camera and some form of external memory (e.g. usb sticks or external hard drive). This finding matches that of the LXP2 report which states "There is agreement that the majority of learners arrive at university confident, positive and enthusiastic about their use of technology (LeAD, 2009); (STROLL, 2009); (LexDis, 2009). The projects that conducted surveys show that most learners arrive with their own personal technology, notably laptops and mobile phones." (Sharpe, 2009) 402
Jake Leith et al. Figure 2 below shows the interesting diversity in the popularity of internet-based services: for example social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) were used regularly by the vast majority of students, whilst Twitter was used regularly by only 3 respondents. This demonstrates that we should not take for granted students’ use of social media across the board. Figure 2: Levels of usage of internet based services across both cohorts (Level 4 + Level 5) The popularity of social networking sites might explain the responses to a later question about organising group assignment activities, where communication by Facebook was more popular than the group discussion areas set up in the VLE, particularly amongst the second year students where no respondents used these. 6.2 Levels of confidence in the use of technology Students in the sample expressed varying levels of confidence in their use of technology, but fewer than 10% across both year groups considered themselves unconfident as shown in Figure 3: Figure 3: Levels of confidence in the use of technology Most students saw themselves as technologically literate. However, some criticism of the way the VLE worked (see comments below) is likely to come from their own experience with more “user friendly” social networking sites. We therefore need to recognise the need to educate students on the use of 403
- Page 378 and 379: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz When compared
- Page 380 and 381: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Although the
- Page 382 and 383: Jana Kapounova et al. eLearning is
- Page 384 and 385: Jana Kapounova et al. Each dimensio
- Page 386 and 387: Jana Kapounova et al. project, conn
- Page 388 and 389: Acknowledgments Jana Kapounova et a
- Page 390 and 391: Andrea Kelz skills and competences
- Page 392 and 393: Andrea Kelz web-based activities in
- Page 394 and 395: Andrea Kelz system. Most other univ
- Page 396 and 397: Open Courses: The Next big Thing in
- Page 398 and 399: Kaido Kikkas et al. However, in the
- Page 400 and 401: Kaido Kikkas et al. generation of w
- Page 402 and 403: Kaido Kikkas et al. Occasional gue
- Page 404 and 405: John Knight and Rebecca Rochon guid
- Page 406 and 407: Evaluation of Quality of Learning S
- Page 408 and 409: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Essalmi
- Page 410 and 411: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. (LOs), l
- Page 412 and 413: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Then hie
- Page 414 and 415: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. If we lo
- Page 416 and 417: Models of eLearning: The Developmen
- Page 418 and 419: Stella Lee et al. Converging (AC a
- Page 420 and 421: Stella Lee et al. knowledge. Meta k
- Page 422 and 423: Stella Lee et al. Figure 3: Home pa
- Page 424 and 425: Stella Lee et al. Azevedo, R., Crom
- Page 426 and 427: Jake Leith et al. opportunities ble
- Page 430 and 431: Jake Leith et al. their informal sk
- Page 432 and 433: Jake Leith et al. For the summative
- Page 434 and 435: Sophisticated Usability Evaluation
- Page 436 and 437: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 438 and 439: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 440 and 441: Stephanie Linek and Klaus Tochterma
- Page 442 and 443: Social Networks, eLearning and Inte
- Page 444 and 445: Birgy Lorenz et al. 135 students p
- Page 446 and 447: Birgy Lorenz et al. The experts' st
- Page 448 and 449: Birgy Lorenz et al. Akdeniz, Y. (19
- Page 450 and 451: Arno Louw programmes, and within th
- Page 452 and 453: Arno Louw It should be clearly stat
- Page 454 and 455: Arno Louw somewhat an unwritten con
- Page 456 and 457: Arno Louw Lecturers assume that le
- Page 458 and 459: A treasure hunt has to be done to f
- Page 460 and 461: How to Represent a Frog That can be
- Page 462 and 463: Robert Lucas Occasionally we will a
- Page 464 and 465: Robert Lucas Note the need to creat
- Page 466 and 467: Robert Lucas Figure 5: A model of a
- Page 468 and 469: Learning by Wandering: Towards a Fr
- Page 470 and 471: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes wa
- Page 472 and 473: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes Th
- Page 474 and 475: Marie Martin and Michaela Noakes is
- Page 476 and 477: Linda Martin et al. across the sect
Jake Leith et al.<br />
Data was collected anonymously after the group projects had been handed in; access to the survey<br />
questions was kept open for both year groups for one month. Some students may have received<br />
marks for the units in question by this stage, but due to the nature of the questions asked this should<br />
not have had a significant impact upon the replies given.<br />
20 responses were received from the first year cohort of 113 students, and 13 responses from the<br />
second year cohort of 96 students. We recognise that this is a small sample, but the responses seem<br />
to be representative of the cohort as a whole taking into account the qualitative data in the form of<br />
observations captured by staff over the course of the unit.<br />
One feature of the data captured so far is that there appears to be little discernable difference<br />
between the responses of the different year groups surveyed – for the next stage of this research we<br />
will be conducting focus groups from within each year group and will be looking for further evidence<br />
on this point.<br />
We have also documented the experiences of the professional practice staff team involved in the<br />
implementation of the programme.<br />
6. Findings<br />
6.1 Ownership and use of technology<br />
Computer ownership is almost ubiquitous: only one respondent did not have a computer of his/her<br />
own for exclusive use for University studies. This is comparable to the data collected from the LEaD<br />
project (94% PC ownership). Ownership of other electronic devices was similar across both cohorts<br />
as shown in Figure 1:<br />
Figure 1: Ownership of electronic devices, with comparison between cohorts<br />
Over 80% of students from both years owned an MP3 player, digital camera and some form of<br />
external memory (e.g. usb sticks or external hard drive). This finding matches that of the LXP2 report<br />
which states "There is agreement that the majority of learners arrive at university confident, positive<br />
and enthusiastic about their use of technology (LeAD, 2009); (STROLL, 2009); (LexDis, 2009). The<br />
projects that conducted surveys show that most learners arrive with their own personal technology,<br />
notably laptops and mobile phones." (Sharpe, 2009)<br />
402
Change language